WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - NASA Archives Might Hold Key To UAP Mysteries - Guest : Mike Gold

Episode Date: February 11, 2025

Truth and transparency are red-hot buzzwords in Washington these days. New inquiries into old secrets within multiple agencies have been launched, but what about NASA? America's space agency has been overtly hostile to UFO and UAP mysteries for decades, but what secrets might be hidden in its archives? Veteran space executive and NASA consultant Mike Gold, one of four witnesses to testify at the most recent Congressional hearing into UAP, thinks NASA files could be extremely valuable to UAP-related research, including clues that could unlock how to replicate exotic substances and metamaterials in zero gravity and possibly data that might shed light on historic UFO incidents. Gold is a member of NASA's UAP Study Committee. He previously spent a decade with Bigelow Aerospace, a private company which partnered with the Defense Intelligence Agency in an ambitious (but secret) study of the UFO enigma. In this candida conversation with Jeremy and George, Gold expressed optimism about the future of both space exploration and the potential of public-private partnerships in seeking transparency and genuine understanding of UFO-related questions. GOT A TIP? Reach out to us at [e-mail] ••• Watch Corbell's six-part UFO docuseries titled UFO REVOLUTION on TUBI here : https://tubitv.com/series/300002259/tmz-presents-ufo-revolution/season-2 Watch Knapp’s six-part UFO docuseries titled INVESTIGATION ALIEN on NETFLIX here : https://www.netflix.com/title/81674441 ••• For breaking news, follow Corbell & Knapp on all social media. Extras and bonuses from the episode can be found at WeaponizedPodcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

So you're running out of closet space. The good news, you don't need to stop shopping. You just need to start selling with the Real Real. The Real Real Real is the world's largest and most trusted resource for authenticated luxury resale. Whether it's that mini bag that can't even fit your phone or those boots you never fully broken, the Real Real handles everything, from photography and copywriting to shipping and pricing. So you can just sit back, get paid, and make room for things that actually feel like you. And with 10,000 plus new arrivals, every single.

single day from top designers like Prada, Celine, Louis Vuitton, and Louéve, all for up to 90% off retail, you're bound to find something perfectly on brand to fill that extra closet space with. Plus, this may only, you can get an extra $200 to shop when you sell for the first time. Make room for what feels like you. Go to the realreal.com to start selling and get your extra $200 to keep shopping at the realreal.com. That's the realreal.com. Terms apply. NASA did something fairly incredible. It created a UAP study committee. Mr. Gold for five minutes. For my introduction, I'm currently the chief growth officer at Redwire Space

and have had several leadership positions at NASA. Mike Gold was for a long time Bigelow Aerospace's point man in D.C. He was a lobbyist and is a vice president of Bigelow Aerospace during the period when Robert Bigelow built these inflatable space habitats. So NASA has a huge amount of architecture. archival information, we could create an AI or a machine learning program to review those archives for anomalous phenomena. Redwire, SpaceX, the Clips, commercial lunar payload services, missions, companies like

Icebase and Tudor Machines, as we see all of these companies move out Blue Origin, their Blue Moonland or Jeff Bezos is doing amazing things, we are going to produce data that I know, I know will impact UAPs. When it comes to the NASA UAP and Dependt Study Team, I think there's some misperceptions relative to what the purpose of the group was. My colleagues at the UAP Independent Study team, while I knew that there would be difficulty, I didn't think they'd be facing threats, like actual threats. This week's episode of Weaponized features Congressional UAP witness and former NASA administrator Mike Gold.

This is Weaponized. We're coming to you from Uncle Jeremy's old country store here, as you can see. You're out in the middle of nowhere. Right. It's better than two reporters and two ferns who got a fireplace. In this episode, we're going to talk about space, space and its connection to UAP. In the fall of 2022, NASA did something fairly incredible. It created a UAP study committee, which, you know, if you know anything about NASA's history,

traditionally, historically, they've been fairly hostile to the UAP, UFO topic. They don't want to talk about it. They're not cooperative when there are public information. request, for example, if there's any statement at all, it's pretty much hostile. Astronauts get asked about things they may or may not have seen in space and they always deny it. I mean, it's generally been pretty hostile. So it was fairly amazing to see a guy with strong NASA connections and strong UAP connections be appointed to this commission, this committee, and then to appear at this UAP hearing in the fall of last year.

That's where I first saw and met Mike Gold. It sounds like you had a run in with him long ago. But, I mean, look, so much of that hearing for me, which I think people kind of understand my perspective, it was a positioning of ordained people that are supposed to represent what's going on. But then this kind of side, you know, swipe, there's this guy Mike and his son sitting next me, really cool kid, proud of his dad. I'm like, this isn't a setup.

This guy's like actually interested. So that was my first thing. is who is this guy? Why is he up there? Why is he testifying? Did NASA tell him to testify? I had all these questions going in my mind because I don't know the guy. So that's why I thought it would be so cool to hear from him. Because if I didn't know who he was, other people didn't. Well, I knew his name because of Bigelow Aerospace. Mike Gold was for a long time, Bigelow Aerospace's point man in D.C. It was a lobbyist and is a vice president of Bigelow Aerospace during the period when Robert Bigelow built these inflatable space habitats, but hundreds of millions of his own dollars

into building this amazing plant in Las Vegas. There are three Bigelow spacecraft in space. Two of those launches took place from Kazakhstan aboard these former ICBM missiles that would have carried nuclear weapons that bombed us. The third one, the third spacecraft, is attached to the ISS, the International Space Station. One of the problems in space is there's not enough space in space, that is space to work. So this thing was attached to the ISS. It's still there now. Bigelow Aerospace built it. Mike Gold was involved in the negotiations with NASA to make that happen. And he was very much a part of the Bigelow Aerospace Adventure for several years, I think 13 years. He was not so much involved in the UAP aspect of it, though he has, there's a lot of spill over there.

You know, he is obviously somebody who has an interest in the UAP topic. He was there at this hearing where you were, speaking about the importance of studying that and its relationship to understanding what else is out there in the universe. I should have known who he was because you had actually told me all that. Was it called Beam? Beam. Yeah, that's, so you did this original reporting. You were educating me at the time. You're like, oh, Bigelow's putting this big attachable onto the International Space Station is called Beam and you went in to his facilities and did a whole report on it. So I should have known who my goal. was, but I think it's the whole idea of us going into space and creating the zero gravity

environments where things can get done is pretty astounding. And so this guy's really interesting now. I didn't know who he was. Well, he wasn't out in front on UAP issues during his years with Bigelow. He was a space guy. And he has an incredible resume. He's now with Redwire. He's the chief growth officer there. But he's on the boards of so many other space foundations. He's obviously a very pro-growth commercialization of space, a very knowledgeable guy about space policy. And I'm looking forward to what he does in the future, but to have him show up at that hearing, and in essence be a non-combatant. Okay, so we've talked about some of the drama that was taking place there,

involving other witnesses and the members of the committee and committee staff. Mike Gold was there to deliver a message about NASA and its potential, both in the commercial development of space and also the connection to UAP studies and I think he was a great witness. Yeah, I'm a big Mike Gold fan because at first I was very spitious because everything was going on, sure.

But he really, I think, genuinely sees the opportunity of living in a different world, a world where we embrace the UAP technology if we have it, which we all believe we do, and just seeing that partnership of industry to kind of, to kind of, of move out into space and do practical work. And that's what so cool. Well, if people watch that hearing, you know, it wasn't the most sensational stuff. What he was saying was spot on is that

we do need to study both. We have to commercialize space, develop space, give NASA support, and study UAP. And historically, NASA has been pretty hostile, been reluctant to do it. So the fact that he had the courage to step forward and both give NASA a nudge and the House Committee a was pretty cool. And he was. He was given NASA Nudge because the people that we know in this field early on, they'd say NASA never a straight answer. Do you remember that? Yeah. So it's like, you know, there's all these theories about, not theories, there's all these testimony about the cover up of what NASA is aware of or knows. And maybe that's because the executive branch intelligence agencies say, hey, don't talk about UFOs. I don't know. But Mike was absolutely poking at NASA. Like,

come on, guys, let's do this. And I thought that was pretty cool. Mike, man, I'm really glad that we get to kind of meet now virtually and talk in depth because the first time I saw your face, you walk in with your son. And I think it was actually in the green room for the hearing. You were testifying at a congressional hearing on UFOs. I actually didn't know that you were going to be one of the people testifying who kind of did some weird stuff with who's going to testify, that kind of thing. and bam, there you are from NASA. I'm like, who's this my gold guy? So I got to sit next to your son at the hearing

and I got to hear what you were saying, man, what in the world were you doing, testifying at a UFO hearing? How did that play in? Like, how did you find yourself there? Well, it was all a surreptitious effort by me to be able to meet you, Jeremy. So I will say, while you may have not been familiar with me, I may be a first-time caller, but a long-time listener, both through you and George.

I'm a huge fan of the incredible work both of you have done, so it was thrilled not only to see you, but for my son to get a chance to sit next to you. He's a big fan, so I know that you both have raised my credibility with my child, which is something that's not easy to do with this generation. The reason I was at the hearing, and I was really blessed and grateful to have the opportunity, is because while we focus and you two focus a lot, the name of the podcast on national security and intelligence, and rightfully so.

That's a very important part of this. I don't want NASA and civil space to be forgotten. That NASA civil, commercial space, I think, has a lot to offer to unlock the mystery of UAP. And unfortunately, we don't talk, I think, enough about it. In a manner of speaking, I don't want to let NASA off the hook, that the search for life is such an important, part of NASA's mission. And I think that NASA, civil space, commercial space, we've got a really

terrific role to helping us learn more and open things up and happy to talk more about specifically what I'd like to see the agency do. And that's why I was at the hearing. Yeah, I mean, I can see from a big picture your personal standpoint of knowing that's important. And we're in a climate now where we're saying the quiet part out loud about the reality of UAP. But like how did you get Did somebody ask you to testify? Did you go to car? How did you get to testify? Because a lot of people are wondering how that panel was chosen.

How did you get there? Yeah. So I had reached out to the committee staff just in terms of my background. I'm a recovering attorney and a recovering lobbyist. So we were talking about visiting Robert Bigelow's ranch. I was joking with George before. That's the closest to heaven I'll ever get is a recovering lawyer and lobbyist, unfortunately. So I have a lot of experience on Capitol Hill. I'd set up the DC office for

Bigel Aerospace back of the day for MaxR Technologies later, which is space systems, Lural. And I wanted to reach out to the committee again to make sure that the NASA and civil space aspect wasn't forgotten, that it was a part of it, and that the congressional members were able to ask questions and were informed about what happened at the NASA UAP Independent Study Team, what their recommendations were, and how we could help by the purpose of the hearing, was unlocking the mystery. And again, I think there's some very specific, modest, affordable,

but I think important actions that could be taken. So I just wanted the members to be aware of that. So I reached out for the staff. We had a good conversation. And then they said, Mike, would you like to testify? Obviously, it's a thrill of my lifetime. Absolutely.

I would be thrilled to testify. I also think, and you've heard me and both of you have spoken about, the stigmatization, which I think is incredibly pernicious. And NASA, there's just a few, if any, other agencies that have the credibility, the reach, the reputation that NASA has. I joke during the hearing, you never see anyone with a housing and urban development. T-shirt. You see NASA T-shirts everywhere. And that's why I think, particularly the academic community, having NASA as part of this conversation and dialogue, is incredibly helpful,

if nothing else, just to push back against the stigma. And candidly, I wanted to see my colleagues, former colleagues at NASA, seeing me there testifying, seeing that we're trying to continue and implement the work of the UAP independent study team. You were interested in sort of the symbolic value of a guy who's on the NASA UAP study committee is there testifying before Congress. It essentially is an imprint that says NASA is interested in this. Is that correct? Yeah, absolutely. Although there is another part to that, George, in terms of what specifically NASA could

and should be doing. So NASA has a huge amount of archival information that is becoming, by the way, more and more digitized, that what used to be just actual, photography that was sitting in a room in Johnson Space Center now is getting digitized. And with relatively little time, effort and money, we could create an AI or a machine learning program to review those archives for anomalous phenomena. And while it may not be a smoking gun per se, I think there's going to be a lot of interesting imagery, interesting science, that will help unlock the mystery, that will help provide solutions.

and it's just sitting there in the public domain. So I was there to try and urge the members of Congress who can instruct, even require the agency, to take this action because I think it's such a simple thing, again, low cost, but could result in some really important data and data is the lifeblood of NASA. Data is the lifeblood of academics. And if we were to conduct such a review,

make this information publicly available. It could provide excellent data for future academic research to help support the overall field. There was so much else going on in that hearing. I wonder if that message got through to the members. Yeah. Yeah. George, that's why I'm so grateful to have this opportunity

and frankly would like to talk on a few more podcasts because there was so much going on, as you mentioned, a hearing and important things happening in that hearing that I feel like there. message, which, you know, and I saw some comments online. Remind me never read comments on line, but, you know, people, people I know were disappointed that, oh, Mike was going to come forward with some sort of revelation with Bigelow Aerospace or something with NASA. And, you know, I feel for them, too. I mean, again, you two have done such a good job getting these sorts of whistleblowers

to come forward. And I'm sorry I didn't have some sort of firsthand references or information provide, I wish I did. But that being said, this is still very important. Again, it's not as sexy, but I think it could really result in some important information for the field. And because of everything that was going on, which, you know, was maybe a bit more dynamic, I don't think the members perhaps engaged as much as I would have liked to have that conversation with some good dialogue. But that's why I'm trying to take the time now to talk about these simple, smart things that can be done. You know, the archives is one. The second, and Ryan Graves has been a wonderful spokesman for this, an interest in full disclosure, and an advisor on the Americans for Safe

Aerospace Board, is leveraging the NASRS system, aviation safety reporting system. This is a system that has existed for decades, and it's confidential. So people who are involved in commercial aviation can call in, and it is actually anomalies, safety anomalies, and NASA gathers this information, and it's a publicly available reporting process. Hundreds of thousands of cases have been reported. It works incredibly well. We should be leveraging the ASRS system to collect data on UAP. Again, the cost would be so low it already exists. You're just adding something to an existing system. but the amount of information that we could gather, if we could make this standard,

if we can make this acceptable, if we can get people in the commercial aviation and commercial space industry to embrace it, there I think we would have a treasure trove of data that NASA could then collate, collect, and again, leave open to the public for researchers like yourselves and others to be able to go in and find out about

when I was on the NASA UAP independent study team, One of the areas I was very concerned about, and you may have seen this in the recording from our public meeting, was when I was talking to the FAA, it was pretty clear to me that there was no defined or known process for commercial aviation and commercial aviation crew to report UAP. You know, I didn't think the FAA could really answer the question. There wasn't a 1-800 number or anything clear to go to. So, while again, the national security intelligence is incredibly important, but there's so much more commercial aviation activities that we are just not getting UAP data from. And if we embrace the ASRS, again, for so little money and effort, I don't mean to say it's none, but for a relative modicum, the amount of data that we could get, I think would be amazing, startling, and so important to unlocking the mystery, which was the very perfect. of the hearing. So again, I'm thrilled with work that you all are doing and everyone to get to information that's being hidden, information that isn't public. What I was trying to urge

is that there's a lot of information that is public and information that we could gather in the civil and commercial world that isn't classified that can come out, and we're not doing that. And we could do it with so little effort. So that was the sort of thing I was hoping to put forward. And again, I was able to, you know, it was great to be able to have that conversation. I really applaud the members and the staff who gave me that opportunity because otherwise we wouldn't have been talking about it at all. But yes, I think unfortunately it did get a little lost in the shuffle, which is, again, why I'm so grateful to you, to be able to talk about these things, the important role that NASA has, the important role that the FAA has. And these

are actions that I hope would be implemented by the incoming Trump administration. And I'll be reaching out to members of Congress and their staffers to say when you interview Jared Isaacman, who has been nominated for NASA administrator, fantastic choice, by the way. He's knowledgeable, enthusiastic. I think he's going to do a fantastic job at NASA, but he may not be familiar with this issue, so I hope members ask him about it. I've been a little disappointed that when I was on the independent study team, and feel free to break in, you know, again, I'm attorney by practice, I'll keep talking forever. But one of the areas that I was also concerned about

because I've been apart a lot of blue ribbon panels in my career is that we would make these recommendations and they wouldn't be followed and they would just go on a shelf somewhere and gather dust. And I was very public that I had hoped that NASA would form a permanent office to look at UAP because having worked in bureaucracies,

knowing federal bureaucracies like I do, if you don't have a permanent office to motivate, for it, it may very well get ignored. And I was happy to see that NASA did assign an individual to serve as the UAP research director. So wasn't everything I wanted, but a step forward. And again, NASA is in a very tough budget situation, and that's very unfortunate. We should all call our senators and urge for more dollars for NASA. And I know one of the other things people are saying, oh, Mike's a shill for NASA. Yes, I am a shill for NASA. Absolutely. guilty. Guilty is charged. I am a fan of space exploration, space science. We should be spending

more money on this. And by the way, on the UAP topic, the more we push the envelope of exploration, going to the moon, going to Mars, the more data that I think we're going to generate in UAP, and while NASA's not perfect, certainly I think it's more transparent than, you know, DOD activities, etc. So we're going to learn a lot more. This is true of the commercial space revolution as well at the company I'm proud to serve as the Chief Growth Officer at Redwire. We actually built the cameras for the historic Artemis 1 mission, so all those glorious pictures of the moon were taken by Redwire. But as we see Redwire, SpaceX, the Clips, Commercial Lunar Payload Services missions,

companies like Ice Space, Intuitive Machines, as we see all of these companies move out Blue Origin, their Blue Moonlander, Jeff Bezos is doing amazing things. We are going to produce data that I know, I know will impact UAP. So instead of seeing, you know, more government funding for NASA is counter to interest, I actually see NASA commercial space and UAP all traveling together and reinforcing together. And I think that information is going to be revolutionary.

Let me just address that. So you're talking about, you know, am I a show for NASA? Yes, give them funding. You're making a joke. But I do want to address it in this space for a long time. People have always said that if you're going to. UFOs are all buzz around the globe, you know, who's going to have that data? And it would be NASA is what people have said. Now, maybe not everybody's read into that or sees that, but there's a lot of, I'd say, information out there that NASA hasn't been straightforward about UFOs, about UAP, about their existence that's mandated from the top down that NASA is to cover stuff up.

I mean, let's look at the history here. You know, that there's someone named Karen who, I believe was her name. She came forward saying she worked at NASA and they air brushed out. bunch of UFOs and she was part of that process. You know about the stories, right, Mike? Yeah, I've heard, you know, the stories. I'm not trying to pull you into that, but I do want to address it, which is that if NASA, you know, did have this information about UFOs, all of a sudden, we see you up at Congress. My first thought is, whoa, there's a NASA guy. Was he told by NASA to go and do some public statement? That's why I asked you. It seems like it's like a personal interest. you believe this is an important aspect.

You AP and you started talking with staff and got in that way, which gives me a lot of faith about your testimony because it shows you're interested, you're proactive, you think this is important. This wasn't a mandate from NASA. So with that all said, you know, is there an element that maybe NASA does have information on UFOs that they want the public to engage with and we just haven't seen it yet? What is your personal opinion on that? Yeah, a great.

question, Jeremy, and a bit of a complex answer, of course. And we say NASA, right? And of course, like any large organization, there's a variety of different people with a variety of different opinions and thoughts, particularly on this issue. And let me just begin with the UAP independent study team for a moment. I think if you look at what NASA officials have said about UAP over the years, it mirrors and reflects what the government generally has done, which is to be relatively dismissive or laugh it off, et cetera, not particularly helpful. And this is why, during my both oral and written testimony, I was very complimentary of Senator Bill Nelson. And that UAP independent study team would not have existed if it wasn't for his explicit leadership. And I hate to keep

using the words courage when it comes to bureaucracy, but he's not fighting war, et cetera, but I think it does require courage to move forward with something like this that potentially opens you up to mockery, hurts you in other ways, so I was really grateful that Senator Nelson did that. And there again, I don't think about NASA,

but we all know that there was a cadre in the Senate with going back to Senator Stevens, Senator Reid, of course, George, is a huge advocate for disclosure on this issue. And I think Senator Nelson was a part of that and had an interest in that And that's why he was willing to move forward. There are those at the agency, of course, that I think are much more skeptical or would have said and probably did say that Senator Nelson was wasting his time.

So, again, you know, opinions me very relative to myself. Yes, I have a strong personal issue in this. And no one at NASA was asking me to testify, although out of courtesy, I did let NASA know that I was going to testify, what I planned to say, et cetera. I give NASA great credit again for moving forward with the independent study team, because getting back to the stigma, which I think is just the most pernicious aspect of this whole phenomenon, that if it wasn't for the stigma, we wouldn't be having these conversations. We would have much more open for them. We'd probably know what is occurring fully one way or the other if it wasn't for the stigma.

And again, I think NASA can be such a powerful, powerful force for opening it up. And just the existence of the NASA independent study team on UAP, just the fact of the existed, even if it didn't do anything, I think would still be really, really important, powerful and why I was so proud to be a part of it. And because of my personal interest in the topic, which is relatively well known by many in the agency, they were very kind in letting me on because I think they want to be very careful, you know, not to have anyone with preconceived notions. And I had to reassure everyone that I was coming in from an objective perspective, yes, I have an interest, but my interest is in making sure that we did handle the

topic objectively and without bias and without prejudice. And on the independent study team, I would say, just like any group, you know, a spectrum of people who were maybe more open to the topic and myself probably on the extreme end of that and people who are more skeptical of the topic. Scott Golly, for example, absolutely. And look, that's great. Again, as an attorney, I believe in the adversarial process, you know, people from both sides, and then the truth comes out of that conflict. So relative to the agency and the rumors of people airbrushing, et cetera, you know, I can't speak to that per se.

You know, I don't know what happened or did happen or what, you know, influence occurred in the past. What I can say is that during my time at the agency, and I was the acting associate administrator for the Office of International Interagency Relations, Rolls, off the ton. I almost needed two cards. The name was so long, but I was in charge of interagency. And because of that, I thought, hey, here's my opportunity to pursue this lifelong interest and see what I could do to be helpful to what was then the UAP Task Force. And I reached out to Jay and just wanted to make sure that NASA was being productive, that NASA was being helpful,

that we were engaged. And there was never anyone at the agency who was telling me, you know, don't go there, don't participate. I mean, there might have been some friends who were a little skeptical to say, ah, what's my doing? But there was never an explicit pushback or don't, you know, show pictures or imagery, et cetera. And again, I know people that love what I'm saying, NASA is a, I said paradigm, and then paragon of transparency. I will tell you when I was at the agency, I mean, we would have secret meetings on the night floor, which is the headquarters, is the Administrative Suite. And even before we made a decision, things were leaking out.

So I always felt things were pretty transparent, if not sometimes a little too transparent. So I can only speak to my experience. And what I do know is that I do think that NASA has data that is relevant and let's go and take a look at it, right? I know they've got information that probably hasn't been airbrushed or whatever. Let's make a concerted and intentional effort. to look at what they have. NASA's UAP study group was looking at unclassified information. Do you suspect that there is classified information that neither you nor any member of that committee was able to see,

that somewhere there's a stash of stuff that directly relates to the UAP mystery? So I would say yes from a personal perspective. Now, again, I'm someone with a great personal interest in this. I'm a unrepentant fanboy of you both and the topic. So, of course, to say that. And as I answered at the hearing, you know, one of the more difficult questions that I had at the hearing was, do you think just basically that question, George, that was asked, do you think information is being held back? And while I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that, my personal relationship with someone like Lou Elizondo, who I think is not just an American hero, not just someone who has pushed this issue forward, but a really good person, just a really

terrific person. And Jeremy, you know, we've just gotten to me firsthand. I feel like I know you from your work and George. You know, what you've done over the decades is just the dean of space UAP journalism. I mean, I just can't believe personally that there isn't something there, which is why when I was asked that question, I had to say yes, because I don't want to perjure yourself in front of Congress, even though I don't have that firsthand experience. But when it comes to the NASA UAP Independent Study Team, I think. think there's some misperceptions relative to what the purpose of the group was. We weren't there necessarily to review data in terms of what's open or what's not and then make a decision on

the reality of UAP. What we were doing was to say what role can NASA have relative to engaging constructively on UAP? It really was the question, is it worthwhile for NASA? NASA to engage. And I think it was a heartfelt yes from NASA UAP independent study team. And then, well, assuming the answer is yes, what should the agency do? So really the independent study team wasn't there to say, you know, this aspect is real or this isn't or this is real. It's what should NASA do to actually help answer that very question. Okay. So NASA wasn't going and reviewing all the positive. Yeah, I had that misunderstanding. I thought. thought that that's what the public was thinking, was that you guys were going through all your files.

You're going to come to some conclusion and help. But you were more saying this is a positioning in an emerging news kind of look at UAP. How can NASA engage the topic? That's what that was more. Yes, yes, absolutely. And that's why as we talk about ASRS, the archival review, we weren't looking at that data. We were saying what data should be looked at. and then how should NASA gather that data?

As well as how NASA, again, using its name, can overcome the challenges to conducting a fair review. And the stigma, this pernicious environment, is just awful for conducting objective science. And this was another, I think, very important, albeit maybe someone obvious to particularly people who followed the topic. But as I said, my colleagues at the UAP Independent Study Team, while I knew that there would be difficulty,

I didn't think they'd be facing threats, like actual threats, to their careers, themselves, just for having the temerity to even look at, not saying UAP is real or not, but just agreeing to be a part of just saying how we might engage in topic. Just that was enough to elicit this vitriolic response from academia. And that's such an important point, I think, to bring out. Not that we don't know that there is stigmatization, but the degree of it, particularly in the academic community, surprised even me, someone who's familiar with the topic. And we need to push back. So sort of to paraphrase a favorite TV show of yours, you know, the mission of the enterprise and NASA should be to boldly go or no humans

have gone before. And NASA's mission, exploring the unknown in space should be at the heart of NASA's mission. I can't understand the decades of general hostility. to that topic. And maybe you can give me some sort of a background. And I'm not convinced that the stigma is going to end. This was a hopeful sign that Senator Nelson comes in. He gets the job as the head of NASA. He made some very provocative statements about the legitimacy of the topic,

about briefings he had held, you know, closed-door briefings, evidence that were shown to members of the Senate committees. And, gosh, I thought that was great. It seems like he's dialed it back, though. He's sort of backed off from some of those statements and give us your assessment of NASA's role the lack of interest in a topic that would seem to be absolutely fundamental to what they do and where it might go from here, especially in the new administration. Yeah, thank you, George. Again, it's a great question.

And as a shill for NASA, you would think you'd want to embrace this because of the very funding that you could get for greater amounts of space exploration and space, research. And I just think that NASA as a part of the federal government, you know, part of just the overall federal structure that we have, they are not immune to the stigmatization that has occurred over the years. And yes, you know, I think it's been unfortunate that NASA has not embraced this topic more, just like the rest of the federal government. And to an extent, reflecting society, that's where NASA has been. And that's unfortunate, and I appreciate the Star Trek reference, as always,

live long and prospered, all my Star Trek fans, part of NASA's purpose and one of its driving goals is to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations. Yet, whenever we do this above the molecular level, it seems to draw controversy. So, you know, just go back to SETI funding, for example, that just looking for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, just radio signals was controversial and got its own stigma and mockery, both within NASA and outside. One of the members of our UEP independent study team, David Grinspoon, he was searching for

technosignatures, and it's been interesting that even that got pushed back. So again, unfortunately, NASA isn't immune to these sorts of things. I completely agree that NASA should be engaging in a constructive fashion that's why. I was part of the team. That's why the NASA Independent Study team was important. It's why I tried to appear at the hearing and keep that momentum going because this is so important. Now, relative to Nelson, you know, pushing and then pulling back, I think, again, he took a very courageous step. I really appreciated what he did. Unfortunately, I don't think that his views are shared by many within the agency. Now, again, some love it, some don't. My colleague, Lake Suzanne Gillen, who you've been touched with, she used to be in charge of legislative affairs NASA. Huge fan, you know, trying to do all she could here. And again, there's just differing opinions within the building. But just in overall society, as UAP has become more accepted, as we've had the leaks of the videos, as we've had things like UAP task force, Ossap, ATIP,

come out, I think NASA's position has been evolving. Now, Senator Nelson, if he was, you know, ratcheting back for any reasons, because at the end of the administration, You know, he can't really, obviously, now in a position to do anything. My hope, though, is as you look at the Trump administration and the people who are going to be involved in this beyond NASA, I think we have a huge opportunity to have the agency engage in a more robust fashion to, at the very least, implement the common sense activities that I'm talking about with archive review, with ASRS, the aviation system for reporting safety, we need to do all these things, and I hope that we have leadership that can. And that's why I think it's important in the upcoming confirmation hearings with Jared

Isaacman, the senators who care about disclosure, who care about transparency, want to push back against the stigma. I hope they raised this in the confirmation hearings for Jared, and I hope that Jared and his team will be advocates for disclosure. I'll personally do what I can to talk to him about that, but I have nothing but optimism when it comes to the Trump team tackling this topic in a positive fashion, and that extends to NASA as well. Let me ask you this. You know, there's a perception, at least in UFO world,

that NASA takes its cue from DOD on the UIP issue. It does so many missions for the Department of Defense that we don't have any idea what it really is, that Department of Defense sets the tone and NASA goes along with that. I notice in your, in the appointment of defense, view to this UAP study commission, which is amazing that you even got on there. They have all your credentials, all these associations listed. The one they don't list is Bigelow Aerospace. And I don't know if that was omitted on purpose because it has UAP connotations. But I wonder if you

get to address in general the idea that NASA takes its cue from DOD and whether or not your association with Bigelow was a negative factor or viewed as negative in appointment to this position. Yeah. So first, relative to deferring to defense, I think that's something that we see throughout the federal government, that national security, the intelligence agencies usually have a lot more influence and a lot more say than civil agencies like NASA or the FAA, that when that national security card is pulled, a lot of us in the civil world are ultimately going to defer to that. And I think that's not just NASA, but true across the federal government. And I think that can be something that occurs and will likely continue to occur, which is why

I think it's so important that the people on the defense and the national security, side, we need to fix that. I think ultimately if we're going to get to the bottom of this issue, get to transparency, get the disclosure one way or the other, the pathway will have to be through defense and national security because of just that phenomenon, that NASA is not going to be the agency that is going to get to the smoking done. So I think there's a lot of truth to that, George. But the role that NASA can and should play in my mind is, for example, as the publicly open mirror to an entity like Aero, that through ASRS, through the archive search,

we should be gathering data, and then NASA should archive that data, open it up to the public, and to the extent they can analyze the data and share those results publicly. NASA is known as a leading scientific institution, certainly among academia, and if we were able to gather that data,

release it is very important things to do. Relative to my association with Bigelow Aerospace, 13 years at Bigelow Aerospace, as you know, I think we met once, at least back in the day with Mr. Bigelow. And to be clear, and I almost mentioned this at the hearing, because I think there was some confusion over this, that there's Bigelow Aerospace, and then there's Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, Bass. Right, Advanced Space Systems, thank you. Saturday, I'm getting all over my acronyms. I was a part of Bigelow Aerospace. I just did amazing things with Genesis 1, Genesis 2 spacecraft. I mean, just to tell a quick story there. We contracted with an entity called ISC Cosmetros, which was taking Russian ICBMs, removing the warhead, putting on

commercial fairings, and using them for commercial space launch. Literally swords into plowshares. We conducted two launches in Siberia, and that's why I don't complain about the cold weather in D.C., because I spent two launch campaigns in Siberia. And it's why I'm such an optimistic person, by the way, as well, that I grew up a child of the Cold War in fear that these weapons would end life as we know it. Yet as an adult, I was there on a Russian nuclear missile base using these weapons of wars a tool for peaceful commerce and exploration.

And while I know, obviously, we're not in good position with the Russians now, just the fact that that occurred at all gives me great, hope for the future. So if my association with Bigel Airspace was left out, I think it was just an omission or cutting my very lengthy resume because I'm bold, although it did, you know, come up and I try and remind people. I got some questions for the record afterwards asking about, it was like the CIA was telling Lockheed Martin not to release information and Bass may have been a part of that. So I got a QFR question for the record about that, but I'm unable to address that because I was busy with the Genesis campaigns, Bigel Aerospace, I didn't hold a

security clearance and all of the UAP-related activity, the Skinwalker activity, was occurring in another organization. So unfortunately, I didn't have that part of it. Relative to it, becoming a negative thing or a positive thing for the UAP and Dependent Study Team, again, this is where I give NASA great credit, that my association with Bigel Airospace, my known interest in the topic was not a secret to NASA, to Senator Nelson, or the associate administrator for the science mission director at the time, Thomas R. Buckin. And here I have to thank my friend Dan Evans, who is the DFO, the designated federal official for the independent study team of not only nominating me, but consulting me about what should happen,

and ultimately letting me be a part of that, that it demonstrated, they knew where I was coming from, and that I later appear on weaponized and talk more about the topic. And, And absolutely, it's probably ending it in here too. You know, I give great credit to Redwire and our CEO, Pete Canito, and our board for allowing me to engage robustly and being unafraid relative to tackling this topic. So I greatly appreciate what Dan Evans did, our DFO, and it shows that they were operating with goodwill and, you know, with the interest of getting to the truth because they weren't afraid of someone like myself who, again, I try to be. the objective, and I'm not saying one way or the other, but obviously had a long history and a personal interest in the topic. So I don't think it did me any favors relative to getting on the committee, but the fact that I was on the committee, despite my background with Bigelow

Aerospace, shows that we were trying to proceed in good faith at NASA with this effort, and I hope to see more to come. I just wanted to kind of hit a nail on the head here. Look, I'm an investigative journalist. I know some things. I don't know if you can talk about it, But the elephant in the room for me is by the time this airs, everybody is going to be talking about crash retrievals. Yeah. And, you know, I've been signaled the number of times we know for a fact that Lockheed Martin, the vice president, was trying to transfer a UAP. It was described in detail to George and myself by Dr. James Lakotsky, the shape of an egg ship. He could say all that.

So we've got a craft of unknown origin, which they believe to. be NHA built from a non-human intelligence and they were trying to move that out of Lockheed because they hadn't made progress and bring it kind of back into another organization that could work on it. You know that to be true and not just rumor as well. That is now on public record. Are you aware that is true information, right? So unfortunately, Jeremy, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that having occurred,

but I cannot tell you how frustrating it is for me. to hear these stories of advanced technology of reverse engineering when we're struggling to get back to the moon at NASA in the private sector. One of the things we do at Redwire, we've roll out solar rays, which are compacted like a carpet. They launch. They roll out later. You know, these are wonderful technologies that will help us go forward, et cetera. But we're still using chemical rocketry, right, which in many ways is... No, no, I get that.

And it's got to be frustrating. But we got people that are now able to disclose that. Dr. James Lekatsky on our show, you know, head of the DIA UFO program, he said that as fact. He said, I can say it now because it's been authorized to doPSER. It's not a question of if it's true. Like, you know, unless everybody's lying. So it's true. So that is a problem.

You're working with all these low-tech things compared to a high-tech kind of machinery that apparently we have possession of. But are you telling me that you don't have any personal knowledge of crash retrievals? Yeah, I don't have any personal exposure or knowledge of it. When I was at NASA, you know, I reached out to Jay Stratton, who was UAP Task Force at the time, because I wanted to have that very conversation is what I wanted to be helpful, first and foremost, the UAP Task Force to make sure that NASA was, you know, providing a constructive role. But if there was more, I certainly wanted to know about it. And, you know, I think Jay has gone on the record relative to, you know, extraterrestrial crash retrieval, you know, Lou, et cetera. I tried to do what I can to find out. I wasn't exposed to anything, unfortunately.

You're not holding any secrets back for me. I'm not holding any secrets back. Okay. I just wanted to make sure, man, because, you know, there are some rumors going around. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If I did, Jeremy, believe me, I would be the first to say if I was holding back for, you know, I do hold the top secret clearance still. if I was holding back because of a classified reason I would tell you.

I can tell you I don't have any, unfortunately, personal firsthand experience. All I can say is, you know, just as you said, and your great work, and Georges and Lou and Jay and everyone. I mean, I personally believe that, yeah, there shouldn't be any question here given there's just too many good people coming forward with information. So I personally believe it, but I don't have any firsthand information, unfortunately. I wish that I did. Maybe we could head into sort of a broader question.

I'm almost afraid to give that to our guest here, because who knows how long he's going to go. But a broad question about space policy in the future. Robert Bigelow, your friend and former employer, really carved out his own space, made some great progress on his own dime, trying to commercialize space, building these inflatable habitats. Genesis 1 and 2 were shot up there. There's one on the ISS as well. one of my business cards is floating in the inside Genesis 2, by the way, I slipped it in there. I mean, it was incredible. And he, you know, he was a pioneer for a lot of other rich guys who've had their own space programs. Elon Musk has done some amazing things. I see these landings,

where these rockets come down and they grab onto it. It's like something out of a science fiction movie, and it's happening before our eyes. Elon Musk, of course, is now well positioned, vis-a-vis the federal government and NASA to do great things under the next administration. I'm wondering if you could just speak to policy in general, the options for commercialization of space, whether NASA needs to just get out of the way of these big companies, how it can help with the commercialization of space, and then also reflect on what your friend and your friend and former employer, Robert Bigelow, has said that by the time we get back to the moon, the Chinese will be there waving at us when we get there.

Yeah, a grave concern. So you've raised a number of very important topics. Let me try and tackle them and finish before we get even more news today, right, on some of the interactions. Relative to commercial versus government at NASA and space policy, I think that's a false dichotomy, that we shouldn't be saying commercial versus government. the answer is we're stronger together. We have to embrace both. The very existence of SpaceX, and Elon has been very clear on this, he owes it to NASA and DARPA, that there wouldn't be a SpaceX if it wasn't for that. So the public-private partnerships, uniting American entrepreneurialism

with government support, has created this second golden age of space that we're in. I certainly hope that the Trump administration, I think Jared Isaacman is the perfect person to continue and accelerate this legacy of public-private partnerships. And it was Doug Levero, who was the Department Defense official and later NASA official, it was always famous for saying, China will eventually outspend us in space. That's inevitable. We must out-entrepreneur them. That it's American innovation, American entrepreneurship, American diversity of ideas, concepts, and strategies. That's how we will beat the Chinese. But we can only do that if we continue to embrace the path of public-private partnerships,

bolstering companies like SpaceX, bolstering companies like Blue Origin, et cetera. And, you know, we talk about commercial space and the space probably, what is commercial space? Really, it's pretty simple. It's firm fixed-price contracting. And for those of you who are listening, who aren't, government contract attorneys, first of all, good for you. but let me break that down a little bit.

The way that NASA had operated previously, and Department of Defense still does in many areas, is something called cost-plot contacting. And that's where the government contracts with an entity, and if it goes over, it goes over. Imagine doing this in the real world. Like, you wouldn't order a pizza from dominoes. I don't know why you're ordering dominoes,

but if you order the pizza from dominoes, and then they come to say, well, it was going to be $40, but it was raining outside. I ran out of gas. It took some extra time. so sorry your pizza costs 120. You would never operate like that. Cost plus contracting creates a pernicious desire to make the price as much as possible to the taxpayer.

Instead, with firm fixed, you create the opposite incentive. If you want to make it as efficient, as affordable as possible, and that's really what commercial space is, is getting the government out of telling SpaceX or blue origin, how to design the vehicle, what color it should be, how we should paint it, etc., which creates, a need for an army of bureaucrats, instead just contract with a commercial space company and let them proceed with solving the problem that the government has. And oh, by the way, then when you do that, you create lots of commercial opportunities. Again, going back to Redwire, you know, I mentioned our rollout solar rays. Well, that was initially a contract on the

International Space Station. And those rollout solar rays are powering the ISS as we speak. But because it was a terrific innovative solution, now we're selling it to, tallest to Blue Origin for commercial activities on geo-telecommunication satellites. It's what we've seen with SpaceX, that because they have that capability, an initial contract with NASA that rescued the company, now they're dominating the commercial launch market. America went from inventing commercial space launch to having only one commercial space launch per year, sometimes none. And it took that public-private partnership to transform the industry so that now,

even the Chinese can't keep up with us due to what Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, SpaceX, Blue Origin, companies like that are doing. And while I'm sure nobody's perfect and there may be things I disagree with with Elon or Jeff Bezos, they don't get the credit that they deserve for enabling this whole new market, these new capabilities that are impacting every aspect of our daily lives. When I was at NASA, I was getting interviewed by a BBC reporter and she was asking me, how can you justify the billions that we spend on space when we have existential threats on earth like climate change? And I had to explain, you wouldn't even know about climate change if it wasn't for the space industry. And what Elon Musk has done, a great personal sacrifice to himself, what Jeff Bezos is doing to create new rocketry, new technologies, new programs,

is benefiting us all on Earth every time you use a cell phone, every time a doctor uses telecommunications. and again, sorry to keep talking about Redwire, but obviously he's a company person I'm interested. We manufactured the first human meniscus in space. We printed live cardiovascular tissue in space and brought it back live. This is the fundamentals that will lead eventually to printing whole organs in space. I've had friends who died waiting on the organ donation list. Imagine how this is going to transform life on Earth when we can print organs of space. that, by the way, will be printed with your own stem cells so we can avoid the expensive

and painful anti-rejection therapy. Why do you need, in short, why do you need to print organs in space? That seems more expensive. Why can't you just print organs on Earth? What's going on with that? Great question, Jeremy. You can't print organs on Earth. Now you're listening again, recovering attorney here. I've got a B-minus in biology, so stay with me. But gravity basically squishes it. So, for example, when we printed the meniscus in space, have we tried to do that here on Earth? You would have ended up with just goo. Zero gravity. I mean, just the holy shit moment for me, sorry, for our audience, I didn't realize that we have capability of printing human organs in space that we don't have on Earth. And that is a medical revelation. It makes a lot more sense

to me that big money would try to make this easy to get into that zero gravity environment. just because of the medical implications alone, you just blew my fucking mind. Yes. Jeremy, we are at a revolutionary point where space and biotech and pharma are going to come together to create something completely different. And by the way, George, you know, this was something that goes back to the Bigel Airspace days that we always talked about. Now, unfortunately, these things take time.

And by the way, this is why commercial space was so important. The reason that Redwire has been successful at this, whereas previously, went much more slowly is because we've got a commercial launch vehicle that can bring up more payloads on a more regular basis with astronauts, more astronauts, so we actually have time. The ISS International Space Station previously, imagine a laboratory that you only had three people at that you could only send science to once a year. And by the way, the three people who are working on your projects, they had to maintain the whole facility. Like you wouldn't conduct science like that. Now, with ISS, because largely of the dragon, we've got an extra crew seat so that we can

extra time to move the field forward, move the field forward and move it forward we have. The way we do this is with something called the BFF, we're great at acronyms at Red Lark, the biofabrication facility, and that's printing with human tissue. The cardiovascular tissue, by the way, we printed, this is to cure heart disease, that eventually you could create heart patches for people with heart disease. And it's not space per se, Jeremy. I should probably be a little bit more nuanced at that point. It's microgravity. That when you shut off. Right, right, right. But I mean, This is just blowing my mind. I mean, I'm going to get on that list for a meniscus.

I mean, I just didn't know that this was something that was, we're printing organs in zero or near zero gravity. Pretty amazing. But I just want to get back to one thing you said real quick. If we're going to be hearing a lot about crash retrievals by the time this episode airs, if this is true. And it sounds like you share my frustration and you're like a gatekeeper sequence here. But if what we believe to be true, I think all of us,

that there are these crash retrievals of non-human tech. This is what everybody's saying. And if that is true, then we are just, we are living in the Stone Age and we could be in the space age if we had proper exploitation for derivative technologies of what we have obtained within the United States intelligence agencies and government. And if this is put into the public space, bright minds at NASA can work on it, people can really work on this outside of the compartmentalized institutions that are already there, that are already the entire apparatus I have noticed about these technologies are so restrictive

that it has kept us back from this type of advancement. And if this is true, you feel the same way. We need to get this stuff out that back door, bring it in the front door, get bright minds and companies working on this and start moving on it, right? Absolutely, Jeremy. What scares me the most, and you've spoken about this on weaponized and on your season two, by the way, congratulations on the premiere. I made it through about one and a half episode so far already. It's fantastic. Oh, the last one is a- You'll like part three. The last one is a bang that you brought up a macadocon constellation that something weird happened.

You don't even know. You'll see you. I know. I know. I wish I could interview you, Jeremy, on a few things. But for now, I'm fascinated. But you're exactly correct. And I did mention this at the hearing that my fear, and let's just, you know, assume this is all true, again, for your any objective, I personally believe that it is. What's happening with the stigma is that, as you mentioned, everything's compartmentalized, we don't have our top people looking at it, but that may not be the case in Beijing. That may not be the case in Russia. And this is where the very formation of DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, is to avoid technological surprise. Yet this could be the greatest technological surprise in history. And because of the stigmatization, because of the

compartmentalization, we may not, and likely are not, having our top people, our top institutions, look at this. Because, you know, unfortunately, it's probably not just a given that we can utilize the technology, that, you know, this may be, in theory, you know, light years literally ahead of us. So it's a reverse engineering race. And while I don't know what a extraterrestrial position would be on Taiwan. I know what the Chinese position is. And this is where I think that it's really terrifying and that it's not just a matter of good government, a matter of exploration, but a true concern about national security if we're sitting on technology and not letting the A team look at it. This is very disconcerting. I know that Senator Rubio and others in the

Senate, I think this is what drives them in part, is the national security concern relative to potential technology that we are not excluding, we are not studying, yet adversary nations may be. So it's very disconcerting. And again, it's why I applaud not just for the sound check, but for both of you, to bring this forward because I think our national security interests and future could be in great jeopardy relative to, if there is the technology, and not being coming out, we've got to overcome the stigma, we've got to proceed. And what I don't understand about this, Jeremy, in many ways, and George, and we bring up funding issues, right, chill for NASA. Why would people associated with Department of Defense, if this is true,

not want to come forward due to what would likely be a huge amount of funding and attention and capabilities that, justifiably, would need to be put into this? Why the reluctance in that case? Yeah, good question. What could mean for budgets. I'm going to circle back around to something we were just discussing. I think back to Bigelow, Aeros. Nids and then the connecting tissue to bass. Big Lerospace is developing inflatable habitats so that there is working space in space where you can do things, have labs. The connecting tissue being bass is trying to figure out if there is non-human technology, metamaterials that could not be created here on Earth. One of the reasons you know it's non-human is we don't have manufacturing

facilities in space, but it looks like somebody does. and trying to get access to that material would have allowed them to study it, how it's made, and hopefully someday the connection is Bigelow Aerospace, some of his colleagues, Bezos, and Elon would allow for labs to be built up there where we could make this stuff. I guess that's a preface to the question I'm finally getting around to is, would you expect that there would be sort of a changing of the guard coming with the new administration? You know, Mr. Bigelow used to say that there are two types of societies,

those that have mastered microgravity manufacturing and those who haven't. And I continue to believe, and Redwire has invested robustly in this, that the countries and companies that excel at microgravity will be the economic and national security leaders of the future. We talk about, we discuss the meniscus, and this regenerative medicine is extremely important, but what's probably even closer is pharmaceutical crystallization. So most, if not all, drugs are based on seed crystals. And because of the lack of gravity, you can create a differentiated seed crystal in space

that has enhanced capabilities, would lead to drugs with enhanced capabilities. We've partnered with Eli Lilly, we've partnered with Bristol-Myers Squibb in previous launches, we've flown insulin twice. And if you look at insulin seed crystals that are developed on Earth and then compare it to what we've done in space, it is night and day. It's extraordinary. The large crystals we get, the uniformity of those crystals, which can lead to better drug treatments in the future. We've now flown 30 experiments or 30 pillboxes is what we call our

pharmaceutical experiments. And I can assure you Red Wilde will be moving forward aggressively to again create this revolution of biotech and micrograph probably beginning with new sea crystals because that requires so little change to the existing system that already pharmaceuticals are developed by seed crystals. We just have to develop a sea crystal in space. It's just a very small amount of mass that we bring back. It's essentially a new blueprint for a drug, and I think this can drive the microgravity economy. Now, I'm talking about drugs now, but semiconductors, which are also based on a crystalline process. All of our industrial capacities will be bolstered, change, transformed by microgravity. And it certainly wouldn't surprise me that UAP or UAP technology

probably takes advantage of microgravity manufacturing as well. But we're catching up, and that's wonderful what we're doing. Expandable space habitats are very important to provide that larger volume. Sierra space, and there's many people from Bigel Airspace who are now over there, they're developing expandable habitat technology for lower orbit. We're about to transition from the International Space Station to commercial space stations that I believe will be a very good thing. However, all of that being said, if there is technology that we're sitting on, that we're not releasing, I believe we do so at our peril. And that could only help expedite the efforts that we're taking on now.

You're great of protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side?

Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock. Let's go off mental script here for a second because you're telling me there's two worlds that exist. There's one manufacturing in a gravitational, you know, kind of field, which is limited. And then the other world that opens possibilities is manufacturing in a less gravitational field or near zero gravitational field. Like I understand that. I guess the kind of crux of this is, and let's kind of go off mental script. You and I just kind of think about this together for a second.

If this is all true, and it appears to be, there are a craft of unknown origin, not made by human beings. It's not far away, been here a long time kind of thing. Crash retrievals, everybody's saying, okay, great, we have all these admissions. People want you to know UFOs are real now. There seems like so much interest that could be involved in this exploration from medical to, you know, superconductors to just the exploration of humanity out into the universe. But here's the deal. You now, the world is seeing that we're in a race and the world is also seeing the benefits of moving forward if we have these technologies and we haven't let this happen. We haven't.

We've been so scared because of the weaponization maybe. Why? Why is it that this is the dirty secret that there is a more advanced civilization likely that has contacted or been here and we've got some of their craft? Why is that such a secret? Is it because of the weaponization potential or why? And if it is in somebody's hands, stash somewhere, should it change hands and let somebody else take a crack? Right. I believe that it certainly should, and I believe that the current geopolitical situation requires that it will.

And Jeremy, I can only theorize why this wouldn't occur, and this is just me thinking out loud, right? But the only really rational explanation that I can think of, and you've seen this in some of their views by Rancourt, corporation, et cetera, that the truth of UAP is so disturbing socially that that's why there's is a reticence to release the data, to release the information, to release the tech, because if you release the tech, then you have to admit to the underlying situation. And we've all seen how, whether it's disasters, natural disasters, even once occurring in LA right now, people don't, you don't necessarily react well to disturbing information. and for the US government to come forward and say, yes,

we've been withholding information for a very long time. Yes, it alters fundamentally who humanity is. And I think what some of those answers are might be very interesting. And then to say that maybe there's activities occurring in our skies, in space, in our water that we can't control, I mean, that's very difficult and I think even legitimately difficult that could create problems in society at large. But it's no government's right to hold back a fundamental reality about nature to humankind.

Like, are you kidding me? Who gave them the authority to stop us from knowing something? Yeah. Jeremy, I completely agree. And so I'm just saying that maybe this is the rationale. No, I get it. It's scary as fuck. I get that.

But like I never said anybody has the authority to keep secrets from me. I didn't agree to that from birth. And that's where this isn't just the UAP issue. This is a democratic issue, little D, that particularly with Congress not being briefed, and Congress being shut out, that's a violation of our Republican form of government, of our democratic rights, and it should be unacceptable. I also believe that we are ready as a society, and that's not to say that there would be problems, but I think we are prepared.

And what I so enjoy seeing, and I'm so glad for, as you look at the bipartisanship of the UAP issue, and I think this is true in space in general, if you look at space exploration, we don't go to space as Democrats or Republicans, we go as Americans. No issue unites people like space and like UAP. It's been one of the last bastions of bipartisanship. And I think by not releasing information, you're actually creating separations, whereas when we get to transparency, potential disclosure, I think it has a potential to unite America and the world.

Of course it does. I'm done with their lives. I think we're about wrapped up. I just want to say regarding those future launches, Mike, we're ready to pitch a tent in your backyard, so you just say when. I will have Terry Riley, who I put on the email, get in touch with you.

And not only do you get to see the launch, but briefings from our scientists who are working on these microgravity. We're there. Come on. man, all preck. Let's do it. Yeah, let's go. But Mike, really why I wanted to contact you,

other than your son is super handsome and cool, and he's talking, he was so proud of you, man, when you were testifying, just kind of, I checked in with him a couple. I mean, I was having my own drama at the hearing, but I was checking in with your son, and he just looked so proud of you. I thought, I don't know, this Mike guy,

but his son sure is proud of him, and he's from NASA. I didn't know why, I didn't know you, so I wanted to hear from you why you were there, like your interest in, has to find putting yourself on that platform, you know, as you said, it could be like career suicide for people. So I just wanted to get a bead on, did NASA send you? Or is this a passion of yours because you feel it's valuable to society? I think I got my answer today, which means

other people did too. I wanted our audience to know, you know, that you're not some plant that was just put up there. You know, there were shenanigans at the hearing, but you weren't one of them. You were legitimately there for this topic. And I want to thank you for doing that for the American public because we share sentiment that it is time to tell the truth about UFOs, no matter how hard that truth might be like we're speculating, maybe it's a difficult truth. Man, we got 99 problems already, fires around the world. We can handle the truth about UFOs and it ain't your right to say we can't. So we got to push forward, Mike, and I appreciate you trying to push forward with us on this.

No, thank you so much, Jeremy. My son is a huge fan. He really is sitting next to you is like one of the highlights of the hearing. Not many people feel that. I'm glad we were okay. And George, you know, again, I can't thank you enough. We, we, if not George, for your work and Jeremy, your work, there wouldn't be a hearing. I wouldn't be here without George. I mean, this, he got me hooked on this crazy-ass topic. Neela, so it's all your fault, George. It is. This fire lit. That's all be on my tombstone. It's all my fault. It's all your fault. You lit the fire.

Absolutely. But again, I just wanted to be there. And you're absolutely right. It's the ladder. NASA probably would have rather not had me go, but I don't want to let NASA off the hook that there are things that they need to do, again, that are low costs that are modest. And I'm hoping that Congress can push forward. And if I can do my little humble part to try and add credibility to it, to try and push NASA, I will do everything I can personally to try and help, you know, heroes like yourselves, Lou and the Admiral. Well, thank you because you did, you did by testifying and you did by coming on, you know, our wild podcast. So I really appreciate your time and I hope our audience understands. You're one of the good guys. You're trying to be honest and open up

and push it forward. So thank you for everything you've done. And let's be in touch. I want to know the inside secrets when you learn shit at NASA. Okay. Thanks, Mike. I will let you know and look forward to seeing you all to launch soon. Okay. One of the things we knew about Mike going in is that he's a big Star Trek fan. He's a trekker, hardcore, right? He went like this or something. at the hearing and people were mad at him. He's just into, he's at his license plate has something to do with Star Trek. Yeah, I mean, that was cool. I mean, because, you know, the mission of the enterprise is pretty darn close to what the mission of NASA is supposed to be, to boldly go,

to explore new worlds, seek out other life forms. He believes that. He's a cool dude, man. Yeah, he's a cool dude. And, you know, I think it takes people that have interest in this to push the UAP topic forward. Yeah, it was a really credible new voice in this topic. Yes. I hope he's allowed to continue to speak and interact with at NASA and speak on their behalf on this issue and to push them to give them a nudge into the direction that they should have adopted all along. I think he's facilitating a transfer. I don't know what he's saying, but I think he's involved somehow in trying to get that Lockheed craft, Dr. James Lackey-Catsy described, into private industry for exploitation. If he's not, he should be. He'd be a great advocate to help get

that into industry to help exploit it. Well, look, we were invited to a launch, maybe more than one. I'm ready to go. Say the word, Mike, any time. Would they launch us, though? I'm going to go to check. I'm sure there are those who would like to see that. Oh, yeah.

Our enemies would love to see us launch. We'll not come back. No, one-way trip. No, I'd love to go just experience zero gravity, you know, because gravity's a bitch. Anyway, man, thank you. That was awesome, George. Yeah, it was good, man.