WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - SHOOT THEM DOWN! Military Uses Lethal Force against UFOs

Episode Date: November 14, 2023

What is the policy of the US military regarding intrusions by potentially hostile unidentified aircraft or objects? In previous decades, U.S. forces had standing orders to intercept UFOs and - when necessary - to shoot them down. But what is the general policy now? In this episode of WEAPONIZED, Jeremy and George report about two dramatic incidents in which military units unleashed considerable firepower against unknown aerial intruders including a cluster of objects that repeatedly approached a U.S. warship in the Pacific Ocean near Japan, and an allied warplane that fired a cutting edge missile at an unidentified "drone" in the Middle East. •••  GOT A TIP? Reach out to us at [e-mail]  For breaking news, follow Corbell & Knapp on all social media.  Extras and bonuses from the episode can be found at https://WeaponizedPodcast.com  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money. Because behind every headline is a bottom line. Whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings, there's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com.

In this episode of Weaponized, in 2021, it was, It was the 14th of December. It was reported across the media from BBC to the Ministry of Defense throughout the UK and the world over Syria, that there was, in quotes, a hostile drone that was shot by the Royal Air Force. This was the first air-to-air firing

from the Royal Air Force in 40 years. Since the Falklands War, since the Falkland Island War. You know, we do have a strange, image we want to show people today. We were able to confirm that this image that we have was associated with this event, meaning this is what we shot at. They labeled it unidentified aerial phenomenon, UAP. Secrets, cover-ups, and strange phenomena. UFOs and ideas that challenge reality itself. All these mysteries, all this time, are we ever going to get to the bottom of

these? My name is George Knapp. I dig into news stories that others can't. or won't. I'm Jeremy Corbell, and for some reason, people tell me things they probably shouldn't. And this is weaponized. This is weaponized. Jeremy, where the hell of you been? I've been in the studio for weeks, and you never show up. Right, right. Let's keep going with that, man. It has been hard. You have been traveling around the world, and you'll be able to tell you a bit of why, like, later. Later. But, man, it sounds like you've had some really fun adventures, only one of which I'm glad I was not there for. So today, I thought we talk about UFO shootdowns, both current events and historical perspective,

because, you know, this is supposedly the age of transparency when the Pentagon and our government are telling us the truth these days, you know, truth. I'm using air quotes around that. But there have been peaks and valleys of transparency over the years, and there have been peaks and valleys of truth over the years, mostly valleys. and I thought if we're on the subject of UFO shootdowns, we could fill our audience in on some current events, very recent events that were either not reported at all

or were misreported, and then give it some historical perspective as well. I dug up this headline from 1952. You recall the Washington, D.C. UFO overflight, very dramatic instances two weeks in a row, flying over the White House over Congress, Capitol Hill, jets were scrambled. The Air Force comes out with a statement saying,

Move along, nothing to see here, folks. This was a temperature inversion, nothing more. The fact was that there was a Pentagon memo, and it was a headline back in 1952, Jets keeping 24-hour alert for, quote, saucers. The subtitle was pilots ordered to down objects if they don't land. The order was, shoot them down. You see UFOs shoot them down if they won't land, which we don't know any that voluntarily landed. I know that in 1960, there was a front-page story in the New York Times.

times. UFOs are serious business. Again, the national policy for our Department of Defense was, if you encounter UFOs, intercept them, go after them, shoot them down if you have to. Now, we don't know what the policy is today, but we know that in February of this year, three objects were shot down. This morning questions after more unidentified objects are discovered over U.S. and Canadian airspace. According to a senior administration official, this latest object was in the shape of an octagon, unmanned, and traveling near sensitive sites at an altitude of 20,000 feet. One of them we know was a Chinese spy balloon. We don't know what the other two were, because supposedly nobody went out and tried to collect them. But it seemed to be the policy had changed again.

What can we say about more recent events in other parts of the world involving the U.S. military? Yeah. So, you know, I'm glad we're covering this UFO shoot-down attempt issue because people kind of really mocked me when I, you know, when we were reporting that current day, that UAP, same thing, UAP, UFO, that they're being shot at, everybody's like, oh, that's crazy, he can't just say that. Well, you and I have been privy to some information. So I want to talk through what leads us to kind of say that kind of thing. One of the things we should do is reflect back on the 2019 events, right?

West Coast. Right. We should talk about that. We did a whole episode. I think it was episode number two of Weaponized. We had John Gutierrez on and he was kind of, you know, we were talking about this situation, 2019. We had witnesses on recording that were telling us kind of how that went down. What we were not clear about, I don't recall from that episode, was that there was attempts to bring down these, I'll call them units, these swarming of over 100 UAP on 10 Navy warships.

But they were electromagnetic. They were things called like the Drake system or the Ghostbuster. These are kind of like, I guess, electromagnetic domes that are put over that stop these things in their track. Or they're supposed to. The thing is, is on the USS Russell that was attempted, to the best of my knowledge and sources, that's what I'm told. There were five times on these ships. There were different times where they tried to stop these incursions, right? This is not like shooting missiles or artillery, but they're firing at it with these electromagnetic weapons.

Under the assumption that they're drones, so there's some kind of standard or maybe foreign drones operated by China or Russia or something like that, right? Right. Completely ineffective. Every time... Didn't work.

Didn't work. And we've heard about that more and more and more with these swarm events. These swarm events have become so prevalent off of these destroyers and these craft that we're getting all of these reports in.

There's one I think we should highlight where there was absolutely attempts to down these UAP using these electromagnetic kind of weaponry. And that's, we haven't talked about this publicly yet, but this is something that I hope we learn more about. And I'm sure people can find out more information about it. So we're going to give them enough.

2021, late summer, off the coast of Japan is what I can say, a 300 mile radius of sea, no other ships, nothing around this vessel. It was the USS, you call it, Millius. Millius. I'm going to be George Knapp here for a second. You taught me this a long time ago. You take your papers.

That's it. That's it. Oh, okay. That's right. Top news tonight. Yeah, the top news tonight is I'm going to go insane making the Lear film. That's a newscaster moved there. Stack them on the table.

Newscaster got my notes. Okay. So, 2021, this is late summer. USS Melius. They had this event series that occurred where there were UAP, that just like the ballets that you saw around these Navy warships, but they're way out there. Nothing for 300 miles.

And these UFOs are kind of like dancing. So it was really annoying. They tried to take them down using, I'll just say these electromagnetic, you know, techniques. Totally ineffective. Again, this is like a recurring, you know, theme, is that they're immune. They seem immune to our electromagnetic warfare.

So that's an interesting thing. to begin with, but it happened for like four or five nights. And the thing that really hit me was that from all accounts, when you talk about the captain of the ship and everything, it was so frustrating at some point that they said, wave off, forget about it, stop even reacting to them, stop creating products and sending them up the chain of command. There's nothing we can do about this. I mean, we're not going to drop an atom bomb over there. We're trying to figure out what they are. So this was happening for four or five nights. It was happening from about 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. or midnight to 4 a.m. It was about a five hour window. Multiple objects. Multiple objects,

five plus and with extreme maneuverability, right? So they'd say that it would be in one place and then, boom, it was right over in the next. You know, they're acting like what we always hear about UAP. The difference with this case, the thing that really hurted my ears up, besides all the confirmations we got that this is a real event, is that I was told directly that we're we got off-ship confirmation of these unknown UAP units. Now, reading between the lines a little bit there, what we are most likely talking about is a relay of satellite information. Now, of course, we're not going to get that imagery and that data, but it exists.

And the fact that that's not being properly reported, we have told people that need to know that this happened. We've told them about it. so they can go and pursue. So the ship personnel are seeing them, night after night, multiple objects, five or more, buzzing around, incredible maneuvers, no sound at all.

No sound. They're 300 miles from anything else. There's no, they don't see them being launched. They don't see them where they go. It's like the West Coast incidents. They were 100 miles out to sea. They could not see where these things came from. It was a whole swarm of UFOs,

more than 100 objects buzzing 10 different ships. Couldn't see where they came from. didn't see where they went. I know people have tried to write that off of some kind of Chinese drone, that it came from a Chinese ship. We know for a fact that federal authorities got on that ship. There was no indication that any drones had been launched from there. They don't know where they went. They tried to use anti-dron technology to take them down, and it failed. Same thing happened with these ships off the coast of Japan. In 2021, there are East Coast events. There are swarm events that occurred in 2023. There are swarm events that occurred in the South China Sea. So this is something

that is happening globally and with an increased frequency. And people are frustrated who are to fight these ships because they don't have that, you know, kinetic action triangle. They say opportunity capability and intent. But, you know, absolutely you can use these electromagnetic things and try to bring things down. The thing is, though, is that this, this, this one that we're talking about it in Japan. When you were talking about 2019, yeah, we know people that boarded the Bass Strait to look, you know, to see if they were landing and launching these. But remember, 2019, that activity was still going when the Bass Strait was in Port in Long Beach.

We still don't know. If they were ours embarrassing, that's what some of the people I'm talking about, they're saying, it's embarrassing. But the thing is, it's not. No one has taken claim. They've investigated that. Head of the Navy said it's not. If these are Russian or Chinese, we are screwed because of the capability, the apparent transmedium

capability of these things. So whoever is land launching these, in 2019, they were coming from the West. There's nothing over there about Hawaii, right? But this is even wilder to me, this Japan one, because you're 300 miles. And the exact words I was told is that there was no mothership. Now, I'm not talking about like a UFO mothership. I'm just saying there was no launch point. There's no ship that was launching these within 300 miles.

And they have amazing radar systems to know if there's any ship in the area. So this case is a real head scratcher. So the sailors are seeing them with their own eyes. Yeah. They are detecting them with various sensors on these modern warships. And then they had additional confirmation from something, an eye in the sky. That's right. An eye in the sky.

And, you know, I think additionally with this one, the thing that really got me, and this is part of what I think this episode for me today is about, is that the Snoopy teams, which are the teams that have to go to deck, they have to wake up, get their equipment, go out each night. It became such a distraction to the whole operation they were doing that they were just like stop reporting it. Just stop reporting it. Don't make any more products. So if the Snoopy team went out a couple of nights in a row,

presumably there are some images that reported at some point. There are. Public hasn't seen it. Correct. We don't know exactly what happened with that information. Where did those reports go? Did they go to Arrow or higher-ups in the Pentagon? Why hasn't the public been allowed to know about it?

Why hasn't Congress been told about this? We have actually sent this information up the chain of command, which is so bizarre to me. You know, we made sure that people had this information that could then decide, you know, is Arrow the right place to have this. They need to investigate this. These are unknown units to our understanding. they do things that our typical craft can't do, but more importantly, we can't respond to them. We're ineffective in responding to these unknown units.

So for our weaponized listeners out there who might be skeptical about this incident, we've given you enough information, go get it, go after it, see what you can find out. I've done a lot of interviews, and I know this event happened. You know, it will probably take some time, if ever, that we get some of this imagery.

But look, better than just you and me, like other people can now look into this. So that I wanted, I wanted to make sure that we brought up. But there's another big thing I want to talk about today. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Own it all.

Pay off your home, travel for life, drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine, by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion. You know, we do have a strange image we want to show people today. Let's talk about that. Let's, should we

jump into that? Yeah. So this is a conflict zone. It's the Middle East, right? Yeah. And we've, we've had some other images that we've released unweaponized from conflict zones that are highly controversial, but we think they're pretty solid. This one is equally solid. And the public was misled in what this thing was. There was reporting about this. It was publicly reported all over the world, right? Yeah. So there's a discrepancy. And that's what really hit me and you, I think, is this discrepancy. So in 2002, It was the 14th of December. It was reported across the media from BBC to the Ministry of Defense throughout the UK and the world.

It was reported that on the 14th of December, 2021, this is why I got my notes. I just want to make sure here. Yeah, it was the 14th of December over Syria, that there was, in quotes, a hostile drone that was shot by the Royal Air Force. It was shot at, I will say, by the rural Air Force. It was the type of ship again? It was a typhoon. Royal Air Force Typhoon. Right.

So that's the plane, a fighter plane. And I think the reason why it's spread, like immediately the next day through the press and for the next four or five days is because this was the first air-to-air firing from the Royal Air Force in 40 years. Since the Falklands War, since the Falkland Islands War. So it's a big deal. Right. You fire $20,000, you know, dollar missile.

allegedly we took it down. That's a big deal. So across the world, you can look this up, you can look at the news reports. Adversarial drone, right? They were real coy at first with what it was. They actually shot, but then it ended up saying drone, drone, drone, adversarial drone. So that's the story. It was drone. It was hostile drone. Then it became terrorist drone. Although no terrorist group claimed responsibility for it, no nation claimed responsibility for it. We have no idea who's drone this was, right? It's a history drone. Right. And, you know, look, I'm not expecting to be told everything by media, but I am expecting transparency. I'm expecting that they give us the

accurate story. So lo and behold, in the course of our work, we're giving an image that is said to be of this thing that we shot down or shot at. And it looks really weird. Like, I'm not making any claims about it. It just looks really weird. I think we're calling it the Syria dome UAP. And the reason we're calling it UAP is because they call it UAP. Right. So here's the deal. In the media you're told

the shoot down of a terrorist drone or, you know, whatever, but intelligence community products that are shared amongst nations, so you can imagine like a five-eyes report.

And this passed in front of our eyes, we became exposed to this information and we were able to confirm that this image that we have was associated with this event, meaning this is what we shot at. They labeled it unidentified aerial phenomenon, UAP. In fact, this was used as an example of UAP in a product, in an internal product. So on one hand, the media is reporting, you've got this terrorist drone, but the entire intelligence community is saying, these are UAP. We don't know who operates. them. They have flight characteristics

that are other than what we have. We see other nations firing upon the same objects. And it's really funny the way the language would be put in military realms indicating it's likely not those nations firing at their own units. Well, we do know that the Russians fired at something similar, right?

We do. We do. And, you know, that's something I think we should, we'll keep investigating. but look, Syria and Russia fire upon these UAP as well. We do too. The thing is, they're not reported properly. They're identified as something on one hand publicly, but on the inside it's identified as you. I mean, I mean, bold and clear.

These are examples of UAP. And something else shocking to me that we were exposed to in documents is that CENTCOM has been tracking UAP for over 15 years. I mean, that's within the intelligence community, that is an admission or a statement about sent card. We saw this in writing. We are familiar with this. I don't want to get us in trouble. We do not have something that we can release.

We're just telling you that publicly, they say this is a terrorist drone, privately among allied nations that have forces there. They're saying something completely different. In 1952, it was a temperature inversion. Behind the scenes, they said it was flying saucers. Right. In 1960, it's, again, it's some kind of a balloon, but yet they were saying it's alien craft and shoot them down. Now, in the current events, in current time,

they're saying that it's drones, but behind the scenes, they are confiding in each other, these military forces, but these are unknown systems, and they tried to shoot them down. Right. And so we do fire on UAP. We don't know who operates these units. We don't know how they operate. We don't know the intent or even the real capabilities.

So if we hit them and they go down, you'd expect that we want to recover that. The frustrations we are hearing within this kind of command structure, within this chain of events, is that now people are, so we shoot at UAP or we shoot at anything that is within a certain proximity to our ground troops. So that makes sense, right? You're in a kind of the potential threat. yeah, you're in a conflict area and something comes within, let's say, 27 miles of ground troops or a base or let's say they're over a restricted area. Oh, yeah, we shoot at it just for occupying that airspace. But we also shoot at them if they appear to have a payload. And that's for good reason, because these bases are often targeted by terrorist groups that will strap on to like a DJI drone or something, you know, some explosives.

And there have been some major issues with that. But in this case, we are, so that is why we would shoot at what's considered UAP. The thing is, there's no recovery. That was another frustration within, you know, these individuals that kind of report to us or sources is that there's major frustration. There's no process afterwards. And so they're being ignored. They're being improperly handled and improperly reported up the chain of command to Centcom.

Wishing you could be there live for the big game, soaking up the atmosphere of the crowd. But too often, life gets busy, or the price holds you back. Priceline is here to help you make it happen. With millions of deals on flights, hotels, and rental cars, you can go see the game live. Don't just dream about the trip. Book it with Priceline.

Download the Priceline app or visit Priceline.com. Actual prices may vary, limited time offer. This episode is brought to you by Netflix. Most valuable promotions in Netflix are hosting a blockbuster triple headliner Saturday, May 16th. Rhonda Rousey returns to face fellow woman's MMA pioneer Gina Carano in the main event. Plus co-main's Nate Diaz versus Mike Perry. And the best heavy weight in the world, Frances Ngano versus Felipe Lenz. Watch Rhonda Rousey versus Gina Carrano, live only on Netflix.

Saturday, May 16th at 9 p.m. Eastern Center time, 6 p.m. Pacific time. It's important to emphasize this, that multiple nations in that region are detecting these things. We know Russia and Syria have detected them because Russia and Syria have shot at them. We know that the Royal Air Force typhoon shot at it, presumably knocked it out of the sky, but nobody went and go to collect whatever records there might be. We know that the U.S. military saw two of these things at the same time. One of them that the Royal Air Force went after. The other one just zipped away and took off and disappeared.

Right. So this image, which will show, it's the one that was actually historically fired upon, which is called like a, you know, a terrorist drone. It's a really weird look in whatever it is, you know. But it is, again, it is classified as UAP within the intelligence community. This is not something that is identified. And so should we show the image? Yeah, let's see this drone.

Really bizarre. Let's take a look at it. Okay. So, I mean, I was making a joke and saying it looks like Hermit the Frog, but it's, it's, it's, we call it. The Syria, dome, UAP, and whatever this device is, there were two of them, right? And by the time the Royal Air Force got up and caught up with them, and they fired a Azram missile, which is, I think he uses heat seeking. The other one...

Advanced short-range air-to-air missile. Advanced short-range air-to-air missile. So what happens is by the time they catch up with this pair that were there under intelligent control, it's other one just took off. it wasn't even in the vicinity. They did report that in the initial reports that there were two of them, but this is the one that was spired upon. Now, we don't know if it was hit.

We don't know if hit the ground. But again, I just want to drive home. This is the public's being told one thing. This is classified as a UAP within our government and within intelligence circles. So whatever it is, the public is not getting... Well, I've seen a lot of images of drones, modern drones, military drones, private drones. I don't recall ever seeing a drone that looked like that. It looks like a mushroom cloud almost.

Yeah, it's a very bizarre. Yeah, it's got the, I mean, look, it's a faraway image from, you know, one of these fighter planes. And look, I'm sure there's video out there. Oh, well, the public where I see it is given all the transparency there is now, you know. So let me read you a couple of things that I think are important for the public to know. For the past 15 years in Santcom, U.S. forces have tracked unidentified airborne objects, also defined as unidentified aerial phenomenon, traveling in the vicinity of, you know, bases, I'll say. No actors claimed ownership of these UAP, all jamming directed at UAP,

assessed unsuccessful, and that we have not recovered a UAP in this time frame or in this area to date. Now, really makes me wonder. It makes me wonder, we haven't recovered. covered anything, and that's a real issue. But we know it was testified to in Congress that we have these secret recovery programs for UAP. You have to imagine people want to get these if we are capable of shooting them down, right?

Well, recovery of foreign technology has been a goal of U.S. intelligence for 100 years. And we've have active programs. You know, there are rumored programs, Project Moon Dust and Project Bluefly that supposedly they were tailored and created specifically to deal with downed UFOs. We don't really know for sure whether they were true programs or whether they recovered anything, but it is a fact that we recover foreign technology, take it back into a lab, place like Area 51, take it apart, reverse engineer it, and figure out how to defeat it going forward and a future.

That is true. Those are real. Those are legitimate programs that are demonstrable and documentable, for sure. Right. So one of the other things that kind of struck me is that due to an abundance of sightings, right, in this area, certain base defense operations centers or BDOCs no longer report UAPs, making the tracking and characterization of these events difficult. That's something that was said to us. So if we have an influx or a ramp up of UAP unidentified in an area since 2021, which is something,

we know for a fact that that is the information that is being passed around internally, that there's this ramp up. There's a whole bunch of events that we have seen information for during this time period. So it's basically making, because that's happening, they're not being reported. That divide is that the people that need it from Centcom to maybe Arrow if they get their shit together, whoever needs this information, they're no longer getting it because it's not on mission. So people are tracking a lot of these UAP with extreme flight maneuver abilities, but it's not on mission to go after them. It's not on mission to figure out who's operating them.

Yeah, see, it's dangerous. So in that press coverage, the news coverage of this incident, the U.S. military had detected these two things, and they said it was assessed as demonstrating hostile intent and was shot down. Was shot down. Okay. And then in that same combat zone, that conflict zone, drones have been used to deliver dangerous payloads aiming at U.S. troops and allied nations as well. You would think that if you shot a $20,000 missile at some unknown UAS, UAS, U.A system or drone, mystery drone, you'd want to go out and see if you actually took it down,

look for a wreckage and pick it up. Or if you're on a ship 300 miles off the coast of Japan, you're using the most advanced anti-drone system in the world, and you're not having much of an effect. You'd like to know why, you know, because of the danger that somebody really could send a drone that's packing explosives and kill U.S. personnel. Yeah, and also just the technology.

So in 2019, when there were these swarms, I mean, I've even been able to find out that the helicopter pilots that went up, that they would see these things going into the water. And so if they have, whoever has this capability, you would imagine that the U.S. should be able to identify who this is. Another issue that I think is important to look at with this is crossfire. So we have been exposed to the information that says that some of the same units, right, were fired upon by other nations. Let's say Syria or Russia. Let's say they fire on one of these UAP because it's in a certain area.

And then we do too. It determines that it's not theirs and it's not ours. Like, who's are they? But that crossfire, that idea that we're both firing upon these unknown units, that's dangerous, right? Yeah, I'd say so. I mean, you know, it can get, something could get out of hand. We have a lot of nations with forces in that area. It could, it can certainly get out of hand.

If you shoot at something, you don't know exactly whose it is. If they're shooting at them and we're shooting at them, then it doesn't belong to either one of us. Right. And I think that's the whole designation of UAP. And to be clear, in the documentation, the things we've seen, they know what balloons are. They know that like smugglers will use balloons. Sure. These things are highly maneuverable.

If we were exposed to like radar data of these or pilot logs that like tell you what pilots are saying when they're seeing these things, they're maneuverable. We don't know who's operating them. So yeah, that issue of crossfire is. a big deal. Have you heard any rumors about Russia having a plane chasing a UFO and the plane crashing? I mean, in recent times. Yeah. You're going to push on that. And you know the same thing as me. But yes, we have heard that there was a recent downing of a Russian craft in pursuit. Well, we don't have enough info to really report it just yet. I don't think, I don't think, I don't think, I don't think we do. I don't think we do. But it's something that has happened in the past, right? Yeah. Well, I can

tell you for sure. I mean, I've reported it about Russia, the Ministry Defense files that I obtained in the 90s. They had a standing policy to chase them, to intercept UFOs, to try to take them down. Colonel Boros Akalov had told me that it's part of that 10-year-long study that the Russians did of the UFO mystery, 40 different times they set warplanes after UFOs. 37 of those times, the UFOs just zipped away and were gone. But in three cases, the Russian warplanes crashed. Two of those pilots died. And after that, the order went out in Russia, leave them alone. Because in the words of General Igor Maltsev that commanded the Russian air defenses, the UFOs might have, quote, incredible capacities for retaliation. So they changed their policy about shooting down UFOs back in

the 90s. Yeah. I'll tell you one last thing that I found interesting. There's no coordinated way to really deal with UAP incursions when it comes to like our ships. Back in 2019, out of all the ships, there was another set of information that I got where one of the ships, one of the captains, I guess, was thinking about firing. I don't know what you call it. Is it the Gatling gun or something? The thing that shoots all the metal? And then we had some craft.

We had some of our craft in the sky. And so everybody was like freaking out. Like, is he actually going to fire this crazy weaponry when we have planes in the sky? So it just showed that we don't have a consistent way to deal with the UAP issue with these swarms. And I think we got a long way to go to figure out what these are, who's these are. Well, I mean, the policy might change from place to place, too. I mean, for a long time, we didn't know about any UAP shootdowns over the U.S. We had three of them, certainly.

And something changed, and we shot down three of them. We haven't heard about any other ones being shot down domestically. But you can imagine that your policy might be different if you're in a conflict zone. When you're on edge, there's a possibility of terrorist attacks, Hamas, Hezboa, something like that. Yeah. That might be different. You make a really good point.

It's depending on proximity and what's going on. That's why off the coast of California, we were a little bit more observational because we are in our own waters, right? So, yeah, there would be a very different response. But typically it's, we shoot the electromagnetic warfare stuff. We try to down these things absolutely ineffective every time. That's scary. That tells us, yeah.

Either it's a foreign threat and we need a new anti- satellite anti-dron system or is something completely alien. Is it true? I don't know, but I saw that one of the things that Dr. Carpatrick said in kind of his, as he's exiting, is he said something like there's two options that what we're seeing is either, you know, some kind of foreign technology or it's aliens. Did he actually? I actually thought that that was a very positive thing because it essentially takes one option off the table. I don't know if he intended to do it, but he said, it's either alien or it's a foreign power. But he takes off the third option, which is it's us, a secret program that we're developing.

Wow. That seems to me to be, that's progress, whether he intended it that way or not. Yeah. Well, the 2019 was ruled out for sure it's not us. So it leaves a couple very interesting options, both of which are frightening. No one goes to Hank's for his spreadsheets. They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet.

So Hank decides to bring back the $1.00 slice. He asks Copilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs. Help him see if he can afford it. Co-pilot shows Hank where the money's going and which little extras make the dollar slice work. Now, Hank says, line out the door. Hank makes the pizza. Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365Copilot.com slash work.

So anyway, I just wanted to bring this case, you know, to people's minds and kind of provide that information that in the main media, you get one story, just like you were saying back in the 60s, we became abundantly aware that that is not the story internally, that UAP are not being identified, that sometimes they're just being ignored because they're not on mission, and there's a lot of frustration within people that are out there and people that are engaging these. Maybe, you know, people are frustrated. Like, there's an influx of UAP was the point that was conveyed to us. There's an influx of UAP, and we're not handling it well.

Well, if there was a headline from this, it maybe is not this drone shootdown. Maybe that's not the headline. The headline for me would be, CENTCOM has been experiencing this for 15 years. Right. And they're sitting on that information. They don't know what to do with it. Right, right. So, yeah.

It's huge. It is huge. And we know that publicly people say things like the UK government will say, you know, we've stopped studying UFOs because they don't pose any direct threat. you know, to us. I don't know how they come to that determination. And then there is a bonafide UAP out, you know, over Syria, and they decide it's hostile and shoot at it. They call it a drone, but it is clearly defined and designated UAP in all the documentation that we are aware of. We would like to be able to be in a position where we had that documentation and could share it

with the world. We can't do that. We're just not in a position. We can share that photo. That's as far as we can go. But other people can find it. Yeah, yeah. And that people in Congress can find it. For sure. Yeah. And the image, you know, as coming to us, just as a sole thing, there's nothing that gives me pause to, you know, showing that. But also, it would not be morally or ethically correct if there was sensitive information for us to just dump that out into the public. But this is, this is a case that I think people need to look at and they need to, both of the ones that we mentioned today, they need to look at and start asking questions to start trying to get more information about them because we are not being. being told the truth through the media when there's a shoot at something like this. One last thing. Yeah.

A moment of silence for Sean Kirkpatrick who's leaving Arrow. You read this? I have read this. I think we reported this four months ago that he was leaving at the year. We did. And now he's finally leaving. And, of course, the Pentagon put out some weasel word statement in the days before. Oh, no, we can't say that he's taking a job at Oak Ridge.

You know, two days later they have to say, yeah, he did. He's leaving to take this job. He says he's accomplished everything he set out to do in his long 18-month tenure at Arrow, that long-historic career at Arrow and is moving along. But on the way out, he said some things about Dave Grush. Yeah. That sounded mildly encouraging that they're investigating some things. They've confirmed some of what Grush has alleged, apparently, even though supposedly

they've never talked to Dave Grush. They've invited him to speak to him allegedly multiple times, and he's blown them off. What do you think about that? Yeah, I mean, well, David Gresh is still going through his ICIG, you know, process right now. They, Arrow could just go to the ICIG and get all that information. I am, I am sure now that Dr. Capacic is out. But why? Also, here's a deal.

He slammed him. When he testified in front of Congress, you got a whistleblower who's putting himself out there at personal risk. And then you get Dr. Capacrackx slamming him. I am glad that he is removed and that there will be somebody else in there. I don't know if that's going to write the ship for Arrow. I don't know if that's going to change the function of arrow, but I do think that his parting words, that some of what David Grush has said has been verified that those meetings actually happened. That was an interesting way to walk out of, about to walk out of your position, wasn't it?

Yeah. Also, Kirkpatrick dropped a hint that he's about to debunk or explain a transmedium instance. I have to believe, my guess it's going to be the USS Omaha Splash. flash flash video that we really reel to the public. You think maybe it's Aguadilla? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, so it'll be so interesting to see if they have found a solution to these transmedium cases. Because it really seems to be they're trying to find all these ways to pacify the American public.

I would have better hopes than that. But if they actually found an answer, let's say, to the Omaha, that would be truly fascinating because a lot would have to be admitted if they decide they come to an explanation. Yeah, I would think if they come up with an explanation that it didn't really go into the water, that's not debunking the strange anomalous nature of the larger encounter. That thing, that Omaha thing was, what, 12, 14 feet wide, a circle, no wings, no, no, no, there are tons of them. The thing is I just don't, I know that's what you're thinking is that that's the case they're going to. Yeah, if they can say it didn't really go to the water, therefore it's not a UAP.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I just don't think that they, because that would stir up so many more people coming forward, to provide more information about what happened. And look, we're all looking for answers. Like, you know, one of my friends said to me, if it was U.S., embarrassing, if it was China or Russia that operated these units, scary. And if it's something else, interesting. So, I mean, it's like a funny way to say it.

The thing is, I think they'll probably look at the Aguadilla case because that one is very, there's a lot of kind of fight over what actually happened in that footage. and it was recently released through Border Patrol, Customs of Border Patrol, even though it had been out for like a long time. So I don't know, man. Look, I hope Arrow gives more answers to the American public that are genuine and correct. But the misleading of how things are reported through the military to go to the papers,

to go out to the media, you know, just hostile adversarial drone. When you're saying something completely different inside, that UAPs are real, they're important. We don't know who operate them. And sometimes we shoot at them and this information is no longer going where it needs to go because there's such an abundance. See, that's the thing. The two things about these cases, Japan, 2021, it was happening so much as like a desensitization. Now, think about that. If you're having this happen and there's a desensitization on how to handle these.

Oh, yeah, mystery drone. Yeah, pay no attention to it. That puts us at risk, right? And then same thing. in this conflict area and over Syria and Iraq, if there's a desensitization to reporting, or if you're just, you know, it's a big problem, in my opinion. Well, Dr. Kripatrick is leaving Arrow. We don't know exactly who the permanent replacement will be.

We've heard some names kicked around. Yeah. It's got to get better. It can't possibly be worse. I mean, you know, Arrow's created. It's now got a mechanism where whistleblowers who work and have knowledge of government programs, even special access programs, supposedly can share that information. Were I a whistleblower in a sensitive position and I would be risking maybe going to prison for sharing classified info?

I'm not sure that I would take up Arrow and report through their new online form. I'm not sure I would trust them. They're not even allowed to accept any of that classified information. The whole reason it was set up, right? They're not even allowed to get that online. So it is a conundrum, but at least we know there is a process people are using that, you know, they are putting formal complaints into the ICIG. Our friend Chuck McCullough, who's the former Intelligence Community Inspector General, I think he was the first one ever. He has taken on from what we understand some of these clients, I guess, and officially... In addition to Dave Grush, he's representing some other people. Yeah, more than a handful of what I understand. Yeah. So hopefully that process will bring forward what

everybody's looking for, which is, let's find out if this is true. And the legislation, let's not forget that. If the legislation, which is soon, it's got to be determined soon. If they can shake up some of these private industry that are holding these materials and crap, then it's a new era. It's a new day. Well, it's the era of transparency, Jeremy. That's what we hear from our government. That's the spokesperson for the DOD says it's an era of transparency. So we can trust what they say, except when it comes to shoot downs, of course. Inch by inch, life's a cinch. Yard by yard, life is hard.

We got to keep pushing, trying to find out more information, but we thought this was a worthy case, the juice is worth the squeeze. It is good we show this image, and it's good we alert people that they were told one thing, but internally in the intelligence community and in the department of defense, it's another. So weaponized listeners and watchers, go at it, go after it. We've given you some information, go chase it. Yeah, I love that.

We need help, man. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Never. So few, has so much to tell, but could say so little. Following this and a webinar, presentation of Jeremy Corbelle, George Knapp, Dark Course Entertainment, Cadence 13 Studios, available now for free on the Odyssey app or wherever you get your shows.