WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - The "Young Guns" Of UFOlogy + 2024 Year In Review - Guests: Ryan Robbins & Joe Murgia & Danny Silva

Episode Date: December 31, 2024

In the final WEAPONIZED episode of 2024, Jeremy and George are joined by three well-known citizen journalists to review the stories, successes, and failures of UFO-related developments of the past twelve months. The "Young Guns" of Ufology include Joe Murgia (UFO Joe), Ryan Robbins (aka UFO Jesus), and Danny Silva (Silva Record), each of who shared comments and opinions about the ongoing incursions by mystery drones, dismissive disinformation by AARO and its former leader, the lack of transparency from DOD, threats to potential whistleblowers and witnesses, and highly curious skullduggery behind the November Congressional hearing. In this free-wheeling conversation, panelists mention their favorite moments, deepest disappointments, best books, and what they look forward to seeing in 2025. ••• Check out the reporting of the UFO “YOUNG GUNS” here…  Ryan Robbins (aka UFO Jesus) x.com/PostDisclosure and Youtube.com/PostDisclosureWorld Joe Murgia x.com/TheUfoJoe and UFOjoe.net Danny Silva aka x.com/SilvaRecord and SilvaRecord.com ••• Watch the three-part UFO docuseries titled UFO REVOLUTION on TUBI here : tubitv.com/series/300002259 Watch Knapp's six-part UFO docuseries titled ALIEN INVESTIGATION on NETFLIX here : netflix.com/title/81674441 ••• 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 WeaponizedPodcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this shell will get a $75-sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. 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. In this week's episode of Weaponized. The Federal Aviation Administration has now issued bans on flying drones in multiple cities across New Jersey. I don't know what to make of the entire drone situation because what I do know is that people defending our critical infrastructure. constructs of mine, I guess, aerodynamic craft drones that are coming over some of our sensitive installations. However, it is reported to me that they are filming non-aerodynamic, like really non-erodynamic shaped objects.

You know, we've heard from pretty reliable people, Jeremy and I, that there have been all manner of mechanisms and systems that have been used and aimed at drones over different military bases, and none of them have worked. George, you've spoken about it, and it's the most controversial aspect of this. Mimicry. And Eric Davis wrote up an article about it, a paper about it for NIDS, talking about the Cash Landrum case where he didn't believe they were actually helicopters. They were actually U, N.H.I.

mimicking helicopters. I think the phenomenon for 80-plus years has been engaging in plausible deniability. Some people perceive this as just happenstance. Oh, it's just coincidental. It's just the propulsion system. But if you really look at the full array of UFO history, it seems to me that there's some kind of social engineering going on. It has been going on for decades.

There's internal communications, and there seems to be a tapering off. It's as if it's just going to stop, and then we've been conditioned again, and then we're just going to wake up after the new year and be like, well, that was weird. Secrets, cover-ups, and strange phenomena. UFOs and ideas that challenge reality itself. All these mysteries, all these. 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. End of 2024, a tumultuous year. I'm George Knapp, joined by Jeremy Corbelle. Jeremy, how's your holidays going? It's pretty great, man. I've got one ornament, and it's a flying saucer. It's disco, loo. looking, it's pink, and it's hanging on a cactus. I got a CIA globe for the Christmas tree because, you know, you and I do work for CIA, steep cover guys. That's what we've heard many times.

2024 was a pretty tumultuous year for this topic, and we thought we'd do a sort of an end of the year wrap up, what was big, what was significant, what was ridiculous during the course of the year, and what might be coming in 2025. And we've invited some friends of ours, very astute observers, the UFO scene. We used to call them the young guns. That was years ago. I'm not sure they're young guns anymore.

What do you think? Yeah, look, it's always exciting to have these guys on. They really have voices in this community, and they kind of take very different perspectives. So we're talking about Ryan from Post-Disclosure World. Ryan Robbins, a UFO Jesus, right? UFO Jesus. And he's always got this really cool and very positive perspective.

I like the way that he deals with, conflict. We then also have Danny Silva from Silver Record. He's kind of been quiet for the last year or so by design. I think Danny, who's a good soul, a good observer of the topic, feels guilty when he comes down too hard on people. So he's just kind of resisted. You can't help but do that sometimes in UFO world, as you know. The third guy is Joe, Mercia, UFO Joe, who was a prolific writer, puts out these gigantic synopsies and collections of material on different topics via X and Twitter really does some good in-depth work and catches a lot of grief, of course, because of it.

Yeah, well, you said to me the other day, like he says it as he sees it. And you get some stuff in trouble sometimes for saying it as he sees it. But I do appreciate that. It's very raw, straightforward. And you better remember what it is you said verbatim because Joe's always in there getting your exact words being like, this is what he said. and sometimes you got to explain yourself further when you didn't want to. Yeah.

Did I say that, really? Yeah, I know. I know. Yeah, he holds your feet to the fire for sure. All three of them do in different kinds of ways, you know. So we've been in contact with them for a long time. We have our own separate dialogue that goes on about different issues and controversies and personalities. What we thought this year may be a good time to bring them on and kind of recap what had happened in the past 12 months.

Yeah, I think that's great. So we're going to have them on. Do you want to talk a little bit about what we saw happen go down in 2024 before they come on? Yeah, I think we should sort of lay the groundwork for what you thought. What was the most significant development of 2024 in your mind? I mean, there was a bunch, man. But I think for me and you, it was at the beginning of the year in 2024. We obtained and released what is now known as like the jellyfish UAP.

And that was a heavy lift to get that out. It took years for us to make sure that that was. actual video. We're not like digital experts, right? So it's like making sure that when we get obtain information, it takes us time to make sure that it is legitimate, that there's people that saw it on base. So the jellyfish UAP, we released that. And what was interesting about that is that it was the first time that the world is seeing a designated UAP that is moving. It's actually a secret base within a base. It was in Iraq. And it was, it was, it was, it was, It was a CIA base.

And there was an aerostat, which is something that like hovers in the air is tethered. And it had this really cool thermal camera on. And you and I saw it were like, this is the weirdest UAP designated by our intelligence agencies, not by us. UAP footage we'd ever seen. It looked like a jellyfish. I'd heard about it for decades, you know, this idea that there's like this jellyfish UAP. We'd never seen anything like that. So that was kind of, for me, it was a cool moment in UAP history.

And it made a big splash. I mean, literally and figuratively made a splash in UFO world, hotly debated. I think, you know, everybody tried pretty much everything to dismiss it. It's a glob of something. It's bird shit on the lens. It's balloons. You know, the argument about whether there is actual footage that the public has not seen yet or not, that went on. And people tried to dismiss it all kinds of ways.

It's not balloons. It's not bird poop. and it is a genuine UAP as determined by our military, not by us, correct? Yeah, and that's the thing. Like, we needed to get a lot of background on this. So I made sure numerous people that we were in contact with had seen it. One actually came forward after, you know, saying, oh, yeah, we called it the spaghetti monster on days.

But yeah, it's not an artifact of the lens. It is not, if anybody has ever seen, I mean, who has seen balloons through infrared. But if you've seen that before, it's absolutely not. The debunkers try to do that. It kind of looks like this, and they put this digital diagram together of balloons and how it could look. It's total nonsense. So there was more pushback than that, though. Look, at this base, they filmed this thing. It was the first time in the basis history that's known where a UAP is filmed or anything is filmed and under armed escort, the client who would have been CIA at the time, come in

and they take under armed guard. They take the original footage. And additionally, they don't sign out for it. And that was reported by multiple individuals who are aware of that case. but the thing is it was piped in to the control center. So obviously, as it was piped in, there were people recording that. And I think that's how that imagery sustained, even though they tried to clean it up. Now, what it is?

Well, the reason it struck a chord with me is because we became aware that at Pantex, that there was this, which is a nuclear armament and disarmament site, that there was something that almost identically looks like this object. And there is footage of that. We can't obtain that's from a nuclear site. We can never put it out. But there is footage. I can testify to that.

And that was back years, years, years before. So it's just really interesting that we got that out, that people tried to dismiss it so much. And it maintains itself as one of the greatest, in my eyes, pieces of footage of a UAP designated by our military. Yeah, the attempts at debunking it were pretty funny sometimes. You know, it's bird poop. But, you know, there have been analyses done of this thing.

close up, it rotates like this. It's not bird poop. You know, it moves like that. And a move through those, that base, people didn't see it. It was at nighttime. It is dark out there. And plus, this thing is basically invisible, correct? Yeah, well, that was the weird thing too. So when it went up, when the footage went up from the aerostat and it went into the control center, they actually tasked a team of people with NVG's night vision goggles, which is just infrared. It's kind of different than the thermal cameras. And they couldn't see it. They knew exactly where. it was because it was being traced by the by the aerostat also some of the operators aerostat said this the first time we couldn't lock on to something you know they didn't know

if it's active jamming or what but basically they couldn't target it except optically and that's the first time they said we could shoot out an al-Qaeda tire at 23 miles going at speed and this is the first time that we couldn't target it so it was a real mystery at the base there might be more we'll learn about that I hope so as I've said before there is footage of it going into the water, going under the water for about 17 minutes, and coming back out again, and it's pretty extraordinary. The thing is, is that once we notified Arrow, you and I notified everybody in the world that this footage exists, I'll tell you this, that people don't know, which is that

that footage was then collected at high-res, and it was posted onto R-space, which is a community in a restricted space on classified servers. it was posted with two other videos, as well with the year-end review by Arrow. So it was under the Arrow account in R-space. And now you've got maybe a couple thousand people that can look at this. And every single person that has been able to look at that,

that has contacted me, is like, oh, you were right. I was like, right about what? And they're like, that's not balloons. I said, I know. The thing is, they only showed it transiting the basis. It's 1.4 gigabytes, high resolution on this classified server, apparently, and everybody looked at it, said that it stops before it leaves the base and goes out over the lake, goes in, and comes back out.

So I find it really bizarre. The arrow would obtain the original footage. Of course, I'm not going to put it out publicly. But then cut it, cut that footage to show the intelligence community. And there's something more sinister. If my sources are correct, then underneath those three videos, underneath the year in review, there's a half a page. And that half page is warning the intelligence community that anybody that went to Arrow can no longer be trusted because they broke NDAs. And I found that to be extremely sinister because what you're doing is you're telling the intelligence community, anybody that could talk with journalists or something like that.

And you're like, no, no, no, we told you to come to us. But now that you have, you can't be trusted. That's as sinister as it gets. So toward the end of the year, in an attempt to debunk the jellyfish video, somebody comes forward and says, she worked for UAPTF. She was a key member of UAPTF, the UAP task force. She was a key staffer, maybe the, and one report, she was the manager of UAPTF. And boy, we looked at that jellyfish video, we dismissed that whole thing. We debunk the whole thing long ago.

Well, that's total bullshit, because we know when people associated with the task force got it. It was after they left the task force. They saw it a year later. We wanted to get their impression of it. And we showed it to them. You can guess who they are in a hotel room long after they left the service. UAPTF did not have that video. They did not analyze it.

We can get into a whole discussion about whether the person in question ever actually worked for UAPTF or was an associate or had something to do with it. But there was no debunking of the jellyfish video. That's crap. But there was an interesting attempt to dismiss. wasn't it? Yeah. So that, unfortunately, that was Sarah Gam, and it really took me by surprise because I'd met her and, you know, she, we communicated some, but she's straight up lied. And it was so bizarre to me, she could have called me, could have texted me. The claim she made was that UAPTF had resolved the jellyfish UAP case that she was part of the analysis team.

And we know that's bullshit because we did show it to the top dogs of UAPTF after UAPTF ended. and they had never seen it before. We showed them in a hotel room in Huntsville, Alabama. And so we know that's a false claim that this was never analyzed by UAPTF in any way. They didn't have it. Arrow didn't have it until way later after our reporting and they obtained the original footage

but they only posted part of it. So it's very bizarre to me that somebody would make a verifiably false claim. And I could have jumped on the news and said, oh, that's complete bullshit. But I didn't. I was watching this to see, why would somebody do this? And then there was even stranger claim by Sarah.

And again, she should have just called me because I don't know why she'd go out and lie about this. She said, we know who leaked this. You know who leaked that? And that's a criminal matter. So that is, again, a fundamentally bullshit lie that maybe people, you know, will just pick up on online and try to, you know, massage that into some false reality. I don't know what's going on with that, but I do know it to be absolutely. fictitious, and that's very disappointing.

It's disappointing because our jobs as journalists are to inform the public about matters that we are for the public good and to attack something fictitiously like that. There's got to be a reason. I don't know. We'll have to figure that out later. Well, it seemed to me one possible guess that you and I kicked around in private was that maybe somebody was trying to goad us into reaching out with people who had maybe helped us obtain information, and then people could figure out if they're watching our phones or

email, they could figure out who we're talking to about this and identify them because they don't know who helped us get this information. So if that was the case, that was pretty devious. The larger question is the role of Arrow. You know, that was one of the biggest stories in my mind of 2024 is the Arrow report that came out in February of this year, which basically dismissed everything. It was a shoddy report full of typos, full of obvious historical errors about key cases, and it seemed to have been rushed out the door so that Sean Kirkpatrick, the outgoing head of Arrow, could go ahead and give the interviews that totally demolished the UFO topic. There's nothing to it.

There's no evidence of ETEs, which he did over and over again for months. By the end of the year, Arrow's attitude had changed quite a bit. A new guy in charge, Kozlowski, who is, again, he says, we got a lot of information. We've dismissed hundreds of these cases. but there are some that we cannot explain, for which we have a lot of really interesting information. We can't figure out the engineering of the physics of how these things move, which was a refreshing change from how the year began. The whole attitude expressed by Kirkpatrick and so many of these interviews that he gave this year,

I hope is something we can get into with the young guns, but that arrow, the change in attitude at arrow, I think was important. And then in reference to what you had to say about what its mission was, you know, the year before, Arrow had said, look, come one, come all, all you whistleblowers, we want to hear from you. Tell us the evidence you've got. If you saw these things while you're on the inside, if you're working class-o-eyed projects, we want to hear about it. They invite all these people in. They take the testimony. They record this stuff, and then they dismissed it magically with a wave of their hand as if they didn't believe any of it. All those witnesses who came forward, putting their careers, their clearances in risk, and felt like they had been totally duped.

Was it a counterintelligence operation? Was that the purpose of this is to invite people in and find out where the leaks are, where the risks are? What do you think? Yeah, man, I think this is extremely dangerous. And I'm glad we're talking about this right before we bring our guests on because I've noticed something. You know, look, Project Blue Book was a whitewash. It was trying to get everybody to think everything was swamp gas. That was the mission of it.

Jayon Hynek talked about that. This is like Operation Blue Box. They're trying to like pretend. that you can go to Arrow, there won't be penalties. That's false. I know that now. They're also saying that they're going to take you seriously. Well, the problem they have is that you and I have been reported to by a lot of these whistleblowers

before they went to Arrow. So they come back to us and they say, this is how we were treated. This is what happened. They never mentioned the stuff that we reported to them. Or they told us to shut up, can't talk to Congress unless you have a subpoena. I think it's extremely dangerous to give any merit or credit to Arrow now, moving forward just because they have a new director, you could see this person managed by the people around him in the senatorial hearing. It's not even a hearing. They're not under oath and they're not

asking any hard questions. So I'd be very careful. I think this is of high danger to whistleblowers. Remember, in Senate, when they were asked, when the new head of error was asked, what is it you need? Do you need more authority? Do you need more money? No, we just need you to get whistleblowers to trust us. Well, if you were trustworthy, then whistleblowers would trust you. But we've got an army of people that have come back and said that you screwed them over. So look, a poor guy, he's in the blue box, man. He's supposed to come to these determined things, bait everybody a little bit saying, we're going to do better now.

We're going to earn your trust. No, it's not how it works. You've got to earn the trust. Then people will come to you. So I'm very skeptical. I think our roles have reversed, George. I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt. People should be aware, and they should be very,

thoughtfully concerned about going to Arrow. I think it's better to do it the hard way. Go to journalists, go to other people. It's bullshit what they're doing. Yeah, as we've discussed in public in the past year or two, you know, we're in touch with a lot of people that would be classified as whistleblowers who want to share information but are scared. They're really scared of Arrow now. They've seen what's happened to other people who've come forward, including some of them who went ahead and testified, and they're screwed. Now, they They know that they weren't taken seriously, that now they've been identified that there's a file somewhere with their name on it and don't know what's going to happen. But they know that their employer holds their security clearance over their head, the possibility of taking the clearance away, taken away their livelihood, and maybe sending them to prison.

People think that's not going to happen. It isn't real. Well, it's real to them. You know, the threat is real to them. Yeah. And I think without revealing too much, I think the goons that are trying to harass up. whistleblowers, you and I get images of what happens in their personal life. And I don't want to say too much about it. But, you know, we are tracking. George and I are tracking the threats, the overt

and covert threats that are going on to some of these people. And it's pretty messed up. So I just want to put it out there that if we see people come forward in 2025, which I know we will, and I hope we'll see more, you know, their protection is to really be loud and to get out there because we are tracking the shenanigans. Well, there's some other things coming in 2025. We'll talk about that on the other end. I think maybe we bring in our guests, our young guns, panelists, and talk to them now. Yeah, we've said who they are, but give me one more time.

Who's coming on, George? Ryan Robbins, better known as AKA UFO Jesus, who finds goodwill on earth and a humility among men and women in UFO world, which is hard to do, hard to do. He always looks for the positive angle. UFO Joe, Joe Mercia, who writes these gigantic synopsies and stories on X. And then Danny Silva of the Silver Record, a great, always behind the scenes observer and analysis of motives and things of that sort. I think those guys are probably coming on right now. All right, young guns, not so young guns.

Let's start it off. 2024. UFO, Joe, what's the big story to you that jumps out? So. No one goes to Hank's first spreadsheets. They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet. So Hank decides to bring back the $1 slice.

He asks Copilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs to 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 has a line out the door. Hank makes the pizza. Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365Copilot.com slash work.

I want to follow up what you guys were talking. talking about and Koslowski. And there's some good and some not so good. So, yeah, I was skeptical, even though I believe Jay Strideon came out and said that he did some work for the UAP task force, good guy. I'm like, okay, that's encouraging. Recently, in this story, may have flew under the radar a little bit. Recently, James Fox said that he was in a skiff looking for a video related to a missile

launch from 1960. I think it was. Not the Bob Jacobs launched 64. Not the Bob Jacobs launch, but there's supposedly another missile launch video that has UFOs circling around it. So he was, I won't go into the details of that, but then he said he ran into Kozlowski.

And Kozlowski said, if you're going to work at Arrow, James, it's mandatory that you watch the phenomenon. So that's encouraging. And he was excited, Kuzlowski was excited about the Rua case in Zimbabwe with the children. And he said, oh, yeah, all those children saying the same thing.

Very encouraging. But then he said, Kuzlowski looked at him and said, James, I can't part my hair without the DOD's approval. And you can quote me on that. So that's pretty, you know, it's encouraging to see the positivity and the openness. But then he's willing to admit and tell Fox, you can share that. He's basically saying, everybody, listen, I could do whatever. I could try my best, but it's not coming out. not coming out.

I thought that was the overwhelming message of the Arrow report that came out in February. You know, what I got out of that was what you guys got as well is we're never going to come clean on this stuff. Maybe it was Kirkpatrick's imprint on Arrow at the time, but saying that we've explained all this stuff, the only reason why we can't debunk all cases is because some of them we don't have enough information, but there's no proof of ET's technology, no proof of ETs and all. and the whole thing is basically, according to him, a waste of time. That was a message coming. It's why they seemingly rushed that report so much with all the typos and historical errors.

But the message from that to me was, we are never going to come clean on this. Is that how you guys saw it? Yes, absolutely. Brian, why don't you jump in to tell us what your big story the year was or what jumps out at your first? Well, I'll just say that, you know, there's rumors. of Kirkpatrick had an advisory board. He won't come clean on it. It was claimed that Glenn Gaffney

was the director of the CIA's science and technology thwarted a transfer of non-human materials to OSAP. And what I find interesting is that Sean Kirkpatrick is still at it. I think an article dropped today in Scientific American where he just had to chime in about the drones. This guy just doesn't go away. It's like, I thought you were the head of Arrow for a confined period of time, but he can't help himself. He keeps coming out about, you know, he keeps wanting to diminish and downplay the UFO phenomena.

It's really bizarre. It's, the optics are horrible. It makes him look guilty. It makes him look like he's part of a greater effort to diminish the UFO topic. It's like, I thought you were, wasn't Arrow's charter to bring clarity about UFOs and have an honest approach to the topic. But this guy just doesn't go away. He keeps talking about UFOs and diminishing it every chance he gets. I mean, it's like right out of a movie script. But beyond that, I'll just say that I think that the story that's taking the media by storm, of course, is the

drones. And to me, what you cannot ignore is how we're getting so many mixed messages by our officials. In fact, I captured this that I'd like to share. John, Kirby recently said, and I quote, now there have been some drone sightings. I think, as you know, over some military bases, we're obviously looking at that, but that is a different category. And DOD has different authorities to deal with that. How is that a different category? Are these drones spontaneously emerging over these military bases? Don't they have to traverse a certain amount of distance to get to those military bases? It's not a different category. People might be seeing these drones on their way to the military bases that even Kirby,

finally admits is happening, but it's a different category. So I think the drone story right now has gotten the most coverage of all. So I guess that's the biggest story of the year. Before we leave Kirkpatrick, just mentioning this is how thin skinned he came across. These reactions he had on social media platforms, his own personal social media platforms where he was reacting late at night to some slight that appears on X or on Facebook. Facebook, how incredibly thin skin the guy was for the job that he had. Any thoughts on that? I was, you know, one of the things, and I know other people heard it too, before he even took, as soon as he took the position, somebody told him, they said, yeah, I know him, big time narcissist.

And to see Kozlowski say, my hands are tied, well, Kirkpatrick's hands were probably tied to, but the difference between the two is one of them is an arrogant prick. And we know who that is. Danny Silva, what was your big story of the year? The biggest story, I think, clearly was the drones. It's made it through mainstream media. It's made it all over the world. It's much bigger than the hearing was than Constellation. That story.

It was bigger than Luz's book. It just made it into the mainstream now. Some people may say that it's not a UFO story, but I would say it is. I think the UFO community can feel good that they've been ahead of the curve on this, whether there are UFOs present in New Jersey and in these other places.

UFO community has been harping on this for decades and decades. So we can't rule it out just because of all those claims from the years. Most of them obviously are misidentifications and there are drones. There's probably hobbyist drones and then government drones,

maybe all of the above. I really like people like you guys who are kind of saying, I'm not exactly sure what's going on. I get a little turned off and scared a little bit when someone says they're sure, and we've seen a lot of that reporting where everyone is sure what's going on. That's kind of odd to me.

So that was the biggest story. And then the hearings were obviously big too, but nothing has hit like the drones have. I think Glenn Gaffney getting named was pretty interesting. Obviously, that stayed in, mostly in the UFO world. And some of these other stories we're talking about really didn't make it out of the UFO world.

But the drones are big now, and especially with the new president coming in, they're going to have to deal with this or they're going to look really bad. Hey, Jeremy, I want to get you to chime in on this too. Arrow, I was told this, and I don't know if you've heard the same thing, but I was told that Arrow is not involved

with studying these drones over the mass sightings that we're seeing, including over like Langley. They're not looking at it because, in their view, These are UAS, not UAP. How would you react to that if it, in fact, is confirmed that Arrow is not even looking at the drones? Yeah. I don't know what to make of that.

I don't know what to make of the entire drone situation because what I do know is that people defending our critical infrastructure contacts of mine, not source, it's just context, people that I speak with that are on the ground, that are filming and flare, There are very prosaic in one way, I guess, aerodynamic craft drones that are coming over some of our sensitive installations. However, it is reported to me that they are filming non-aerodynamic, like really non-erodynamic shaped objects coming in and out of the water. So in that area in New Jersey, particularly, before going over nuclear sites, things coming up out of the water with stationary cameras that are protecting those.

sites, really high quality, lifting up, coming out, hovering over the base, loitering for hours at a time, that's got to be of interest to Arrow if they're really looking at this. But we've already established there's something corrupt and rotten with Arrow. So I don't really know what that means, George, that they're studying it, not studying it. I just know that haven't you guys heard, like the thermal signatures of even the traditional drones or things that, they're size of SUVs? But the thermal signatures aren't quite right for normal propulsion. Have you guys, the guns?

Have you heard that in popular media? I haven't heard that, but I like what James Fox said about Arrow. It's the All-Domain Resolution Office. What are they trying to do? They're trying to resolve events. So if there are drones that they can't figure out, they know that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who's on the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee,

she recently spoke about the Langley 17-day incursion from December 2023. and she would know, right, she's on these committees. She's not someone to make stuff up. According to the people that have briefed her, radar wasn't even able to detect these UAPs. So I can see why Arrow has no interest in it because they can't resolve it. That's not what they're about.

So if they can't resolve it, they just don't really care about the drones. I mean, the other thing I noticed, George, is there was a mayor that came forward did this really long threat. I wonder if you guys have read about it, but it's Mayor Ryan Hurd. And he says the drone

they don't want you to solve. And if I summarize kind of what he said was he was working with the governor. He's like, look, I have friends in the tech industry that deal with drones. They're bringing in all of these anti-dron technologies, which they've tried to deploy and have been ineffective. So everybody's like, well, you can't shoot these down over popular areas. We know they're going at least over the water, if not in and out, which I do know as a fact, but some of them are. But we've tried to deter these drones. The thing is he went saying, you know, you're trying to deter like type 1 and type 2 drones, like basically DJI small drones.

That's like Ghostbusters and stuff. That's what they use is like normal drones that could have payloads. These are large, I think they call them type 3, type 4 drones. So this mayor kind of went off. He's like, I gave the DoD the opportunity for us to bring in technology from a friend of mine and be able to assess and determine where they're coming from point of origin. And we could take these down if necessary. These are technologies deployed overseas.

when we're in combat and the FBI and also the DOD itself was just like, don't need your help. Now, why would they do that? I'm so confused about this. Here's a mayor from the New Jersey area who's saying, I have a solution for you.

And the DOD is like, nope, don't need it. I just don't understand it. The drone fear is real right now, and I'm noticing that even locally. Apparently there was an accident from hobby drones, or not even the hobby ones, the performance drones. I think it was in Florida where two of them crashed

and someone get injured when they hit the ground. Dallas, where I'm from, are in the area. Now they've canceled their drone show on New Year's because they're worried about drones crashing and hitting the crowd. So this is a real fear that's going on, and these are performance drones, let alone, you know, government and mystery drones. You know, we've heard from pretty reliable,

people, Jeremy and I, that there have been all manner of mechanisms and systems that have been used and aimed at drones over different military bases, and none of them have worked. And if that's true, I mean, that's pretty scary. You got the UK bases, three or four of them that were inundated with these things night after night, and then poof, they all went away. We were told by our colleague Chris Sharp that they threw everything at them that they had and they couldn't bring them down. Now, whether or not it's a good idea to bring drones down, I think there's a legitimate point to be made there. You don't know where the debris is going to land, whether it's going to bunk somebody in the head and prompt a bunch of lawsuits. But at a minimum, if these

things are undetectable over our military bases, places like Langley or Lake and Heath, we don't see them coming in. We can't track them when they leave. At a minimum, it has exhibited or demonstrated a real weakness in our national security apparatus that we can't see these things coming in, whoever they're from. If these are Chinese drones or Russian drones or Iranian drones from a mothership, that's a pretty serious matter. More serious maybe than if it's aliens, NIH, something like that. But if we can't track them and we can't bring them down, that's a pretty glaring weakness. Secondly, you know, the idea that Arrow is not studying them because they seem more like UAS, not UAP, another weakness if they can't decide who needs to be the point man in figuring out

where these things are coming from. You know, there are a lot of arguments you can make about whether we could shoot one down or not. I'm not sure we have the capability of bringing them down. And no matter where they're from or who's flying them, that's a pretty serious lapse in our national security apparatus, don't you think? Jeremy?

Yeah, I mean, we do have the ability to take down any kind of traditional drone that's in the air. We have electromagnetic capability. We can take them down. This is a proven tactic overseas. So the fact, you know, This is such bullshit.

The idea that like, oh, we're so worried about where they're going to crash. Again, they're going out over the water and coming back. That is documented. You can take them down. The fact they're not or they can't, that that's fascinating to me. But it is more dangerous to have SUV size unknowns that can hover over nuclear facilities, nuclear energy facilities and our critical infrastructure. These things could have a payload.

So it makes zero sense. me anything of that size can carry a payload. You can take a DJI drone, strapped bombs, it's done all the time in the Middle East. People have to defend this every day. They shoot the little ones down all the time with the Ghostbuster and this kind of thing. They have actually better technology overseas when they're defending bases. We're talking about American soil. It makes zero sense that you would allow something with unknown potential payloads to fly over populated areas. You take that down. You take it down. You take it down. That's part of the way that we defend the United States of America.

This does not make sense unless they already know who these are and where they're coming from. And they're just not telling us, confusing us, and want us to be a little panic. Well, according to a threat, right, go ahead. I was just going to say, according to Trump and, you know, take that for what you will, he said that we do know where they are. We know where they're coming from. We know where they're going. So he also explicitly said something strange is going on. And he said, if this was a foreign government, we, we've.

you blast them, he said. So he basically said, A, it's strange. B, it's not a foreign government, but he wouldn't answer whether he's been briefed on it or not. So I don't know what to make of that. But what I would like the DOD to be asked is, okay, does China have technology that can evade detection the way these drones have done purportedly? And if not, then what's your best hypothesis on where they are coming from? I'd love that very, very simple question to be asked. Has anyone asked the DOD that? I want you in the White House press corps because I would like to know the answer to that.

And as far as shooting them down, you guys, somebody explained this to me because Ryan Graves also said, we've tried to take them down unsuccessfully. He didn't say if it was over a military base or not, but Wall Street Journal had an excellent article and it says, this is the reporter writing this, federal law prohibits the military from shooting down drones

near military bases in the United States, unless they pose an imminent threat. Ariel snooping doesn't qualify, though some lawmakers hope to give the military greater leeway, which Senator Gillibrand is trying, Senator Gillibrand is trying to do that with rules of engagement changes. So that's confusing to me.

What are the rules of engagement? What can and can they not do? The performance drones, there's huge crowds watching them. So if it's falling onto these big crowds, it's a lot different than over a base or in a field or over the ocean. I don't know what the excuse would be there.

Yeah, and Joe, I don't know the answer to that, but I'll tell you that the people that I directly speak with, I'll just say critical infrastructure, they're kind of laughing because they're saying, in the news, they're saying, don't worry. There's no problem. Yet there's an organization with the energy in New Jersey, and they're begging the FAA to put up flight restrictions

for national security. They initiated that. How many like 22 different areas were put under flight restriction until middle of this month or middle of January? So it's so funny they're saying in the news, don't worry. Nothing's a threat. But all the protocols and everybody that is tasked with identifying and protecting these bases, they're begging the FAA to shut down the airspace. So there is a problem.

This is a threat. It is a threat to have unidentified that large over any sensitive installation. that would affect, you know, like energy distribution or anything like that to the area. So it's just full of contradictions. Everything is full of contradictions. It's so frustrating. Regarding a threat. So, okay, these drones are not hovering over the White House shooting an energy beam

and obliterating it, like from Independence Day. They're not doing that. But they're over a sensitive basis, nuclear power plants, things of that sort. Yeah. It seems to be some kind of surveillance operation where it's gathering information for whom, for what? It seems to be that could be interpreted as, a threat. The next time they come back, they might be carrying biological weapons and spray that over the people in New Jersey. We don't know. But I would certainly think if I were in a military

position and these things were over these sensitive bases like Langley 17 days in a row, I'd consider it a potential threat and be curious about who's flying them and want to bring them down. The other part that is interesting to me is all these small town mayors and county sheriffs in New Jersey, who've never paid any attention to mystery objects in the sky, suddenly looking up and seeing these things. They're hearing from constituents. They've never engaged in arguments in UFO world, but they're suddenly saying, hey, there's something weird in the sky, and they've gone to the government,

and they've got the same treatment that we've all got from the federal government over the years. Nothing to see here move along, folks, and they're kind of pissed off about it. I hope that someone is doing some mass sociological study of how the public reacts to unknown objects in this guy day after day, week after week. I'm kind of glad that the public hasn't panicked. They're very intrigued by the whole thing

and they're ticked off that the feds are not being honest with them in sharing it. It's a real life sociological study of something unfolding now and we're doing pretty well. Humanity's doing pretty well with it. Yeah, and I would say that, I don't think the public believes what they're saying

because it's so illogical and irrational. They're saying it's not a threat okay so if I wake up in the morning and I notice muddy bootprints on my carpet I could say I have no evidence as a threat I'm gonna eat my cereal in field inner peace it's like no there's muddy boot prints on my carpet are you out of your mind I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna have a conyption but the national security apparatus is like yeah you know there's drones flying over installations but we have no evidence it's not a threat yeah you have no evidence it's not a you have no evidence that it is a threat either because you don't have an answer it could be go either way but but at the same time it's like it's like it's like it's not a threat it's like Like, isn't it inherently, isn't surveillance inherently a threat, at least on some level to national security? It's just pure gaslighting. And no one's really, the only people are buying it? Maybe are the officials telling lies. I don't know.

Maybe they talk themselves into it. But the public's not buying it because it's ridiculous. I just think they have no other. If they really, if they really do not know what some of these objects are, you're not getting get them to say, you know what, folks. These are a threat. Because they don't want to, they'll do the last. thing they want to do is free people out, whether it's China, Russia, or UNHI, they're not going to admit it no matter why. I mean, could you imagine Kirby going on and saying, yeah, we don't know,

and we're pretty worried that they may drop some anthrax on your house tonight. It's not going to say that. And one other thing, drones, George, you've spoken about it, and it's the most controversial aspect of this mimicry. And Eric Davis wrote an article about it, a paper about it for NIDS, talking about the Cash Landrum case where he didn't believe they were actually helicopters. They were actually U, N.H.I. mimicking helicopters. And I know that's really controversial

and it makes us look really bad to discuss it. Oh, what do you credit? That you can use that as an excuse for anything. Oh, is that airplane, a UFO? You know, but it seems like that. And you can't prove it, but John Keel wrote about it in his book, 1970 Operation Trojan Horse,

they could take on any shape form they want. If that's true, it'll be impossible for us to tell the difference between a real drone and a UAP. But I'm glad you did bring it up. And I know you've gotten a lot of flack for it, but it's the most interesting aspect of the story for me. I like to put it. Yeah, it comes with the territory. I did bring that up, the bi-directional mimicry. We build things that look like their craft.

They build things that look like ours. It confuses the whole topic and people think I'm bonkers because of it. they're not entirely off the mark with that comment. But it does happen. It has been explored by people a lot smarter than me over the years. And I think some of these drones might be that. I mean, whoever's flying them with lights on them, they either don't mind being seen or they want to be seen.

And either one of those are kind of frightening possibilities. I think the phenomenon for 80-plus years has been engaging in plausible deniability. Some people perceive this as just happenstance. oh, it's just coincidental. It's just the propulsion system. But if you really look at the full array of UFO history, it seems to me that there's some kind of social engineering going on. It has been going on for decades where it's almost like a fine tuning.

And I know the skeptists are going to come after me for this, but it's almost like a fine tuning. They want to reveal themselves to a certain extent so that it's in the zeitgeist. There's conversations about it. There's documentaries and books about it. There's mass sightings. many credible people seeing the same things, highly corroborated sightings going back decades. The government's shady is all hell about it, right? They give the impression that they're lying about the topic.

Even though many skeptics will admit there is a cover-up. It'll say, well, it's just advanced technology. It's not UFOs. It's not 90-minute intelligence. So, you know, I don't think it's far-fetched that some of these drones could be an attempt for the phenomenon just to keep the social engineering going. like they have because if you go back 70, 80 years, what is the statistical probability that there's never going to be a civilian that's going to get that smoking gun evidence that cannot be denied? Now, the skeptic will say the reason that doesn't exist

is because there are no UFOs, but I would disagree. I would say there's too much, there's too many patterns that have been solidified over the years, shapes, patterns in terms of like, disparate people having the exact same kind of experiences in terms of like encounters, poltergeist experiences.

There's people that don't know each other saying the same thing happens. So I'm very confident there is a phenomenon here, but I'm also very suspicious that there's social engineering on some level. Whenever they crash, why don't they crash in a city? Why don't they crash in Central Park? It's almost like they're doing something very intentionally that comes down to social engineering. And for anyone in the UFO community to say,

oh, that's too far-fetched. Mimicry, we can't go there. Hello, there's telepathy. There's sightings of aliens Follicking in flower patches There's abduction stories There's reports of making deals With the entities themselves

And sometimes entities have been reported to be violent You can go on and on We're dealing with an extraordinarily weird phenomenon So if anyone to say Oh, I believe in the UFO subject But the mimicry thing, nah, that's a bridge too far I mean, come on, really? That doesn't make any sense.

I like to point out a lot when the UFO community is wrong, because I'm a jerk, and I can go with that. In this case, I think I can point out that the UFO community is correct, where they've been saying, at least since 2017, that the United States doesn't have control over their airspace. Whether this, the drones or UFOs or not, it's a big deal. I mean, terrorism with drones is everyday life in the Middle East and in Europe. It's only going to take one time in America for everyone to just really go crazy with it and be super scared. And that's a horrible situation, but I could definitely see that occurring. But yeah, the UFO community has been right. We don't have control over airspace. And this kind of highlights that

better than ever. You could say this. If China is not flying drones over our military bases now, they sure as hell can do it in the future because we've demonstrated, A, we're not going to shoot them down. And B, we don't even consider it a threat anymore. So I think our foreign adversaries have seen a very distinct chink in our armor. Jeremy? Yeah, I just, I think history is on the side of like what Ryan is saying, which is it, and what you said, George, the mimicry thing, when we look at the history of overflight of nuclear facilities and you look at what we're calling drones, you can go all the way back to the 50s. I mean, I found news clippings and everything, sometimes there's red and green lights. Sometimes they just shut off and disappear and cloak. So history's on your side. If you look back at, um, before there were, you know, any civilian drones in the air, there were objects coming over our infrastructure and twing with us.

And sometimes they do look more conventional. And you get reports from people saying that it changed, that it looked one way and it morphed. There's a great story out of a newspaper where some pilots were up in the air and all, like, 50 people saw this anamorphous thing moving with six other objects around it. So I just think history shows us,

If we look at our newspaper articles from back in the day, this is something that's been occurring for a long time. It kind of looks like, you know, something we have, but not quite. And that goes back to the 1800s, as you guys know, of your UFO history hats put them on, you know, the idea that we have dirigible. This was something that was happening back then. So if this phenomenon is what we seem to all expect, that it's some sort of conditioning program or information program,

that it's some sort of, like, I don't know the words you used, but something that is conditioning. Are we now conditioned to, is this still happening? Like this week, the last few days, over Christmas. Did they also take off Christmas like they took off Thanksgiving? Were there drones over New Jersey area on Christmas? Do you guys know?

I saw one report, people said, and I didn't look beyond that saying they're still here. We're still seeing objects. It seems like it's definitely winding down a bit, just like every other drone case that we've seen. No, just stop. Right. That's what I've heard as well from people. So there's internal comms within these infrastructure facilities, right? There's internal communications and there seems to be a tapering off. So it's as if it's just going to stop and then we've been conditioned again. And then we're just going to wake up after the new year and be like, well, that was weird. The more things change, the more they stay the same. So, you know, this idea that these things are not a threat, it's not just about drones. That's what our U.S. military, U.S. government,

has said about UFOs in general. That's the excuse they use for killing Project Blue Book, is these are not a threat to national security. Let's move on. They've said that pretty much every step of the way, through every iteration, no matter what the shape or size of UFOs are. That's what they always say, it's not a threat. I don't know how you can say that.

If they're, for example, they're over nuclear missile bases, they disable nuclear missile bases, take them offline. That's not a threat to national security. They're over Langley, they're over Lake and Heath, over these nuclear power plants, that's not a threat. It's ridiculous. We can talk about drones all day, but maybe you guys want to move on to other big stories of the year. Joe, you want to take a stab?

Yeah, I mean, the biggest story that should get a lot more attention is you guys saying that Congress was offered firsthand, hands-on witnesses, and they turned it down, and the story has yet to be told. Hopefully, we will hear about that soon because you will. We've all been wanting firsthand witnesses. That's what we need. We don't need another sighting. As great as it is to have a military person come out and say,

I saw a craft that I couldn't explain, to see somebody who said, I worked in a program, I put my hands on this craft. This is exactly why I believe it's a non-human intelligence built craft. Those people coming forward to see Congress, I really want to know why, because that's infuriating to see that they had that chance and turned it down. Yeah, it's a complex story.

you will hear my perspective on it in the first month of 2025. I'm going to try to show everybody what I experienced, what I went through. People can make their own determinations. Sadly, this second hearing, you know, we did have some wins. I fought really hard for Lou Elizondo to be able to testify. I have documented record of me fighting very hard for him to testify. And part of that many, many month process, There was like resistance in a way.

He was like one of the last people to be notified after everybody that I brought for it, everybody that I brought on to Zoom calls, everybody I was fighting for, I kind of, you know, laid down really hard for Lou saying, you want people to come tell you about UFOs. You have the opportunity to have somebody that verified has dealt with the subject for our government. It should not be a heavy lift to put him under oath so the American public can determine for themselves if he should be trusted. Now, it doesn't matter if I trust Lou.

I like Lou. I do trust him. I think that he's done a public service as far as coming forward and saying what he can say. I think there's a lot he can't say. My goal was just to help get him under oath in front of the American public to let everybody else make their determination

because if he's saying big things, they need to know if they can trust him. So without my judgment about Lou, I was like, he is a no-brainer. Why is this a heavy lift? Well, that was the easiest part of the fight getting ready for that second hearing. It was so bizarre to me.

So, Joe, I promise you in January, I'm going to tell you what happened from my perspective. You're going to see what happened from my perspective. What I noticed big picture is that this was a sham. This was a sham from the beginning.

The first hearing, when we were there, it was like a sneak attack, getting Dave Grush up there under oath. It was almost like people, People were unprepared, and he was prepared. This one, man, it was like months. It felt more like an interrogation trying to siphon off. Who have George and I talked with?

What are their names? I need their names. What assets would they come forward with? But it wasn't in a way that was like, we want to have them testify. It really felt like a counterintelligence program. And then that was nailed home for me when people see how it was orchestrated. What happened in that room, the day of the hearings? the American public needs to know about this.

And I promise you, I'm not going to be quiet about it. Now, what that means, you guys are going to have to interpret it. I can just tell you what I experience. So I don't know if that answers you to a degree I can, Joe, at this time. But I just, look, I want to throw a heavy punch. So I want to wait to do it right. And you on coast to coast, which I transcribed, because I thought it was important, you said, okay, let's do subpoenas.

But fill out the subpoena, and we'll do the name later. later on. I'll have Chuck McCullough look at it. And then no subpoenas came. What does that tell you? I mean, that's a really important piece of information. I'll explain that a little bit more. So there are certain people that went to Arrow. And by going to Arrow, what they said was deemed so sensitive that they were locked down. They can't even talk about anything anymore. They cannot go to Congress. I didn't know that was part of the process. And there's a number of people that were put into that boat. So what I was saying is if you guys really want firsthand whistleblowers, George and I know an army of them. Now you have to decide, you have to

vet them, you have to make sure that you come to the same conclusions we do, that they're trustworthy, worthy of our trust. But in a couple of these positions, they needed subpoenas or they could not even walk up and talk to anybody in Senate or in the House. So it was kind of like this cosmic pickle, like, no, you go, no, you go. So my solution to that was, look, I've walked people into these offices by face and name. We have delivered content and information. You're going to see this, Joe. I did this, and that's a big risk, because you kind of out people, anybody walking with me up into Congress to have designated meetings, especially with accountability and oversight, man, there's a lot of eyeballs on you, a lot of spies, right? So we took

that risk, numerous individuals, in preparation up coming to towards this hearing, and Birchett told the truth. You could hear them saying into the mic, whistleblowers, plural, that I brought people in. So here we are, and I'm like, I can't just, like, give you guys a bunch of names that George and I protected these names. One of them, for me, since 2011. So I'm like, here's the deal. The deal is, we need a subpoena. Let's just try one. You said you're willing to do it. I was talking directly with everybody organizing this, and they're like, well, you've got to give us a name. I don't know what works that way. So I got a lawyer. He's really good, haven't announced who he is. But how about this? Here are the fundamentals.

Write that up. Give it to me. I'll get my lawyer. My lawyer will fill in that name because it's agreed on all sides, all parties. And it was a dead drop from that point. They never intended to do that. That's my perspective, at least. You know, I could be wrong, but the subpoena never was even touched after that. Did they really want firsthand whistleblowers? My determination is, no, they did not. They wanted to find out who they were, but they didn't want to let them talk because it's uncontrolled. If George had talk, if I had talk, we have never been government employees. We have no NDAs. We can tell it like it is. And I think that that would have been terrifying to the people trying to shape the emerging UAP narrative. And that is what people are trying to do. agencies are trying to do. Even Tim Burchett

said he was pulled aside in the middle of the hearing and said not to say my name and to tell a lie. And he didn't tell the lie. He fought to try to get around it. Just listen to him. He told you that the suits pulled him aside. You can see when he has to leave Congress. I was sitting there texting with him. He watched him have to go out and talk to suits, agency people. So there's a lot of fuckery going on, Joe. What's really weird about this is that we always hear stories in the UFO community about the government getting involved, bad guys doing bad things. But this seems to be like almost instance where we can actually point to it and maybe even actually prove it, you've been around

a really long time, George, and I think you've probably seen other instances of this that I don't even know about. But this has to be one of the biggest times where we can actually look at it and kind of dive into it. And I'm looking forward to what you guys have to say about it. Oh, yeah, there's a lot coming. It was a unique opportunity for Jeremy to document at it in real time, how this went down. And I think people were really going to pay attention to it when it happens. Ryan, let's get your take on the congressional hearing, including Immaculate Constellation, the document, what came forward on that, and then, Danny, you do the same thing.

Yeah, well, one thing I'll say is that Kirsten Gillibrand, when she was opening the hearing, she talked about things she was looking forward to getting to bumped. And she referenced the GoFast video. and she explicitly said that is among the things that are going to get debunked. So I'm assuming she got some kind of memo that that was what Kislawski was going to cover as something debunk. The reason I specify that is because Kislosti didn't explicitly say we're debunking the Gophas, but Jilibrin set it up as if that was what he was going to do. And Koslowski, he didn't talk about what former lieutenant Ryan Graves brought up was that there was actually

for UAP during the Go Fast incident. And they were line of breasts one mile apart. So how is Colossi saying, oh, it's just a balloon, guys. And yet then we have, we have Graves come forward and say, wait a minute, did you actually speak to the pilot? Why did you not speak to the pilot? If you really are trying to get to the truth,

and, you know, Graves was like, really what Arrow is trying to do is they're trying to find technicalities. They're not really trying to get to the truth. And I found it extremely irritating because there's no excuse for it. He's the head of Arrow. Why would he not have access to the information

about the reported five UAP one mile apart line of breast? But Ryan Graves, who's not even in the government right now, knows all about it, knows the pilot. It's transparent that Arrow is really not trying to get to the bottom of this. They are, in my opinion,

I hate to say it, I think they're just a disinformation activity. They're just trying to stall and they're trying to make it appear like they're trying to get to the truth, but really they're just trying to gas like the public and make it sound like, well, we don't really know. It could be this. It could be that.

No, they know. They know. But they're lying to us. Now, I don't know if Kislauski knows. I don't know what he's been read into, but it doesn't matter whether he knows or not. He's being used in bad faith. He's not getting the information he needs. As far as Immaculate Constellation, that was absolutely fascinating.

And I know that, well, yeah, I was fascinating. and, you know, the idea that the U.S. government has a lot, much better data, well, that's been something whistleblowers and people coming forward have been saying for decades, and now we have a document that purports that. FLEAR, 4K video, drones that are escorting, no, no, UAP that are escorting drones out of some kind of wherever their flight pattern is. It's like, okay, why can't we see that? Also, I'll bring this up. Chris Mellon has gone on the record saying that he's seen high fidelity satellite imagery.

Why hasn't Congress seen that? In fact, in the July 26th hearing with David Grush, David Grush brought that up. He said this fairly explicitly. He said, I've seen satellite images with a physics degree. I can't explain. And I have no idea why Congress has not seen it. Well, I'll tell you why Congress has not seen that satellite imagery. Because the DOD doesn't want Congress to see that satellite imagery.

Because once the DOD sees that satellite imagery, they'll know that they'll have greater verification that the DOD has been lying to Congress for decades. It's quite obvious, but I'll leave it at that. No, because the two sides of Koslowski, I agree with Ryan said. I mean, maybe he's being told to say that. But then he goes on and talks about three unidentified cases.

And one of them was like right out of close encounters of the third kind. It was like, when this guy got closer to this object that was an orange orb, then it turned into a blacker than black. object, the side of a Prius, tilted a 45 degrees angle, which Danny has written about before. That's historical. They tilt up. A shot straight up in the air, 10 to 100 times

faster that any drone, this law enforcement officer had seen, no noise, and then it emitted these very bright red and blue lights that illuminated the inside of his vehicle. So there's that side of Kuzlowski. So it's like maybe he's being told to tell about the go fast,

but then he sneaks in his own stuff. I think he may, and he also has spoken about I was going to say, go ahead. I draw a black where I was going to say. Or he's baiting for people to come forward. Look, I'm not going to say if the guy is working, if he can't comb his hair, part his hair without the DOD saying he can, like you had said earlier,

then it's not a good faith position. I would quit that job right away if they put me in Operation Blue Box. Okay. I will tell you this. That footage, I don't know what Chris Malin said. That's great. He's seen something. George and I are reporters and people trend of stuff.

He and I can both attest we have seen high fidelity of things that are so egregiously bizarre, you guys. I'll just admit it. We have been exposed to every type of footage you can imagine. Every type. Lots of it. And this has happened for a while, and I don't know what to do. I mean, as a journalist, we are able to be exposed to these things.

And they're, you know, it's shocking. there's a lot of footage from this aggregate program called Immaculate Constellation and not even within that program. That program was just siphoning off. Can I explain this real quick what that was, you guys?

Here's the deal. Our sensor platforms from space to air to sea to under sea pick up all the time highly anomalous things that are unambiguously UAP. That's fact. I can attest to it as a human being

sitting in front of you, the Georgia and I have been exposed to it. I'm not going to go any further today, but that is fact. We have been. So what happens is you have our government saying all of this reporting is coming in and it's going up on these classified servers, but like what do we do with it? What do we do with it? So they've developed one of many programs that used to be called the Maculac Constellation where they will pull the best of the best, a lot of it using AI, and they will pull these into an archive and have them assessed in secret groups. So that's what Immaculate Constellation actually.

was an aggregate program to take all of that footage, bring it in nothing facing internally to the U.S. So if we're doing any exploitation, if it's anything with us, nothing. But to other countries and just passive and active picking up UAP, that's what Imaculate Constellation did. And now it's under a different name, but it does the same thing. And it's one of many programs. So I can attest, and so can George that that footage of high quality from all domain is something that exists. It's unambiguous. Now the question is, who do you show it to, who gets to see it, what actions can they take? I don't know.

I don't know. I'm not in charge here. Is there an adult in the room? Jeremy DoD spokesperson says there is no record of anything called a Machia constellation within the Department of Defense. I guess it can't be real then, right? You know, I think there will be clarity on that because I think there's humans behind whistleblowing. And I think one day we're going to learn more about that.

I hope that that helps. Like when David Gresh came forward and he said, look, I dug into all these black projects and I had 40 witnesses. By the way, it's not the people that you know of and this sort of thing. This is like deep within our intelligence agencies. David Gresh did bring 40 people to the ICIG. He did do that. He told it like it is. Yeah, it exists. It exists. It's the most frustrating thing in the world once you know for sure that high quality data exists and that people that should see it haven't seen it and you're kind of stuck. You don't know what to do about it. That's how I feel.

But maybe a technicality could be it exists or existed, but not within the Pentagon. Oh, yeah, all those games. Like Immaculate Constellation was not, Immaculate Constellation was not a DOD use up. So that's like why you see Susan Go, like technically she's telling the truth. So Immaculate Constellation was a USAP under a different heading. So imagine this. Imagine even the Department of Energy has its own use ups. The White House has its own USAPs. So you can technically say it's not under DOD.

They might have actuated some things for that operation, which was an operation, Amacly Constellation. But they can get away with these technicalities. there are use apps in a lot of different departments, as you can imagine. Where's your playlist taking you? Down the highway, to the mountains, or just into daydream mode while you're stuck in traffic. With over 4,000 hotels worldwide, Best Western is there to help you make the most of your getaway.

Wherever that is. Because the only thing better than a great playlist is a great trip. Life's the trip. Make the most of it at Best Western. Book direct and save at bestwestern.com. 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 and 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 in?

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. Hey, Danny, we haven't heard from you about the Nancy Mays congressional hearing that was, you know, televised and immaculate constellation. You want to weigh in on those? Yes, sir.

Grush and the first hearing, I feel like made more of a splash. And I may be wrong. I'm not in the media like you, George. But I do talk to, you know, local reporters sometimes and even a couple national every once in a while. A couple of the local reporters, I was kind of, you know, not happy about it. They didn't want to cover this hearing this time around,

and they covered the Grush hearing. But that was the first UFO hearing in decades. Grush also made more wild claims, you know, depending on how you look at it. But he was saying things that were more shocking, at least. So I feel like this hearing was maybe not covered as much as it was the Grush hearing, and I don't know.

We need more than, I think, just words. And that's always the challenge. As far as Immaculate Constellation, I was really excited about that and I still am. I was hoping for kind of a rollout kind of like ASAP that hasn't really happened. But, you know, we had like all the durs and we had all this stuff to dig into when ASAP came out.

We also had George with a, you know, deep knowledge of it. And now we have Immaculate Constellation. It's kind of more mysterious. And I was actually going to ask you and Jeremy that, and it's kind of the huge question, like, what do we need to do to prove this program more so for the public? I'm always looking at the public's viewpoint more so than the UFO Kimari. Because that's the stuff I'm most interested in.

I want to get the public on board. And that's like the wall we're always hitting. What can we do to get more. proof to the public or anything, really. I don't want, I'm worried that a mechic constellation is going to kind of just go away. I really don't want that to happen. Well, one thing is, you know, we, I think it's demonstrated that FOIA does not work. It's not going to get to the bottom of this stuff.

I mean, ASAP, how many times have we said it in public? There's a gigantic pile of documents and reports that were put together by a really good program. You know, the one that about the Tic Tac, it's, you know, 140. pages, we haven't seen any of it. I mean, Jim McCatsky and Colin Kelleher and I were able to write about it after going through the Dobser process, but the actual documents are not released. They can't find them. You think that Immaculate Constellation is going to produce something via FOIA? It's not going to happen. My thought was maybe Congress is the only one that has the power to really force the release of that kind of material. And based on what we just saw in this

most recent hearing, it doesn't seem like Congress is really on board with getting transparency and having some march toward actual disclosure. They have some kind of different agenda that's happening. Another thing I actually forgot to mention was this year also drove home the idea that the government is really messing with us. And that's thanks to really Jeremy's reporting on this. Again, we hear these stories, but it's like, I've never seen it in real time like this. And it's really a shame.

so I don't know I'm really excited about holding these guys to task I guess yeah imagine Danny like so I'm fighting for months I walk people into secret meetings with certain members who I trust at that time

and I'm like hey look eye to eye you want to meet I don't know somebody involved with Mac of the Constellation like let's get this moving what protections can you give them and that was the other thing I will tell this whole story soon. I'm still processing it,

but what are the protections that Congress has? Can they protect whistleblowers if they're going to come and testify? Look, you didn't see any of these whistleblowers testified. They had to do it via proxy through writing, right? So you saw this whole report of Amaculate Constellation, but there are human beings behind Amaculate Constellation. There's an author to what was submitted on a congressional record. There was a reason why I brought that.

There's a reason why I brought a finalized version. In fact, there's a reason why I made sure that nobody had the finalized version until the morning of that Congress. And I want you to understand why I had to do that to protect people. And I will talk more about that. But I really need to do this right. I need to show you what happened, not just tell you. And luckily, you're going to be able to see that.

And if the game is fixed, why did they go on and say we were told not to say things? It's almost like they're playing both sides, but I just, I don't really get it. And Jill and I were talking about this, were they told that these were man-made program or just regular classified programs are not allowed to ask about? But then, or were they, you know, were they brushing it off as non-UAP programs? Or were they told, these are UAP programs and you can't talk about them? I don't know. Either we're just rushing that up.

They said it during a hearing, and then mainstream media doesn't follow up or ask. them why they were asked not to say things. No one even asked that. Yeah. I mean, who tells members of Congress you can't ask a question about X, Y, and Z? Who does that? So that's what, that's what Daney and I were speculating about. Is it, do they whisper in their ear, or they pull them in the back and say, just by the way, this is, because we were told, you have the program, the sap of top, and then they bury the UAP program underneath, and it's hard to separate them. Separate rounds talked about that. Is that what they're told? Are they told this is a black program, it's black technology.

It is not non-human. It's our technology. And if you talk about it, you are totally screwing us all with national security-wise, and you're given our adversaries information that they should not have. Is that what they're being told?

Have you guys heard from feedback? Yeah, no, I was there. So, I mean, I go into the little private room, you know, right before, like every time before and I'm high-fiving some of the Congress people. Like, we did it. We're going to get this stuff on congressional record, firsthand whistleblower,

in the sense that they were exposed to this information. We're all excited. and then it just, you guys will see, it just changes as the hearing goes on. Who is telling them that Bertrand came out the next day and said that he was warned not to mention me or the truth about what happened that day

because of a national security, because of a security issue. That's the way he said it. But I know a little bit more. Yeah, dude, it was ominous. It was bizarre. It was controlled. It wasn't joyous.

It was a setup. This whole thing was a setup. That's my personal perspective from what I went through for those many, many months prior. So who is telling them that? These are intelligence agencies. There's one in particular that was represented and they're standing there in their suits

and they're calling out members of Congress to go sidebar in the middle of the hearing. You see them go up to Nancy Mace. I hope there's lip readers. I got some great videos. I'm sitting right there. What could Representative Birchett twice be saying to Nancy Mace up there in her podium in the dais?

What could he be saying? What did Representative? representative Luna say when she went up there being like if you can read her lips right so it's like everybody was kind of caught off guard there was an ominous feeling with a lot of the staffers too like they're looking you right in the eye they know what I've done over the months they know what the plan is and then they just look at you with these blank eyes because they knew something I didn't which is that they were going to run this their way they were going to do it there where they're going to say whatever untruths they wanted and it was real shocking

for me. I never saw it unfold in real time like I did that day. Who do you think is the most trustworthy, Jeremy? I don't know if you want to even mention this, but I do. Representative Tim fucking Burchett, he is absolutely the most trustworthy, and you're going to see that because he did against all self-interest. He did what nobody else did. I'm sitting there texting with members, looking at them in the eye, being like, why you're lying? They just lied. Make sure to go fix that. You're the only one that can that can do that, they stopped them from every chance of telling the truth of what had transpired over those months. They told you some lies, man, but Representative Birchett, the second he got the mic,

he said three things. You know, I want to thank my friend Jeremy. You know, he submitted these documents and brought in whistleblowers. And someone's coughing into the mic, Representative Birchett, despite self-preservation and being pressured by what he called the suits, right? He said some truths into that mic within his first graph. of that mic. So I trust Representative Birchett because he absolutely went against self-interest and being warned because of what security issues. What were the other words associated with that that he was told behind closed doors? You should ask him those questions. But anyway, UFO Joe. UFO Joe. This is sort of a challenge for people in the UFO community and the research

world when Jeremy champions Tim Burchett, people who are left of center in their political beliefs have trouble with some of the people who've been out in front because they're so conservative in many of the things they say and things that they say in the conservative politics don't match what you see as reality if you're left of center, correct? Correct. And I'm pretty far left. I'm like a Bernie guy. But I don't care. When it comes to UFOs. When Bertchette says something, and what Jeremy's talking about, I transcribed what Burchett said, trying to listen through the coughs. That's on there from a couple of days ago. It doesn't matter. Luna, too. I mean, I totally disagree, and I'll call her out for her political

views that sometimes I think are ridiculous. But as long as she's pushing for, you know, UFO transparency and I support whatever they're doing on that front, I will support them. Hearing now, though, I want to know why the other ones backed up, back down. Are they afraid? Were they intimidated? Or are they afraid that they're going to be primaries? Somebody's going to run against them? Is that where they're told?

Because that would be disappointing. But if it's physical intimidation, I would understand people with families being scared and backing down. I mean, I can't put myself in their shoes. That's the decision I have to make. But yeah, we don't know why they back down. Hopefully we find out somehow. Well, I think the tactic is saying, look, there's things you don't know. This is, you know, that guy, Jeremy says, he's a national security issue.

You know, there's just things you don't know. Don't say his name. Like, don't tell it the way it is. We need to do this differently. We need to position other people to be the ones. It was like just shaping the emerging UAP narrative. If I can say that one more time, that is absolutely what you're seeing is as we're moving into a new administration, people positioning for power to be the go-to people

for whistleblowers. The thing is, is that I know for a fact that people that are being positioned to absorb the new whistleblowers, to be the ones that you come and tell about that, that it is absolutely dangerous, that they are not the people, they are not the Jedi you're looking for, that they're more interested in power and influence and being the person that you look to to go talk with. But protecting sources, that's a hard thing to do. You have to be really careful when you're protecting sources. So, Joe, I think, bottom line, I think they're being told hey look this is above your pay grade

you need to not say this this is a national security issue and that's enough for some of them it's not enough for birchit he's not willing to lie just because someone tells him a mythology and one more thing following up on what George said about you know like with Trump people accuse me of having Trump derangement syndrome I don't like him but if he's gonna disclose UFO information he'll be my favorite president ever

I don't care I mean political stuff here UAP disclosure and the truth way up here. So yeah, it's like it gets frustrating for people seeing that happen and calling me out. But I go after both sides and I support both sides. Let's talk about that as looking forward to 2025. Trump's coming back into power. We've heard him make some generic kind of statements about UFOs in general, hasn't really revealed that much. There are people around him who have made very definitive statements,

people he wants to appoint to positions of power who've been out in front Marco Rubio, folks like that. The tech bros who are coming to Washington, the Silicon Valley people, who I think have played their cards pretty close to their best so far,

but we have some general guesses about where they might go. Starting with you, Joe, and then Ryan and Danny, what you think about the political atmosphere next year and beyond for transparency issues under the Trump

power structure. When I bring it up, people are like, you're naive to think that you think the government is going to do anything on transparency. I'm like, no, I don't think something's going to happen. I hope it happens. And, you know, I don't have expectations. I know what they've said. I know who Trump has put forth for his cabinet.

If those folks get in, we have a shot if they stick with what they've spoken about. I don't think Trump himself will be pushing it unless the people around him will push him. I really don't think he has an interest in it. You know, back when he did his first interview with George Stephanopoulos, he was asked, you know, your Navy pilots are seeing UFOs. Do you believe him? He's like, not particularly, you know. But he says, he has said stuff since then. He has been asked about it. I've transcribed almost everything he has said on it. The only one I haven't done is Rogan. For 2025, I don't know. I don't know. I don't want to, I don't want to make any predictions. I don't have any expectations. I'm hoping that stuff happens along that front and we get some data. If he can somehow, release UFO records like the UFO board that was going to be part of the UAP Disclosure Act. If he can somehow do that, like I said, as much as I have issues with certain things he has done or allegedly done, I will be so supportive and very happy. And no more politic for me.

That's it. If he releases the legacy program information, I'll never talk politics ever again on X. Ryan? Yeah, and I'll say, too, that, you know, I comment on Trump and the Biden administration sometimes as it relates. the UFOs and both sides will be upset at me, even though I'm keeping it completely non-political. I say, I hope Biden discloses, although to be honest, I don't think you will.

But if Biden doesn't disclose, I hope Trump does. And it doesn't matter. People are so tribal these days and they can't compartmentalize. You're the bad guy. You bring up politics, even if it's just about UFOs and hoping a particular candidate discloses because you want transparency, they will

cast you as like, you're on this team, you're on that team. It's like, how do you even know who I voted for? But either way, I think, the Trump administration is is probably the most likely administration to disclose in the history of all presidential candidates. And the reason for that is simple. It's not because I think that Trump is necessarily overwhelmingly inclined to disclose, but on the other hand, he is running on the ticket of getting rid of corruption and draining the swamp. So if he's not the person to do it, then who is? I think of John Ratcliffe, who was the director of national intelligence. He went on

media multiple times and made exquisite, explicit statements. He said, we can't duplicate this technology. Sometimes it will go beyond the sound barrier, but we won't hear a sonic boom. It's not foreign adversaries. And we have nothing that can defend

against this stuff. Like he said that. And I did a pretty big video on that. I think I did multiple videos on that. And I think that went under the radar in some sense. I don't think that was accentuated enough because to me what John Ratcliffe former director of National Intellectual was doing, he was breaking ranks, as far as I'm concerned.

I got to believe there were people in the national security apparatus that did not want him to talk about that. And he also said we have satellite imagery. He was breaking ranks. So if he can have any influence on Trump, as I guess he's now the CIA director or will be the CIA director, we got to hold these people accountable. If his whole cabinet talks about, oh, we need transparency, and then we get four years of Trump and there's no transparency, I'm going to be livid.

Donald Trump said on the Lex Free speech. show, and I'm going to hold him accountable to this, and I know people are going to say, oh, you're holding accountable to. That means you're pro-Trump. No, it means I want transparency. But he said on Lex Friedman's show, oh, we got to, we got to release the videos. We got to. We have to release the UFO videos. He said it. He already made that promise. So you're darn right. I'm going to hold him accountable. If there's any presidential candidate and cabinet to bring UFO transparency at least, at least compared to all predecessors, you know, he's the one to do. We can argue probability. we can say, well, he's not going to do it. Fine, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying compared to all predecessors, he's way more likely to disclose than previous administrations. I don't think there's any question about that. So I hope he's disclosed. I support him in disclosing. Does that mean I support him and everything else? Obviously not. But I do support him and bring transparency. Someone has to finally do it. It has to be done. That's all I've got to say. Maybe if Trump starts selling little models of the sport model or something, he'd be more interested in transparency of UFOs. Danny, what do you think about the possibility of advancing disclosure under the Trump administration? This is where I get sometimes pessimistic because I look at what the UFO community has said since the beginning of time. And it's always the next president is going to do it.

It's always this year is going to be the disclosure year. And it's frustrating for me. And I don't like the messaging there. You know, I want to be the PR director of the whole UFO community, and I want to be the editor of the whole UFO community where I control what everyone says, but they told me that I can't. And so I would say don't predict. I would say hope and want them to and hold them accountable however we can.

Yeah. But I don't like the predictions. I think they do a disservice to a lot of people. It's kind of like a sports team or a bunch of the kids. the coaches and a bunch of the players say they have a secret play every year that's going to win the Super Bowl and it doesn't happen. But of course the fans are going to say they're going to win the Super Bowl, but I digress. But I just think that I'm not so sure that the presidents care as much as we do.

And I think we kind of put our own feelings on them. They get a lot of stuff on their plate. And a lot of them are egomaniacs, let's be honest. And they're worried about all kinds of other things. I don't think they're waking up every morning thinking about, the UFO subject. But hey, I do think Ryan is correct that if we're putting the odds that probably every president that comes up has a better odds of doing it because of the progress we've seen

and because of the hearings and all this kind of thing. So Trump does have the best odds compared to all previous presidents, however, I still don't think it's likely. And I guess that's about it. I don't have too much else to say on the Trump thing. But he has put a lot of people that are talking. the big talk around him. How much in control are they?

You know, we don't know. Just because they want to do something, can they do it? There's a lot of questions. Kona Blue was a pretty interesting story for a couple of weeks this year. Of course, actually, if you had read the Skin Walkers of the Pentagon, that program was pretty much laid out in detail, just not using that name. You know, they were going to get the hidden technology,

the same stuff that was supposedly going to go to Alsap. analyze meta materials, reverse engineer sort of things that were built by somebody else didn't happen, likely because of the same kind of opposition that stopped it from happening with OSAP. There was a lot of really interesting things this year. Anything else that jumps out, Jeremy, that comes to mind that you wanted to talk about for looking back at 2024? I don't know, man. I'm looking forward right now. I'm really excited to start 2025 off with a bang, do my best journalism.

that I can to kind of go unleashed and say everything that's on my mind. Again, I'm still processing it. I'm trying to throw the best punches that I can. I think for me, we debated a lot about what Dr. Lackatsky said on weaponized. I know he wrote it in the book he did with him prior, but he said it. It's different when you see somebody say it. Dr. Likatsky, Dr. James Lekatsky said, we have a UFO. He admitted to one.

We have a UFO that we breached the whole of it, that it didn't have any like wings or rotors or tails and we didn't even know how the thing worked. That's a huge admission from the head of the DIA UFO program called Ossap. When he verbally said that, we've been debating that this whole year. Like, what does that mean? I think that was a big moment this year was just kind of seeing how that sank into people who were really paying attention. But how do we get more of that? How do we get people like him to say, look, I, he didn't go as far as to say he was inside it. Did he, George? No, he kind of walked right out of the edge of it, literally and figuratively.

Okay, so just saying, you know, it'd be great to have more people like that come forward and just be really bold. And I know there are plans. There are plans for people when it comes to like crash retrievals. There's plans for people that have firsthand direct knowledge to be coming forward. And I really hope that that happens and that we give people like that the opportunity to be under oath to Congress to tell the American public and let them decide. Yeah, I cannot wait until Jay Stratton's book comes out. Hopefully this year, it's in the dofster process. Hopefully that's expedited.

And I'm not letting you guys get away with not commenting again on what you've seen. Image-wise, I mean, have you guys seen craft, structured craft up close? Yeah. Vicks, flying saucer type? Yeah, what else can you say about that? The weirdest shit I've ever seen in my life, man. As journalists, we get a lot. lot of weird stuff. And George and I will look at it and assess it and it's legitimate and we've

seen it. And yeah, I don't know what else to say. George, unless you want to say something. We've seen stuff that we're not supposed to see. Put it that way. Government censors from government sensors? Oh yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, look. Look, we, um, as journalists, we, we don't know at first, right? Like we'll get a bunch of information. We'll be exposed to a bunch of information. It's a very tricky place for us to be. First, are people fucking with us. You know, is this a lie? Is this real? We had that debate about the jellyfish. Like, we had to, like, dig

in and find out which base, where was it, who's seen it, multiple sources, that have seen it at that base. It takes time. We're in that position now. We've been exposed to a lot of stuff and everything you just said, Joe. Yeah, I mean, I can tell you as a friend, straight up. George can affirm this. He's

with his own eyes to. What that means, I don't know, and I don't know where to go from there, but we have seen high quality, everything that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing. Touching on some other highlights of 2024 for me, obviously a personal interest in what happened with

the Netflix project, Investigation Alien. I couldn't really talk about it for a long time. It was 14 months of shooting, traveling all over the place, wore my a saggy old butt out, going to Brazil and Mexico. But there were a couple of highlights for me, Calaris.

That's a pretty famous case. It seems to be an outlier where people were attacked by UFOs. We tracked down the original witnesses, people who had physical injuries, and got a much different take on hearing their story, that it was some kind of a sampling operation. The suggestion that there were a lot of videos and photos that were collected by the Brazilian Air Force

that ended up in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies, if so, I haven't seen it. I've seen some stuff, but not the kinds of things that were described. that series, if people haven't seen it out there or listening, I hope they'll check it out. I don't know if there's going to be a follow-up series by Netflix. It was very expensive. Took a lot of travel on a big team,

but we were pretty proud of the overall effort. There was an orb that was captured on video, off the coast of Southern California, right out there in the Channel Islands, Tick-Tac territory. This year saw the 20th anniversary of the Tick-Tac case. It has not been debunked, as people like to believe. It is still a viable case.

We got to talk to Dave Fraver around the 20th anniversary of that. And, of course, you know, he's a powerful presence and a very credible guy in what might be the most important UFO case of all time. What else of this year, Jeremy, that jumped out to you? I want to talk a little bit about your Netflix thing. Have you guys all watched it in Investigation Alien Georgia Show? I have not seen. I've watched much of it.

I've got to finish it, but it's excellent. I just had so much. Okay, hold on. Caught it. Wait a second. All right, we're going to cut Joe out of this show. Yeah. No, take it out of Joe.

I mean, I, obviously, George and I work together all the time. I watched it. I was like, am I the last person that you tell stuff to? I learned so much from watching it. I mean, look, it's a cool show. There's George Knapp running around the globe, talking with firsthand witnesses.

But like, oh my gosh, like, I didn't even know a lot about this. We just did an episode on Saucer Nest out of Australia, this great podcast. called Uncropped that everybody should go check out, by the way. But like I learned so much from watching the Netflix show. It's one of those TV shows

where it's cool because you get to see George Knapp doing his thing running around. But I actually learned a lot about UFOs by watching it. Is that what you saw TV Ryan? Yeah, like with the cattle mutilation the first episode, I'll be honest,

I was not conversing on it. And just by watching that episode, it's very clear that this is a real anomaly and, you know, the skeptical explanations don't really work. I thought it was quite excellent and we're really well produced. Yeah, and just the colorist things were there's witnesses that had never come on camera before. They were beamed with something, but it was like a physical attachment. They've got scars from it. I mean, look, it was out of 2024, if you get a Netflix show about UFOs, this is the one.

So it was just, it was really neat, George, to see all of that. And I hope that you do something more with them or something more like that because it was cool. Well, it's a big question mark. We don't know if it's going to go forward. As I said, it was pretty expensive. It made a splash literally and figuratively. That orb off of the Channel Islands. There's now a lot of discussion and analysis of that thing. It was real. That really happened. This thing, they put a camera on this side of the boat, several cameras. This thing appeared out of the sky at night, and it sort of did a performance. And it hovered right over the ocean and then went into the ocean. And you can see it, the light going into the, under the Pacific. And that was real. It wasn't something that was created by the producers that really did happen.

And it was totally unexpected. They were there to look at, look for anomalies on the ocean floor, not necessarily to search for UFO videos, but it was real and happened. And it was unexplained. And that was the guy who had a sighting before that, right? That's the one.

So I did see that video. Yeah, the video is amazing. Rory, yeah. We had him on the podcast. Yeah. And I was really protective of Georgia. I was skeptical. who was like, is this the government?

Is this Netflix doing something? And then talking with Rory and hearing how it all went down, it's pretty astonishing that it might be the first time that there's UAP, USO footage that civilian filmed. You see this thing go under the water. Again, I wish we had as good sensors as our military, but we don't. So this is kind of the best stuff that we have.

It was a really remarkable moment in the series. You know, you guys get a lot of flak. and as anyone in the UFO community does, Jeremy and George, you guys, when I say you guys. And I get really down on reporters pretty, I don't want to say easily, but, you know, I saw a recent weaponized episode where George, you were talking about correcting the record

and just kind of journalism, ethics. And I don't always see that in the UFO community. And I see people be wrong. Everyone's wrong sometimes, but I see people be wrong a lot. and I after a while I don't want to listen to them and I don't want to trust them and I hold people to basically an unfair standard I would say a very high standard

and I have no problem listening to you guys and it's not because I consider you guys friends or that I do kind of you know all three of us here we get to kind of pepper you guys with questions you know week to week and I think a lot of the UFO community doesn't necessarily get to do that so they don't see that other side

of how hard you guys are working and how much work you do to stay credible. And I think that just goes a long way. And I have this, like I said, I have this really high standard and it doesn't make me feel good. I don't want to think people are not doing a good job. But unfortunately, I do think that about a lot of people in UFO community. But I don't think that about either of you. And I really think you guys do a great job. So I just wanted to say that because I know there's going to be,

there is always a lot of loud mouse and people. skeptics, which is okay, but then there's the real mean stuff too. And they'll say, you know, why would you listen to these guys? Well, that's why. Because you're right more so than anyone else. You vet the most stories, the most accuracy. If you're wrong, you say it. And I just think that goes a long way.

Thanks, man. Yeah, we're doing our best. But what you're talking about is we have like a group chat sometimes. And I'll notice all three of us. Like so Ryan and Joe will get into it. And they don't get a lot, they don't agree on the same thing. And same with, wait a second, is Joe always the one on the other end of this? But you guys are always fighting with each other a little bit about like these ideas.

But the thing is, we don't have to all agree. We're all on the same boat here. We're all searching for, you know, a way forward to try to understand this better. So I think you guys are a great example. George says, let's bring these guys on. And I was like, that's genius, of course. Because even when you guys don't agree, you're going after the same thing. And that's transparency and truth.

on the UFO thing, right? Yeah, and what Danny's talking about, we're usually on the same page as far as having issues with X, Y, and Z, reporter or podcaster. The difference between Danny and I, as Danny, you know, I'm more apt to tweet about it and just put it out there. And I get a lot of flack. You want to talk about, I know we're coming to an ending,

but throughout the year, whether it's having questions about Lou, whether or not he ran a program, James Fox talking about having Jason Sands in his documentary. Now the guy saying he killed an alien, was part of a team. You know, it's like, you got to hold up the standards. It was like, when did he find out? It's just stuff like that. Hold on. Didn't Ryan break that story on his. Don't you guys watching it today.

It came out earlier in the year, but it was not accurate. Ryan got it straight from Jason Sand's mouth. And it's really hard to not bring that up. Jay Fox has not talked about it much. That specific claim. He asked, actually, I take it back. He did say it throws into his, it throws into question on big time his credibility. He did address it on Twitter. But we all knew about the claim. It had come out earlier this year. We just didn't have the details. So, you know, we said, should that guy should have never been in the documentary. In my opinion, other people agree. James didn't agree. Yeah. I don't know. Maybe it's hard, you know, we making documentaries. You know, James does great work, bringing it to the forefront. And sometimes when you have sources and what, look, George and I didn't

know what to do with that. So we didn't know what to do. You know, we can't report on things we can't verify, but maybe there is a room to hear people out. I don't know, Ryan, you did that interview. Like, what did you think, man? Well, you know, I do, I did peripherally hear some things about Jason Sands, but, you know, I was just finished watching the program, so I'm all hyped about it, and I gave Jason Sands a DM, you know, shot in the dark, and he agreed to go on, which great, let's do it. But prior to having them on, I dug deeper into the controversy. And I understand why people would be skeptical of the story based on that. But the reason I decided to go through with the interview,

regardless of the controversy, is because I felt like, you know, people have a right to know what Jason Sands is about. It's like if you, don't you want as much information as you can possibly have? So you watch the documentary, the program, but I'm, through interviewing him, I'll provide some greater clarity about some of his other claims.

And then they can factor that into what they think about his claims on the program. I'm not going to say whether I believe him or not, that's not my job. My job is to give the audience more clarity and then they can make a more informed decision on whether they want to believe him or not or whether maybe some of the stuff he said is true and maybe some of the stuff he said isn't true or however they parse it. Yeah, I understand. It's a hard look. It's a briar patch, this UFO thing. George knows better than anybody. But I mean, all we can do is try to get clarity, move forward and hold people accountable like you were saying before Ryan. So anyway, I really

appreciate you guys and the voices. It'll be really sad day when one of you decides to retire and hang up your hat, so none of you better do that. I like really hearing your perspectives. I'm learning, like everybody, as we go through this, and all of your voices have helped me grasp a little bit better about the UFO thing, all of yours. So thank you so much. Things I look forward to in 2025, the J. Stratton book that Joe mentioned, hopefully it comes out this year, adopts her process goes through. Richard Dolan started on a U.S.O. project and a typical Richard Dolan form

what was going to be one book, and I guess it's now going to be three. I really look forward to that. I look forward to Whitley Streber as something else coming out. And then finally, I look forward to this Bob Lazar project. You know, Jeremy and I are aware of it.

We've participated and contributed to it. But the recreation of what Lazar says S-4 looked like, have seen some of those images. Looks pretty cool. You know, people have different opinions about Lazar. That's fine.

But the imagery is really pretty cool. Jeremy, anything else that you want to look forward to during the year? Yeah, I like seeing everybody throwing down with more vigor. You know, my friend Chris Ramsey is making these great YouTube series on all UFO-related matters. A new friend of my, Jesse Michaels, is doing great interviews with people, going deep diving into it. I think the more encouragement that we have for people to talk about it and to do whatever form of art they can, whether it be YouTube or going on Twitter and like Joe does, writing everything down, just whatever it is, your guys' perspectives, just more people attacking this,

holding people to the fire on this. Look, if we're ever been closer in our lives to getting more information on it, it's now. It's not going to come from our government. It's going to come from you. One story I didn't, I forgot to mention real quick. we have a Senate staffer who was a Senate staffer for 37 years, investigated UFOs for seven years at the Senate Armed Services Committee. He's coming public and talking about crash retrievals and even supporting abductees.

So that's Kirk McConnell. Kirk, yeah. Yeah, Kirk's great. George and I met with him in D.C. You know, way before he was a public figure. And he is invested. Like, we met up with him right before he was leaving government. I'm like, you're not going to stop, right?

Kirk, like, this has God under your skin. You're not going to stop. stop and Kirk doesn't show that he's going to stop. I do want to say there's a lot of people behind the scenes, their names will never be known. You know, they won't be known, but it's people within government that want this information out. You can be encouraged in that, that Georgia had met with a lot of people in government that want this information out and they do everything they can. They're fighting to you.

You'll never hear their names. Introducing the new best skin ever, ultra slim precision concealer from Sephora. collection. It's full coverage with a matte finish and perfect for any look, whether you're building it up for a full glam moment or targeting correction for a more natural vibe. At only

$12, it's great for affordable touch-ups on the go. Get this new must-have concealer at Sephora or at saffora.com today. Hey, you? Feeling hungry? Run the Denny's Four. The new attorney!

And see the new Masters of the Universe movie. Only in theaters, June 5th. I'm most excited, I think, about the drones story and kind of how it's adjacent to the UFOs, where the America now has to lock down the skies, and

that will help the UFO cause because they're going to be looking up there, so. Drones are the new swamp gas, right, fellas? I mean, we've seen this for a couple of years. Oh, that's a drone. Oh, it's a balloon and or a drone. That's the all-purpose excuse

that they used to explain things away. It's almost like UFO, the people behind it, the non-human intelligence, if that's what it is, has a sense of humor. Oh, you want drones? Here you go. Here's some drones. I hope in 2025 that each of us make a commitment

that we're going to put the paddle to the metal. We're going to put our foot on the gas. That every time someone talks about something that's bullshit, that we're going to call them out, that we're going to say our opinions, whether we're right or we're wrong, that we're going to fight for this. I do think that we have a unique.

opportunity because of the kind of status of UAP now and I think that if everybody keeps producing and pushing and pushing we get more people enrolled in this that we're going to make a dent a bigger dent than we've ever made so I'm really encouraged about 2025 I'm really excited about I'm going to throw my best punches

right out the gate let's do it let's go credibility Jeremy I did want to I was thinking about this you know in 2017 there was a lot of talk about stigma because you know people like you George you were fighting stigma your whole life with this subject. And then we were really fighting hard in 2017 to beat the stigma. And I don't know if people now think that it's kind of gone away and the stigma's been beaten. So now they can loosen up a

little bit. But I don't really feel like that. I still feel like we need to be as credible as possible. And if you're bringing things, especially to the public, it needs to be vetted and, you know, have that journalistic integrity. I don't want to take our foot off the gas when it comes to fighting the stigma. And I'm worried that maybe that is happening a little bit in certain cases. I think the stigma is real still, but there has been a remarkable change for journalists. It's easier for journalists, mainstream journalists, to cover this topic than it was prior to 2017. It is easier for members of Congress to speak openly about it. You know, prior to that New York Times story, there wasn't a whole lot of people getting out

in front of the UAP issue. If they're members of Congress, they'd rather stay away from. The stigma is still very real for pilots, for commercial pilots, for military pilots, for military whistleblowers, people involved in these programs. They're walking on eggshells right now. That is still true for them. Anything else from any of you guys? You know, the Lakatsky interview, I transcribed. I just need to finish it. I have so many transcriptions that are almost done on my blog. One of my favorite interviews you guys did, he gave you so much problems trying to not, you know, answer his questions. I understand where he comes from.

He's an old school DOD guy. He doesn't want to give the adversary's information, but there's some great stuff in there. A lot of stuff that people really haven't spoken about in depth, and I'm going to look forward to finishing that. Yeah, I hope we hear more from David Grush. You know, I believe that David Grush told you like it is, and George and I have known him longer than anybody publicly, right?

I do believe that David Gresh has told you like it is, and I really hope that he's put in a position of power in the new administration where he can help. guide this disclosure process. Because I think that that is going to be an opportunity. They're going to have to get advice from people who are going to be able to help push this sport if that's part of what the new administration does. And I don't think there'd be anybody better at the helm than David Gresh.

I think he's altruistic. I think he's pissed because of what happened to him. But I do think he's altruistic and he's damn. He's wicked smart. My boy's wicked smart. So I really hope we have people like that that we can fight for to be in those positions to help bring, I guess, translation to the American public about some of the truths about UFOs?

So not as young guns. I guess we could still call you young guns compared to me, everybody's young, but I mean, you're not as young as when we first started talking to you as young guns. But thanks for being here, you guys. Really appreciate your input. Hope you'll stay in touch with us, so we have our fingers on the puzzle

what's happening out there in the world. Yeah, and tell us real quick, where can we find your best work, each of you. Just tell us the one place we can go to Joe, Ryan, and Danny. Tell me. Most of my time is spent on X slash Twitter at the UFO Joe. I'm on YouTube. You can search Post-Disclosure World. And I think you'll still find me if you search UFO Jesus. And that's where I put most of my work. I'm mostly retired from my old blog writing, unfortunately. If there's a huge story, I'll write it.

You can see the old blogs and kind of compare in contrast to what happened. and what came true from a lot of the quotes and claims that I wrote about. That's on SilvaRecord.com. But other than that, I'm just on Twitter being a jerk and my Silver Record, at Silver Record on Twitter. It's always great to talk to those guys and get their perspective. It's good to have additional input. You know, it's not all coming from the same spot.

We have good arguments and discussions back and forth with those guys. And they help to keep us grounded, don't they? Yeah, 100%, man. And also, I don't have, like, you know, infinite eyes. and years and time, and these guys are all tapped in in their own way. So that's why we do sometimes like a chat. And I get, they don't always agree, which is cool, but they always come to the same conclusion. We're in this together. Let's see where it goes. I really do appreciate all those guys. You know, we hear it every day, too, from people who say, gosh, you know, I'm tired of waiting for the

real goods, the real evidence. And, you know, I'm not going to pay attention anymore because I haven't seen alien bodies or the saucers. We feel that frustration, too. We want to know, we want to be around on the day when there is actual confirmation in a very public way. But you have to keep trying, you know, and that's what 2024 was all about. It's what 2025 will be about is you keep plugging away, pound it away, an inch at a time making progress. Hopefully we can keep doing that. I want to say thanks to our guy, Michael Wozowski, who is on vacation in Mexico recording this thing. He's going to get killed by his wife, isn't he? No, no. He'll survive it. He'll survive it. But yeah, he's the Wizard of Oz, of weaponized. I don't know if you want to show you.

your face, Michael. It's very dangerous to be associated with us. But Michael Lozowski, he's the Wizard of Oz and Weaponized. He's on vacation. Going to put this out so that everybody can hear this before we jump into 2025. So thanks, Michael, for everything you do for Weaponized. We could not do this without you. Jeremy, be on good behavior on New Year's Eve. I'll do my best. I'm always getting in trouble. You too. See you all later. See you. Weaponized listeners and viewers. We'll see you in 2025. Never has so few had so much to tell but would say so little.