WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - UFO Transparency Is Closer Than Ever - Will Trump Take Action?

Episode Date: November 27, 2025

In the 80-year coverup of the UFO mystery, there have been a handful of pivotal moments where public interest in the topic gained enough momentum to threaten the iron-clad, intractable code of silence adopted by military authorities and intelligence agencies. The 1952 overflights of Washington DC, the insider revelations unveiled by Major Donald Keyhoe, the outrage emanating from Project Blue Book’s ridiculous “swamp gas” type explanations, and the 2017 New York Times report about secret UFO programs and the Tic Tac incident each inspired demands for truth and transparency. But in each of those and other episodes, public interest eventually waned, in part because of clever cover stories, media manipulation, and debunking efforts by civilian “experts” who willingly espoused the themes crafted by secret keepers within the CIA, US Air Force, and a handful of defense contractors. Right now, as 2025 comes to a close, another opportunity has arrived. A blockbuster film, Age of Disclosure, has broken through the indifference that is common among major news platforms and has grabbed the attention of a broad audience, including members of Congress. At the same time, a dramatic interview with UAP whistleblower David Grusch was broadcast worldwide on the Fox News Network. A new book by Dr. James Lacatski, a career intelligence analyst for the DIA, has revealed the extent of AAWSAP, the acronym for the largest acknowledged UFO investigation ever financed by the US government. Because of these and other factors, at this moment, the UFO topic has grabbed public attention in a way not seen in years. Is this a pivotal moment in the history of the UFO/UAP mystery? And if so, what are the factors that led to this and what might the proponents of disclosure do next to make sure the moment is not another missed opportunity? In this episode, Jeremy and George are joined by three longtime researchers (and observers of UFO World) to get their input about the current state of public momentum for transparency, the impact of the new Age of Disclosure film, how the increased interest among the public and media might influence the Trump Administration to act, and what is likely to happen next. The panelists include Ryan Robbins (known for his insightful commentaries on his YouTube channel “Post Disclosure World”), Danny Silva, former editor of the Silva Record publication, and Joe Murgia, aka UFO Joe, who produces highly detailed reports and interview transcripts on his X account. Joe Murgia’s reporting on X at https://x.com/theUFOjoe Ryan "UFO Jesus" Robbin’s reporting on X at https://x.com/PostDisclosure Danny Silva’s reporting on X at https://x.com/SilvaRecord GOT A TIP? Reach out to us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[e-mail]⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ••• Watch Corbell's six-part UFO docuseries titled UFO REVOLUTION on TUBI here : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://tubitv.com/series/300002259/tmz-presents-ufo-revolution/season-2⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Watch Knapp’s six-part UFO docuseries titled INVESTIGATION ALIEN on NETFLIX here : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://netflix.com/title/81674441⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ••• You can now watch all of Corbell's movies for free on YouTube here : BOB LAZAR : AREA 51 & FLYING SAUCERS https://youtu.be/sZaE5rIavVA HUNT FOR THE SKINWALKER https://youtu.be/TczkJ6UAQ8A PATIENT SEVENTEEN https://youtu.be/gDVX0kRqXxE ••• 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

Study and play. Come together on a Windows 11 PC. And for a limited time, college students get the best of both worlds. Get the Unreal College deal, everything you need to study and play with select Windows 11 PCs. Eligible students get a year of Microsoft 365 premium and a year of Xbox GamePass Ultimate

with a custom color Xbox wireless controller. Learn more at Windows.com slash student offer. While supplies last, ends June 30th, turns at AKA.m.m.S. slash college PC. 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.

Watching Age of Disclosure, as I saw how people could come together to create a, I'm going to say a narrative that was easily digestible by the public. But anybody that knows the true history of how these UFO programs that George and I have reported on, George has reported on this before anybody, we have a problem. I think once people start, if people are new to this and they go, oh, this is really interesting. Interesting, I'm going to start digging deeper. And then they discover Skinwalkers at the Pentagon and they discover Ossap. They're going to say, this movie isn't accurate.

And I think, Danny, you brought it up, something we know about. We know this isn't accurate. What else do we not know about that they're talking about is also not accurate. So it's going to, you know, it's going to put that out there. And it's, we want this, we want transparency and truthfulness. And I understand not wanting to go there because it gets really messy with the orbs and, you know, the biological effects and what Jay Stratton and his family experience. And you're calling for disclosure and honesty.

And we want to know the truth. Tell us the truth. We can handle the truth. We want transparency. See, you've got to live up to that standard, too. And Alsap got the $22 million. That's the money that Reed got for it. ATIP came later.

It grew out of it. It did not have a budget that we know of. Lou Elizondo and Jay Stratton were involved in it. But they have had very vigorous, I'll put it that way, vigorous disagreements about what program did what. And the people who were involved directly with Alsap, who are here in Las Vegas, are not likely to come forward and raise a stink about it.

They're just not. But I can tell you, they watched this and they were pretty upset about it. It was Jay Stratton, who's, he has been so straightforward about this. And I really respect the way he talks about it. But I think he was dancing around something. He says, we bumped into the legacy program. I'm sorry, I'm not buying that for one second. I don't think you bumped into it.

I think that Jay Stratton, you know, had direct knowledge of the legacy program. This is weaponized. This is weaponized. Kind of a special episode. I'm George Knapp, hiding here in the bunker in Las Vegas. Jeremy Corbell, my friend and colleague, how are you doing? I'm great, man. I'm very excited to talk to our buddies today. Yeah, we're joined by a cast of thousands today and looking forward to having a really robust conversation. You know, Jeremy, for me, 39 years ago this month is when I jumped in with

both feet into the deep pool about crash retrievals, reverse engineering. It's when Lazars identity was made public, UFO's best evidence. that series was released. And at the time, it felt like I was way out on a limb by myself, crazy even by UFO standards. But, you know, now it seems like there's a lot more people out on this limb. This movie that came out, Age of Disclosure, is a blockbuster. It's a huge moment for the topic. And I think it gives us a chance to pause and reflect on where we are and how far we've come and how far we've got to go.

I know that, you know, there are going to be people who don't like it because we've already seen all that on social media. But we now have 34 different national security folks who are in this film who've come forward to say bits and pieces of the story that you and I have been telling for a long time are true, that this is real, that it's a real legitimate subject that we need to consider. I believe that age of disclosure, if you do a UFO show or podcast, you are now required by law to talk about that movie. And so we're going to meet the requirements of those statutes, but I think we might take it into a different direction, given the varied opinions that we've gathered here with our friends. Ryan Robbins, who used to be known as UFO Jesus, who produces

these excellent vignettes and editorial comments on YouTube. Danny Silva, who was once known as the Silver Record, the reporter of a Silver Record, now wants to be known as a diva. And I understand he is in the business who's selling used hot dog equipment. And UFO and Joe, Joe Mersia, who writes these gigantic compendiums of information and transcripts on Twitter that the whole topic appreciates. Jeremy, what do you think about the movie? We saw it together at the premiere in Austin in the spring. You watched it again since then. Give us your take.

Well, yeah, first of all, this is going to be a cacophonous, cavalcade of conversation, George, because the cool thing about our friendship with the people you just mentioned is that oftentimes we violently disagree on fundamental aspects of this. UFO topic, but we've maintained our friendship and been able to talk it through it. And to me, that's a very special relationship. I really respect each of these people in their opinion. So I am way more interested in hearing their opinions because I know that have dissected things in ways that I couldn't or didn't. But just in general, like I said, on other episodes of Weaponized, I am so happy that this movie exists. The ability of this movie to exist. It was well made. a lot of people we know, a lot of people we brought forward, you know, initially on this topic,

were shown and featured in such a cool light. It really is a huge endeavor to make a film like that. So I congratulate Dan. I congratulate his whole team. I congratulate, you know, Jay Stratton, everybody, Lou Elizano, people that participated. Now, of course, I've got some bones to pick with the movie on factual reality. But then I also want to say, we learned a lot of things that were never uttered in the way that they were in this film before. So overall, man, I think it's really important that everybody watch this film.

I think that you have to not just turn off your brain after you watch it. It should lead you to inquiry. And it feels really good to have a discussion like this kind of booming into the media. But we have to be careful. We have to be careful just after the last hearing, which is not featured in this movie because of the timeline of when the movie was made. Right after the hearing, you know, we had an assassination of Charlie Kirk. And the media took over. and a lot of what could have been picked apart from that hearing wasn't.

So we have an opportunity now to really push so that we can gain more understanding and put the pressure on people, grind them down to make more disclosures. And I think that falls upon us and journalists in general to do that. So I see this as a huge opportunity and I just hope we don't lose it because of one little thing that can happen from an international event. That's how I feel about the movie. Yeah, I mean, you're right about the congressional hearing. A lot of information came out directly related to the content of this movie. Crash Retrievals, Reverse Engineering Program, people who'd come forward and spoken about it.

We've interviewed all of us in this group have interviewed and talked about and written about the material that came forth in the movie in bits and pieces. The power of it is having all those people in one place spill in the bean. It depends on what the audience is, which audience you're talking about, how much effect it has. For the UFO believers who already accept this stuff as truth and people who are generally interested in the topic, I think it reinforces what they've believed for a long time, and that's a positive. For people on the edges of it who have a casual sort of interest, I think the PR campaign is maybe more important than the movie.

Dan Farrow was on Joe Rogan. He was on CNN. He was on with Bill Maher. He's been everywhere. And millions, tens of millions of people have seen those interviews who will likely not pay 20, 25 bucks to watch the movie, but got the message. There are so many articles that have been written about it. The headlines pack a lot of influence. People who will read that, read the headline, part of the article, and never watch the movie, but it'll stick with them.

And then, of course, you got another audience of people who hate it, who don't believe it. And that includes UFO believers and non-believers. You'll hear them the same bitching and moaning. All right, you had a bunch of people talking about it. The programs are real. Yeah, they're big shots. But where's the proof? Where's the evidence?

Where's the data? Same thing. And then the skeptics saying the same exact thing. Michael Shermer, Jeremy, you sent me an article that he had written. Yeah, yeah. Say all this stuff all you want. But where's the evidence? Well, you know, these people are saying it's classified programs,

national security. We can't show you all that stuff. but we're telling you it's real. And there are the same position as the UFO diehards who say, I won't believe it until you show me the craft and show me the bodies, which is not going to happen, which is not. So I don't know, who wants to jump into this first? You know, I think the movie is a good thing overall and it's powerful,

and the PR campaign has been maybe more important than the movie itself. But we'll see. Ryan, won't you start it off? What do you think about the movie and where do you want to take it? What does it mean? Yeah, I thought it was a very excellent movie. You could tell there was a lot of effort and money put into it. It wasn't done haphazardly.

It was well researched and well edited. I was, you know, there's a lot of interesting developments in that movie, but I was really interested in Jim Clapper talking about a UFO program, studying UAP, entering training ranges, such as Area 51, maybe other training ranges. And my question is, like, what's actionable with that? How can you have the former director of national intelligence and the former director of the defense intelligence agency? He had a long Air Force career. I mean, he's as mainstream and as credible as you get.

How can he get on this documentary? Say there's a UFO program funded by taxpayer dollars. And yet Arrow, just as an example, our UFO program and the Pentagon's put up by Congress is saying there's nothing to see here. There's no evidence of extraterrestrials, as they like to put it, because they don't want to say, non-human intelligence and yet James Clapper is telling us wait a minute, no, there's a UFO program, well, okay, well, if there's nothing to see here

then why is there a UFO program? Is it still going on? And just today, Chris Mellon, he had a video put out in the I think it was the Disclosure Foundation and he was calling for people to testify

under oath to the Congressional Armed Services and Intel committees. Four different high-level people are three different people from the Air Force, one person who's Don Merrick, I don't know how to pronounce his last name, the deputy director for science and technology at the CIA. So to me, if this film is going to count, then it really has to be actionable. So Congress should be inspired to do something, subpoena people, do what public citizens cannot do. You have all the momentum now, now that this film came out.

So do something actionable. That's what I think about it. Ryan, real quick, because when you say things, I've got to jump in, it's a big deal. So we had Clapper not only say there's a UFO program, he was not talking about ASAP, or A-TIP, or any of that, or even Kona Blue. He was talking about an Air Force study, an Air Force UFO tracking program. Now, remember, last Air Force program we're supposed to have was Project Blue Book, that's kind of an atom bomb because what Arrow didn't find that?

Didn't reveal that to the public? Huh, weird. Maybe they should have called James Clapper. That's pretty crazy to begin with. Let me add a little other element here. James Clapper is no friend of UFO research. When OSAP was trying to become a special access program, what's not been made public is he fought tooth and nail to kill it. He was whispering to, I think Ashton Carter at the time was the Secretary of Defense and, of course, it did get killed.

But he was adamant about this is useless, worthless, no value here, kill it. And it was killed. But I don't think that's ever come out before as far as I can recall. call, but it's interesting now he's out on the forefront of spilling the beans. A little bit he is. A few years ago, he did an interview. I think it was on CNN, and I think he mentioned how he may have been part of the problem of why more people don't know about this.

I don't know if he was referring to what you just said, but yeah, he was out there. But that was one of his few interviews. I think it's the only interview he had given on UAP before the movie. He should keep repenting them because it's really good to hear. And George, he specifically mentioned that they were seeing UFOs over the test site, over Area 51. So he's not talking about our black projects. Just think about that for a second, right? Everybody.

He's not talking about our black projects. He's talking about some foreign technology, something that's not ours, UFOs over Area 51. Can you imagine, George, why there might be UFOs over Area 51? Must be secret programs that planes were building or something. I read in the Wall Street Journal it was all made up. They made up the whole thing. They started that rumor because they had some fake UFO photos and everybody fell for it. So maybe Clapper is one of those who fell for it too. Jeremy, you mentioned ASEB. What is ASEP? I've never heard of ASEP. I saw the movie. What is this Ausep you speak of? Right. So I guess, you know, one of the things about watching Age of Disclosure is I saw how people could come together to create a, I'm going to say a narrative.

that was easily digestible by the public. But anybody that knows the true history of how these UFO programs that George and I have reported on, and George has reported on this before anybody, we have a problem. Houston, we have a problem. The absence of the acknowledgement of ASAP was troubling to me. And maybe, like, you guys can pick apart why you think that might be troubling.

I think once people start, if people are new to this and they go, This is really interesting. Interesting. I'm going to start digging deeper. And then they discover Skinwalkers at the Pentagon and they discover Ossap. They're going to say, this movie isn't accurate. And I think, Danny, you brought it up, something we know about. We know this isn't accurate.

What else do we not know about that they're talking about is also not accurate? So it's going to, you know, it's going to put that out there. And it's, we want this, we want transparency and truthfulness. And I understand not wanting to go there because it gets really. messy with orbs and, you know, the biological effects and what Jay Stratton and his family experience. I get that. But you could have mentioned Ossap, the paranormal connection and said, we're going to address, somehow we'll address it in another movie. And I know Farah has said that in interviews, he mentions Ossap, but for the movie, it may create a credibility

problem, which we definitely do not need. Yeah, I'm just going to say it, man. It didn't seem like it was lost in translation. It seemed like they wanted you to. to believe that A-Tip, you know, was correct in the New York Times and received the $22 million that funded this whole study. And it just, and it ran for that long. And that's just not true. And that's, you know, I think that's okay in some ways. Like, I'm looking big picture. But George, I wanted to know what you think, because you reported on all this from the embryonic stage. You know, you were in there reporting on this before anybody ever knew about it. You gave that wink in the nod and hunt for the skin walker in my movie.

saying something big is about to happen. So it's got to kind of, because you're friends with all these guys. So it's got to kind of irk at you. So can you give me your perspective? I think our audience deserves to hear it, man. Well, again, I don't want to be a turd in the punch bowl or rain on the parade of the movie because it's a great movie and it is important. But that is a pretty glaring omission.

And it kind of, I was glad to see Lou Elizondo and Jay Stratton on the same stage, even if they weren't being entirely truthful. but if you're making a movie and you're calling for disclosure and honesty, and we want to know the truth, tell us the truth, we can handle the truth, we want transparency, you've got to live up to that standard too. And Alsap got the $22 million. That's the money that Reed got for it. ATIP came later. It grew out of it. It did not have a budget that we know of. Lou Elizondo and J. Stratton were involved in it, but they have had very vigorous, I'll put it that way, vigorous disagreements about what program did what and who was in charge of what that they

have expressed for a number of years. The fact that they've come together and found some common ground that both are able to agree on for purposes of the movie, there's probably a good thing. Having the movie out without a bunch of internal squabbles is good. But eventually, Jay's going to have his book come out. I think it's still wrapped up in the dopser process. And I don't think it's going to tow to the line of the sequence of events that we heard in the movie. I just don't. And because they aren't. And the people who were involved directly with ASAP, who are here in Las Vegas, are not likely to come forward and raise a stink about it. They're just not. But I can tell you, they watched this and they were pretty upset about it.

Okay. So we've done right for, you know, your friends that actually ran ASAP and did all that work. It's got to feel like they're a little bit robbed, you know, not having that told that part of the story. But let's, maybe it's not like that it's a matter of truth. Maybe it's just a selective telling of a part of history. I think it's a nicer way to say it because I think it is true. For example, another thing in the movie is when they say, it was Jay Stratton, who's, he has been so straightforward about this. And I really respect the way he talks about it. But I think he was dancing around something. He says, we bumped into the legacy program. I'm sorry. I'm not buying that for one second. I don't think he bumped into it. I think that. I think

Jay Stratton, you know, had direct knowledge of the legacy program. I think Lou Elizondo probably has a large history with the UFO thing that, that is not public yet. And I'm sure he's dying to tell people and just maybe like can't legally because he's always said he's telling what he can legally. And a lot of people come from that. I know like even Dr. Lackatsky, I mean, I am convinced, George, you know, not out of belief. I am convinced that he was read into the legacy program. Well, sure sounds like it from him being inside of a craft and then sharing that information with a number of notables. Sure sounds like it.

Yeah. He's a stickler, as we both know, very much to our frustration. He won't go further than he's allowed to go. And I suspect the same is true for Jay Stratton and Lou Elizondo, too. They'll say what they can up to a point. They'll drop hints. The fact that they find a common ground to tell part of the story in advance, what they know is part of the this movie is good, but eventually you have to come clean and tell the accurate story.

Yeah, yeah. I think. Danny. I love, I loved it. I loved Lou in it. I love Jane and all these people we hadn't heard from. But now, retired Danny, just curious. Do you know, retired from the UFO? Do you have any thoughts on all this? We were beating a dead horse here, but it's important because it's historic fat. Do you have anything you think about this? So I'm retired as a blogger. And I feel bad when you guys say I'm running a blog still. But it's still there. If anyone wants to check it out for prosperity. I'm not retired from the UFO subject, always be interested. And luckily, I have everyone on this live right now to hear so many great ideas from. I don't think the issues that we're bringing up right now would the movie play to the general public, as you were saying,

Jeremy, as important as they are and as important as they are to the people involved of the programs. I think ASAP and ATIP kind of get combined, which we've seen ever since the New York Times article, and we've seen it in public presentations. Those two programs just get combined, and they're once again combined in this movie for whatever

reason that is. The movie, but, you know, that is an issue, but at the same time, I just don't know that the public, general public, is going to care. But as Joe said, maybe they will eventually, when they start reading the books and dig in it in if they're

really interested in it. The movie itself, I'm as pessimistic as I am these days and how jaded I am and hard it is for me to get excited about things. I was really excited about the movie. I was smiling and I really loved it. I thought it was great. It was a great recap of what we've all kind of lived through since 2017 and the progress that's been made. They recapped everything. It was also a great state of the union, I felt like, of where the UFO subject is and some of the problems it's running into. I really liked how Lou kind of drove the movie. It was cool to see him doing some narration. They had him at the, with the piece of chalk and everything that was kind of I love that. The chalkboard scene, it reminded me back of the Lazar when George is filming. Yeah.

I thought Hal put-off stole the show. They gave him a lot of airtime. He, did great. It was amazing to see him talking at length, which we don't always get to see. We've heard him, you know, get interviewed by George over the years. But his interviews aren't that common, and we really don't get to see him talk a lot. So that was really cool. I thought he really did steal the show. However, my favorite quote in the whole movie, and I wrote it down was from Stratton when he said, he was talking about the legacy program. And he said, it's so bad that we really aren't going to make progress until someone shines the light on them talking about the legacy program. And I feel like that it may be kind of where we are with the whole disclosure thing right now.

And we really need to hammer down on the legacy program myself. I was also kind of surprised that they gave so much attention to the legacy program in the movie. And we always talk about this. The progress we've seen since 2017, when I was talking to people years ago, they didn't want to talk about biological effects. They got really nervous. Like, they weren't allowed to talk about it. During the original to the Stars Academy TV show,

they really didn't even want to talk about, you know, aliens or non-human intelligence to, like, the later episodes in the show. They weren't really focusing on that. I mean, it was implied. It just wasn't a big thing that they could really talk about. And now, kind of the band-aids been ripped off, it seems like, and we've seen that in the show.

However, if you notice, there was no mention of, at least that I remember, productions. So I don't know if maybe that's off-limat. That's the next level, right? Because I remember James, George, remember this James Fox. He was, you know, going out on a limb to make a documentary about a being.

I remember him he was really scared about it. It's going to kill my credibility in the UFO world as a filmmaker. And we're all, do it, do it. But even as a filmmaker, a documentary on this, James Fox was having those heart palpitations. He's going to start getting into beings, into aliens,

you know, and now we're in a different place where we're having these conversations about creatures, about pilots, and we'll get into that a little bit later today, but it's kind of neat how we're now facing it. We're getting past the stigma, right? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, absolutely. And I don't know if it's, if it's stigma, I think it's stigma, but it's also, I always wonder why did these people, I felt like whatever was, they felt like maybe they would get in trouble talking about certain things. Oh, yeah, biologics being off the table for a lot of people. And also just not a lot of people are exposed to that within these programs. It's a very small thing. It's like the history of UFO world, you know,

for so long people were willing, euthologist types and UFO organizations were willing to agree. These craft of the sky are coming from somewhere else. But don't tell me they're flown by somebody else, you know, some aliens or something. We don't want to hear that stuff. And abductions, that was a verboten topic for a long time. a Mufon conference or something like that. That's just crazy talk. So now when you want to follow the evidence where it leads, that exposure to these craft and beings really do happen, that people get sick, serious injuries are caused by it, and that they start seeing werewolves and stuff, you know, I can understand people not being willing to talk about it.

Even the folks who are at Skinwalker, they kept some of that wrapped up for a long time as as crazy as it sounds. The woo factor does affect your credibility when it comes out. But Hopkins said when he first started looking into abductions, he started getting the reports. If he would get somebody who had a repeated abduction like the second time, he would throw the case away. He's like, no, this is, no, that's not, that's not something that's very believable. Now it's like that's really part of the story. They had Terry Lovelace and Bob Jacobs in the movie talking about Kraft and Jacobs talking about the missile with the dummy warhead being shot down over Big Sur. Both of those folks have talked about their abduction experiences.

Jacobs was in Robert Hastings. They have a book together called Confession. They both talk about their experiences. So I assume Farah did interview them about that, but didn't, you know, probably didn't have enough time to go there, which I understand. If you're an experiencer, you're probably a little upset about that. But, you know, once again, people will see the film, hopefully come to people like us, and we'll say there's more to the story that you didn't get to see in the movie.

So, yeah, but I loved it. I went to see it. I saw it online and then I went to L.A. on Sunday night. Saw it. I saw the panel. Great audience reaction. And I think the general public is really going to like it. But I don't think the general public, as George mentioned, is going to pay right now 20 bucks to see it.

You know, I would love over Thanksgiving for that to be the most discussed topic. But if I tell my family, they're going to say $20, I'll wait until it comes down. like the four bucks or five bucks. Oh man, everybody should gift people the movie that. I'm sorry, that kills me. People pay $20 for such crap these days on Amazon. Just buy the damn movie. Everybody should watch this because it is an A to Z estimate of the situation about UFO land

and everybody can see it. I mean, come on, buy the movie. Another big takeaway from the movie that I think will probably affect the public the most. In my view is Marco Rubio. He was really candid. He was just very candid. And where else he was edited that way, one of the two. But because of his stature and position in the government right now,

I think he was probably the most important voice in the movie. Maybe not dropping the most bombs for us. But as far as what the public sees and to draw people in, he lent the most credibility. If you're a member of the media, how do you not have a show on Sunday with Clapper and Rubio as your guest? talking about this topic. It's like, how is that not happening?

Is it going to happen? The movie just released. The movie just released. Give them a beat. You know, usually there's a two-week thing where mass media will pick up, you know, what, you know, we're doing in this kind of field. But give him a week. I think it's number one, right, on all the streaming services and movie rentals and stuff. Ryan, did you just see it now this past week or this past weekend or do you've seen it hints of it before?

The movie? Yeah. Yeah, I saw the whole thing. One part that I thought was really well done and fascinating is when Hal Putoff was talking about the warp bubble and how the technology works. I mean, I just found that endlessly fascinating. How I don't know how certain they are. This is how the technology works. But based on his description, if you're inside the warp bubble, time travels differently.

you experience time differently than if you're outside the warp bubble. And it was really fascinating how Putoff said that this may be why people experience missing time. If you get abducted and you go into these craft, well, you may be there for 30 minutes, right? And that beings on that craft are doing whatever they're doing to you for 30 minutes. And then they drop you back off wherever it is. And you look at your watch and it's been six hours. It hasn't been. Well, it was 30 minutes for you.

It was in the craft. then it was six hours for you outside of the craft, which I can't even understand. But I found that really interesting, and I just love the imagery and the graphics they use to describe the technology. It's unbelievable. The space-time engineering component of the phenomenon of the craft.

I'm really happy they included that, because just from a scientific standpoint, I found it really fantastic. You guys, by the way, that story was broken. when there was a clip of Lou Elizondo being interviewed by a guy named George Knapp on 8 News Now, if I'm not mistaken many years ago. I mean, Danny, is that, I mean, I would argue, and I think I've got a very compelling case to argue,

that the entire concept of how these craft work is exactly as described by Lazar in 1989. And I will defend that because I took exquisite notes on this, exactly what was said in the documentary. but it describes the five observables because if what they are saying by a bubble, Ryan, is a gravitational distortion, a time, space distortion. That is exactly what Lazar described. In fact, it describes the stealth aspect of a lot of the craft. If you were really listening to what he said, I'm sure you were, Ryan.

He picked up on why it would describe that observable. You know, Hal said that, you know, these structured fields were beginning to be able to see due to sensor system. platforms the energy signatures. So that's exactly what he said, if I remember. And that is true that what you're, what you're capturing with these new systems is the actual signature of the energy, not necessarily the craft themselves. But this is exactly, exactly what Luzard described in the back of the day. But what is missing in this documentary's description, it's not the documentary's fault. They're not willing to talk about it, which is the amount of power that it takes. What would be the fuel source? How would you tap? into that much energy to create something which we know can exist in our physics, right? And they talk about the implications of that, how much energy it takes 11 billion watts. It sounds like back to the future, but 100 times more than the daily power generation of our nation is what they said in the film. But I think the real key misunderstanding here is how, what would the fuel source be to enact

these physical principles that we know can exist? And we observe them existing in UAP. So I'm glad you brought it up, Ryan. I'm just saying this is not a new concept if you just look all the way back to the first times this was described to us. Or am I wrong, George? No, that's first time I ever heard it is back then. And I would agree with the other guys about the importance of Hal as a witness in this movie. Howl and put off an Eric Davis have said some of these things in the past.

Joe, you will recall, since you probably transcribed it, but they went on the Co-Code. to coast with me back in 2018, three or four months after the New York Times article came out. And we started asking them about crash retrievals and how many craft we might have and Hal answered it. And I asked him the question that was a really long. It felt like two and a half months of a pause. And then he spilled something about it. It's great to see him where he's now free and able to describe more of the details. And Eric, of course, if you get him going, he'll tell you everything. I really found Jim Semavan to be really important, too. And, you know, talk about Wu and stigma. The things that have happened to Jim and his wife are way out there. They're

pretty dramatic. But I find him to be one of the most credible witnesses of all. And you can make a whole film just about Jim and I go watch. Just back to the warp bubble. So you guys saw the movie Interstellar where he decides to go down to the planet. And since the gravity is so strong, it's going to slow time there or trap time will be different back on earth and when he gets back everybody's basically 90 years old so i think that's the same concept they're talking about so if you go in a UFO and you're abducted and you stay for a year when you get out everybody's going to be a i don't know how much older and i don't know the difference in gravity between a warp bubble and a planet but i think it's the same theory if you guys know anything different i don't know correct me that

seems like the same theory on the on the warp bubble and gravity no right or Or there's something we're not understanding when it comes to, you know, the actual, I don't know the right word, I'm not a scientist, but the momentum of those bubbles, like where it's traveling through our time and space might create the differential. Not sure. We should get some really smart physicists on here sometime. But, you know, this basic idea that you've got this isolated, you know, pocket that is a gravitational field. And that's the thing that they wouldn't just say it in the movie with a warp bubble. What does that mean? It's warping space and time.

It's a gravitational field around this graph. Man, yeah, it does explain a lot of the observables. And also the witness testimony, Joe, and all of you guys, you probably have taken testimony from people where they're like, it was really weird. I was seeing these pilots of this craft, but it was like as if you took a VHS and fast forwarded it. And they were like moving all around.

And that is something that has been described to me at nauseam, of people that have seen beings, is that there's moments where they seem to be in fast motion and you're sitting back, that would also describe what is happening within that time dilation of that warp bubble. I don't know. I'm not a physicist. Yeah, and how put-off also said this might account for stories where people are abducted and they say they go into this small craft. And suddenly when they're in the craft, the thing's enormous and as far, like the space they're experiencing is far bigger than they perceived

from the outside, which was also very interesting. By the way, Lou Elizando is really good on camera. I mean, really, really good. I mean, I've had my differences with Lou over the last few years, and now we're pretty good. And I would say that no matter what. He's really good on camera. The Blackboard scene is really going to be a great way to explain it for newbies

as far as what might be going on. So I'm going to, that's a good idea, Jeremy, buy this as a gift for Thanksgiving and Christmas. It's a really great idea. it'll make you less of a weirdo at the that's not possible. That's not possible. Not possible. I can't wait to hang with you. Well, like, I want to say this about Lou too. Like, you know, he called me right after the movie dropped out.

And, you know, I could see Lou has, like Grush, Stratton will be attacked, but like Grush has been attacked. Lou's been attacked. And I'll tell you just from a personal character standpoint, you know, Lou is an authentic person. He is fighting for a good fight and he is doing his best. I know that to be true. I have seen him squeeze at times.

So no matter what these little differences are, as we all talk about UFO land, I just got to say as a character reference, I have found him to be a really credible, straightforward, good human being. Now, maybe I've got different experiences than a lot of his haters, but I think it's important for me to say that because that has been my experience with Lou. And I'm really, you're right. He's a great communicator and we're lucky to have him. I think it's hard for people like Lou, maybe harder for people like Lou, who basically have been good guys their whole life, fighting the good fight, putting their lives on the line, being heroes for our country. They come out and talk about this and then just get pummeled and beaten relentlessly. I mean, he's taken a lot of crap since the 2017 New York Times story and continues to take it. From friends and foe and people on all sides of this issue, he gets beaten up pretty good.

So it's a good moment for him and he deserves it. I'd love to, I'd love to ask you guys, I mean, we didn't see Dave Grush in there, but we did hear from Dave Grush and interview, Jeremy, that you helped set an emotion on Fox News. And I'm sure people look at this like it's all being, you know, managed, stage managed, that the movie comes out and then Dave's on this and Fox does a week long of series and Bill Maher does interviews and it's all being manipulated by some invisible beings or something. But that interview happened a long time ago.

Dave would have been a valuable addition to the movie. Why do you suppose he wasn't in it? Well, I think he definitely chose not to be in it. I remember helping to make that connection with Dan so that they could have that conversation. You know, I think Dave has a kind of different tactic to getting out what he knows to be true. Dave is a true whistleblower. This is not a managed. message with Dave. Not that it is with the other guys, but it is at least authorized. With Dave,

you know, he really is working on a fundamental attitude that nobody has the right to hold this back. So let's go to his interview for one second. Yeah, I helped in just trying to get, you know, him in touch with a network and a producer that would be able to hear what he had to say and treat it properly. I mean, we could have done the same, George, but, you know, President Trump doesn't watch weaponize as far as I know. So, yeah, so David Gresh talked again, and I was really glad he decided to because he's not all over the media. I do think that he has a difference of opinion. And that's for him to talk about when it comes to this stuff.

You know, he really thinks everybody should just open up and say what they know. For example, he thinks that if Lou Elizondo was part of the Legacy UFO program, that he should just say it. go out on the limb and just say it. And so I think that's the difference of opinion. I think the film would have had Dave participate if Dave had agreed. But I think that he was, he's just on a different path. Am I explaining that clearly? Yeah, kind of.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So what did he say? What did he say in that Brett Bayer interview that was kind of interesting to you guys? Because there's a few key things that I'm not sure if everybody really gets, but now they said it, I'm going to spill the beans too. What would you hear from the paper?

I think the bombshell for me, least is he said that, well, first of all, obviously he said that he had some degree of access to some of the legacy programs. He was reading official intelligent reports, which is completely different than interviewing legacy program witnesses. That's a totally different animal because he's being officially briefed into those programs by the official government, not speaking to people that were in the program. So I think there's a big distinction there. So that would make him, in my opinion, a first-hand witness. I don't see how anyone could say he's a second-hand witness

when he's reading the official U.S. government intelligence reports that are highly classified, giving him information on these classified legacy programs. And then he said that he, Brett, bear asked him, like, did you see photos? And he's like, yeah, I saw photos. And in the context of that was, as I could tell, he saw photos of the beings from when they were retrieving the craft. Oh, you got that right? That's been a hard thing to bite a tongue about.

You got that right. Yeah. So he's a firsthand witness. I mean, he saw photographs of the beings. I mean, okay, if you want to say it's a sci-op, fine. Then fine. If you want to go that route, then he's a firsthand witness of a sci-up. But he's a firsthand witness, period.

Yeah, I agree, Ryan. In official capacity, access to the briefings, he didn't say he just read him. They were visual as well. And that was always kind of intimated. If you really look back what David Gresh said, you're right. he is a firsthand witness because in official capacity, he saw alien beings. And those are the words, those are the words that, you know, our government would use. NIH wasn't so hip when these alleged photos were taken.

But he saw photos of beings, bro. And so I agree with you. If that is true, then he is a direct first-hand witness to internal government documentation where they call it. I will, I'll play devil's advocate. I agree with what you just said. The problem is in your interview with Laskie, he said, and he said it was, and he said it was on April fools. He said there were photos that he saw that were going around

of a craft from a certain country. It was a UFO that they had at one of their air bases. And he said it was shocking. It wasn't obviously fake. It was identified as fake, but it was a good job. Then you have Kit Green when he talked to Dolan a few years ago saying

he was shown photos of aliens and he said, I was convinced they were real and I later determined in my opinion that they were fake. They were a hoax that was in a Pentagon facility. where I had that briefing, and then I had other non-Penegon facility briefings that videos were sent to me, and I

determined all of those were hoaxes. He called it, he had a word for it, active measures. So I'm not saying that happened with David Gruff. I'm not saying that's what he saw, but I just want to include that. For me, I want people who actually saw the

craft with their own eyes, not a photo. I don't know if you guys, is a photograph going to be enough for the general public if they do release photos of craft and bodies? Are we going to need them to wheel it down, you know, the aisle during a hearing and say, here you go. Here are the people who examine the bodies. Here are the reports. Here's the craft. Here are the people who examined the craft who worked on a day after day for five years. This is why they believe it's a non-human craft. I think eventually that's what we'll need. I don't

think in my lifetime we'll see that. I could be wrong. I never thought we'd get to where we are right now. So I hope you're wrong. But of course, Joe, we all want like the absolute evidence in the proof. But what we got right now is an intelligence guy that went up, raised his right hand under oath, and he was dancing around it then, but he said it very clearly on Brett Bear that he had direct access to intelligence reports with photographs of

Yeah, and Dan Farrow said, he goes, I'd rather have intelligence folks coming forward speaking and telling what they know over photos because they can be faked or people can say it's AI. And I agree that right now that is really good. But in the future, we're going to need more.

And I'm not saying these folks need to do whatever they can to steal the craft or the bodies. I'm not saying that. I realize the classified issues, you know, over classification. So I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, just trying to look at it from all of you, all the points. Last things Grush said, and then I'll hand it all. I just make sure to hit these two points. You know, he did say in the Brett Baer interview, which I'm really glad he came forward out and started talking about, but he says that, you know, President Trump is aware and well briefed on the issue. I would personally postulate that he has direct knowledge that President Trump is well briefed on the issue. By the way, hopefully we'll

find out more about that. Look, Trump has positioned to know and not be obfuscated from. We cannot say that for prior presidents. If you look at the way the film broke it down, where it's like they could be on a need-to-know basis of the presidents, oh, President Trump ain't having none of that. So he's in a position to know and not be obfuscated from. That's very different than the Clinton era, I would hope. So I just think that's very interesting that David Gresh also said that. And I think that will ring true. He also said one other thing, Jeremy.

He said, and maybe I'm reading too much into this, but he said on origin, he said, I did not see that data. And I'm not conversant in the high confidence theories that the U.S. government had. So the United States government, according to that, does have high confidence theories on origin. I would love to know that. And if they do have that, that should not be classified. That's not propulsion. That's not sources and methods. Agreed. Well, if they have theories plural, that suggests that they still don't know for sure. Right. So where do we go? It's a special moment here. There is some momentum. The public attention has been caught for the moment because of the movie and subsequent publicity and the credibility of the people who spoke up. Where does it go from here? Is there something that Congress can act on? Who should they call? And how do you get to?

over the problem of members of Congress not having security clearances and not being able to hear what some of these witnesses would be able to tell them? I think we need to get Trump to do in an executive order to remove the NDAs or modify the NDAs of these witnesses so that the members of Congress and the congressional committees can actually hear what these witnesses have to say. I think it might come down to some act by the president of the United States because the barriers are just so high that it might require that at the end of the day. We've already had that. That's a problem. See, I've been part of these meetings. So has George. Let me tell you a problem. There has already been an opportunity to

bypass all of these NDAs that were, you know, signed and to come in and give full testimony. Some people did. People that people do not know about yet. They did it to somebody that George and I know was running that show. We facilitated people going in to do that. Here's the problem. A lot of people, most people, were too fucking terrified to go in there and break from the fold. When they talk about in this movie the legacy program as a monolith and that there is actual danger to doing that, a protected secrets, that's not BS. That is true.

So let's say we do get this executive order. And I agree, Ryan, we should get. get that. But then how do we motivate people who truly have been in these secret circles and have seen what has happened to other people? And how do we get them to come forward? Maybe they, maybe they don't think the public should know. How do we, we have to force them. My opinion is we have to force them somehow. Because just opening that door didn't work. And you know what I'm talking about, George, when people would, when there was that opportunity and we helped with that. So I know Grush spilled everything he knows, but you're saying that firsthand witnesses that like

worked in the legacy program could do what grush did. They had the legal room to do that without being prosecuted. Behind closed doors? Behind closed doors, right? Yes. Okay. There was absolute ability to. Then it's just a fear issue then.

Then it's just a fear issue. Because if they have legal immunity, then they, then the only thing stopping them is they're worried about losing their jobs and their security clearances and, you know, consequences. If Trump comes, okay, yes. The way you phrase it. If Trump comes forward and says, You know, he does say something, you know, this is real. And I am giving my blessing right now for the people who worked in this legacy program.

You can come forward. We will support you. We will protect you. You can come forward and behind closed doors, tell us what you know. I don't know if that will change their mind. And I'm not going to ever blame somebody for not doing it because I'm not in their position where I'm getting death threats. you know so besides that to get to that point we also need the media to ask the president about what david grush said repeatedly you know ask him hold him to you know hold into it say we want

an answer were you briefed about crash retrievals you know and in his last one of his last interviews last year with the unimpulsive he was asked and he said i think it was june of 2024 he said i have pilots coming to me and it's really impressive and there may be some stuff but me personally, I'm not convinced. Was that after his briefing that he received? I don't know, you know. I think he's just avoiding the issue. Because if he's been read into it,

he's just trying to pretend like he doesn't know as much as he knows. And I'm baffled why, you know, Trump with his ego and the common sense of having an unparalleled legacy by being the first president to break this open, what is stopping him from doing? doing this. He'll talk about anything. Who'll say, he'll do Instagram posts and go all over the place and anything but the Epstein files. Well, yeah. You're right about that. It bends on how bad things get from the files. If they come out with photos, that might be the day we either invade Venezuela

or we, he has a news conference about UFOs. I mean, look, he makes an announcement. It then dominates the rest of his administration and he'll be asked more questions. You can try to limit what you say and how much you release, but he'll be asking about it for the rest of his days. I think he'd have to be in a corner to go ahead and do it. And I think he has been briefed, but his interest level is about that deep. It's not about him. And I wonder if he's been advised to not talk about it. Like, have people been like constantly using all kinds of trade craft persuasion on him

to just get into his mind and be like, nah, you don't want to go there? Here's why. X, Y, Z. They have all these answers set up for him. knowing his psychology, like if they're doing that, well, okay, people are malleable and that sucks. But, you know, that's why I think someone like the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, maybe he needs to start saying, you know, publicly, like, why is the president not talking about this? You know what I mean? Or if he doesn't want to be that abrasive, just say the American people have a right to know, we should really break this open.

And then people will automatically start pressuring the president of the United States. if he doesn't want to reference him specifically. Yeah, okay, three things real quick. So there is going to be pushback. I am specifically aware of how there's going to be an official pushback to influence high level of government and even Congress. And it's terrifying. And I'm going to try to see how it, if it does pan out that way or if there's going to be honesty, you're right, Joe, we do need somebody to go at the White House press corps and specifically ask about the accusation that David Grush made live on TV.

I could imagine a great Fox News person doing that because it was on their network. So I'm really hoping that's going to be done. And then Rubio, about Rubio, Ryan, can you imagine what that's like? You know, before he accepted that job for the nomination, he had to disclose. Is he in any media that's going to be coming out? He had to disclose, I'm in a movie. It's going to be coming out talking about UFOs. So can you imagine that conversation?

Now, I don't think he'd ever say, you know, try to put President Trump in a corner on this. But I do think he could be the. greatest advocate that we have right now, because I'll tell you this, former Senator Rubio, he knows. He knows. He was red-end. He is met with more people than most people in government at that level. So he has an opportunity to talk with President Trump about it privately. And then I think if President Trump has asked the right questions in a live meeting, I think we could get a more interesting answer this time, I hope. And he's the National Security Advisor. And from what I've heard from you and George,

and other sources, they, they are overseeing the legacy program because that way, you know, FOIA can't penetrate anything that they're doing. Is that right? Am I getting that right? Not quite. Because if we are to believe what Matthew Brown said that he read the transcripts in one of these meetings with Dr. Capatrick and with Rubio, the quote was something like, you mean they have been running this legacy UFO program, you know, unaccounted for for all, for

80 years. So it depends. Like if that is a correct assessment that Matthew Brown had of what he was exposed to, then I would say no. He has no oversight over this legacy. He was hid from him just like everybody else. And they make a good point in the film of how these things are held. And Lou Elizano broke it down. CIA, Air Force, private defense. If you really listen to that section of the film, the way he broke it down. He exquisitely explained exactly how, on the DOE, how that whole mechanism has worked to keep this the best held secret ever in American history. Danny, you were trying to jump in there earlier. Did you have a suggestion on how to take advantage at this moment?

I like the Jay Stratton quote that I was talking about earlier. And I think the legacy program probably does have to be outed for us to really, really progress. I think that's the way forward. Of course, there is other opinions on that. The Trump stuff is really interesting to me. Even in the Grush interview, it kind of made Trump look bad. I mean, Grush was saying he was well versed on the issue,

and then right before that they had the clip where he said he's not convinced. It's just contradicting that. So I think Trump is almost in the same position as the government as a whole where people are going to, if he does mention something about it, people are going to say, well, why didn't you already say this? You already had one term. You've already made all these other comments. So I think like George was saying,

he really is going to have to be super motivated in some other way in order to kind of throw himself under the bus like that. And must not forget that Grush in that interview, he said that the Trump administration were talking about the issue behind the scenes. So what did he mean by that? It's like he's suggesting that they are planning something. Dan Farah has said the same thing. So if that's true, then maybe the Trump administration is planning something.

know anything about that? Yeah, I mean, it's seeded information. Like, we're all hoping that's the case. There, you know, there are discussions. Look, you can just look at what happened. Who was that guy that was on the show that just kind of bragged about getting a text from Grush in the green room and he's part of the, um, Walter Fern, I think. Right, right. And it was really kind of cool. He was talking about how, um, you know, within that, uh, administration, how there's, you know, he thinks maybe Trump could be the president to come forward and do this. Well, I think he's pretty close with everybody in that administration. So I think it's interesting that he was even echoing that. But to be really clear, I think this is what we're aiming for. And also, we don't know how

deeply President Trump was briefed on this issue. To say he was briefed is one thing, but how deeply? Wouldn't it be great if he got the itch? Wait a second. He watches the movie and he's like, you mean, there's this whole thing going on and I haven't been fully briefed? Like I imagine him wanted to get fully briefed. I can tell you that after the election. but before the, he was sworn in, Trump was sworn in, there were people, big-named business people who were helping Trump, the administration, fill slots and jobs. They reached out. I talked to him a couple of times, and they were hinting that there was going to be a push to get Trump to take that step in his first year, and that there was a lot of

support among his close advisors to do that. They were looking for names of people who might help them make the case. So there are a lot of people who don't have Trump's ear who wanted to make that move before he was even sworn in. And I haven't heard from any of them since. So I don't know. Could you imagine with him being up at the podium? He goes, ladies gentlemen, I want to tell you about this book.

It's called Skinwalkers at the Pentagon. Axelrod is actually J. Stratt and looking up. Wonderful story, a little scary. Ron Becker had an orb go through his arm. Not a good story. Check out this book. I think the sales would go through the roof, George. I'd be for that.

I'd be for that. Yeah. There's also the factor of him just being so controversial in the environment that we all live in now with conspiracies and distrust of the government, distrust of the presidents. If he says something like that, I am starting to wonder,

would it even do the trick and cause, quote unquote, disclosure like we would want? They'd have to have something, along with that proof or something, I think. But him just saying it would be amazing progress and great. I just don't know if it's going to convince as many people. Yeah, over 10 years ago, Tom DeLong was writing, somebody brought it off as a negative.

He was DeLong was writing with Podesta saying a big problem with the young kids today, the youth, is they're so cynical. And it's still a problem. It's not just young people, like you said, whether or not they like Trump or not, they're not going to believe him. But again, like you said, if they present evidence, that's, you know, that may get us to where we need to be.

With that, gentlemen, any parting thoughts? Anything else you want to say about the movie, about Grush, about the moment, about what you hope to see in the future, Ryan? I just want to bring up, I don't know if you guys, any of you have an opinion on this, but one of the most fascinating parts of the film was where Dr. Eric Davis was talking about a crash in Russia, I think in 1989, a Tick-Tac. He described it as twice the size of what Commander David Fravor encountered in 2004 with the USS Nimitz UFO event series. They got four bodies recovered and there was an energy weapon inside, energy directed weapon inside. And I just, I'd like to.

Is that how they came up with, uh, if Russia is behind Havana syndrome? Is that was that their bases were coming up with that weapon? Um, I don't know what year. It was 80s. And the 80s, he said. But remember, Jeremy talked about a certain scientist who, was, and you never mentioned who it was, who was briefed on a

foreign program, and then later on, Eric and his sole interview basically said, I was able to see some of the Russian, I don't know if he said crash retrieval, but he mentioned one of their programs, sorry, he mentioned one of their programs and he had access. Is that what he was looking at?

Was it something related to that, that Tic-Tac? You know, I don't know. All I know, is Ryan got it right. Eric said in official capacity that in 1989 there was a crash in Russia of something double the size about of the Tick-Tac UFO and that it was a Tick-Tac shaped and that there were four exactly his words, humanoid aliens and that they did in the reverse engineering process, you know, find a very advanced directed energy weapon. So that's what Eric Davis said,

a guy who admittedly was in multiple programs within S, if you go through the transcripts and look at what he said in the film, UAP programs. So I would say Dr. Eric Davis is worth listening to. I feel like what else do you want to hear? He just straight told you that. And that tracks with everything George and I know over the years, right, George? Yeah. And I'd say that there were attempts by the Russians. If I'm thinking at this crash, it was Kazakhstan.

And there were attempts by the Russians to exploit that weapon. and it was a disaster for them. It was a disaster. Can you elaborate, George? I think some of these details are verifiable. Anyway, Ryan, was that your last comment on the movie? You want to move on? Yeah, that was my last comment.

And yep. All right, Danny. I think I'm just happy that it came out. You know, the 3-Ey Atlas story has been so sensational. And it seems like it's been the biggest story of the year, unfortunately, at least the most UFO civilians have spoken to me about it and asked me about that. And meanwhile, we've had a hearing with a guy named George featured on it. That was amazing. And now we've had this movie. So I'd like to see the movie and the hearing kind of overtake the three-eye out-story, which is a little bit sillier.

Even maybe it's true, I don't know, but it just seems a little bit of sensational or silly. So I like this energy that there is right now. It's getting released towards the end of the year, and I hate to say it. You know, we had the end of the year New York Times article. So it's just the same season. It's just giving me kind of memories. Now, I don't think it's as big as that story, obviously. But it's making things a little bit more fun now again.

And I'm really thankful of that. And hopefully, you know, all these other documentaries and movies we've always talked about, they're great to bring to the public. And this one is really great as well. it's maybe one of the best, if not the best long forum. So it's a good thing to show the politicians. A lot of them have tweeted that they're watching it and promoted it online, which is really interesting.

So it's just, it's great movement, and I'm happy to be excited about something. Yeah, it's not as big as the New York Times 2017 article, but it could be. It could definitely turn into that and more. One thing Eric Davis I wanted to bring up said he would spill his guts, basically, if the president waived his NDAs. That was a big deal.

Probably it would only be behind the scenes with Congress. And then one more part about the movie, which I've talked to you guys about, Jay Stratton towards the end goes, I was really enjoying the movie. And then Jay Stratton said, and I'm going to quote him specifically, he said,

the people behind the legacy program truly believe that the secret is so intense that they can't share it with the American people. And then Jay goes, there may be aspects of this that are so intense, they can't share it. I would say they won't share it. He goes, however, I think the basic fact that we are not alone in the universe, we can share that with the American people.

We can handle it at this point. Hopefully one day the American people will learn the bigger story and how it impacts us all. I was so upset when I saw that. I'm like, no, no, no, no, if it's not about propulsion, if it's not about sources and methods, if it's about intent and what they've been doing, do not support that being kept secret. No, that needs to be shared now, not 20 years from now.

So I love the movie. People should see it, but that really bothered me. I don't know if you guys agree. But I think that's what he was meaning, Joe, because I'm hearing you say it now, and I agree with you. But just like we have a nuclear program

and clean nuclear energy, power, but we don't give everybody the codes to a nuclear bomb, I think that's what Jay was saying in his defense is that we can handle the core of everything. We're just not going to give like nuclear codes of the technology. Yeah, of course. But I don't think that's what he was talking about. I think he's talking about some of the scarier aspects of this.

Okay. I mean, Skinwalker's at the Pentagon tells some of it. I don't know what else there is more to it. But even let's just say that happens and the basics just come out. You're going to get people who are going to want to say, really you lie to us about this? And then they're going to come and find out more. and then they're going to learn on their own. So it would still be a great thing.

And then that pressure from people saying, what else aren't you telling us? That will happen. So it's a positive. It's just that when I first saw it, it really bothered me. But, you know. Yeah, no more bullshit. We want transparency.

We got to fight for it. We got to get it in the news. We have to call Congress. People have to do whatever we got to do to make sure the stories that drop. The momentum keeps going. And the current administration makes a damn disclosure. That's what we want, right?

Okay. Try our best. Hopefully this time we get the media waking up and asking the questions of our politicians and getting this more in the media and the media falls up and it continues and like you said, something doesn't knock it off the map some major event.

This needs to be going. This should become the biggest story in the history of our planet and the media eventually, hopefully we'll cover it You know, every day 24-7 because it deserves that coverage. Ryan, are we ready for the truth, bro? Oh, absolutely. Transparency. I mean, if the phenomenon is already here, then tell me what's, what really changes by

learning the details. It's already here. Nothing really changes. It's not going to change the equation because it's already here. So if you learn that it's here, even if you didn't know it was here, it's still here. So for me, just tell the American people. People tell the world at large, and that's the trajectory we should go in.

I'm not so sure that the world can handle that if the president comes out and says, hey, you could be abducted, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. But I don't think it's their job to hinder that from us. So whatever reality is, we deserve to know the truth. But I do think that there will be a lot of scared people. I encourage people to watch it. I encourage UFO people to share it with non-UFO people. so that they can, you know, learn how deep the subject goes, how real it is.

Those, the packaging of those 34 national security folks and people in the know into this film is excellent. And I hope it moves the needle. We've been down, we've made progress before and somehow it always gets stopped. I'd like to believe that the public can handle the truth. But since we don't actually know what the ultimate truth is, I can't say to definitively whether we could or not. And there's some pretty scary scenarios that could mess people up, depending on what the ultimate truth is, assuming there's anybody who really knows it. But I hope it moves the needle and progress continues. And I really do encourage people to check out this film. Jeremy?

Yeah, man, I'm just glad that it exists and I really want to support it. I think it's a huge endeavor, heavy lift to create a good film to get all those people together. And I think it's so good that it exists and I just hope people you know, pay attention because it's a stepping stone. If we can all come to some basic consensus reality that there is

there is. Robbie Williams says something's up. He said that to me at the ranch, George. And it's like if we can just all come to that point where we're like, okay, now what? And that's what I hope, you know, this movie and by the way, the second Bob Lazar movies, or the second, sorry,

a new documentary on Bob Lazar will be coming out soon and I am eager to see it. I'm seen any of it either. It'll be neat to see how this whole concept moves forward if we don't drop the ball over the next six, 12 months.