WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - UFOlogy's DARTH VADER Changes His Tune About CRASHED SAUCERS - Guest : John B. Alexander

Episode Date: December 19, 2023

Long before the existence of AAWSAP or AATIP, there was another UFO investigation within the Dept. of Defense named ATP [the Advanced Theoretical Physics program], headed by a veteran intelligence officer named Col. John Alexander. Alexander and colleagues searched for hidden evidence of UFO crash retrieval/reverse engineering programs but didn't find any. For years afterward, Alexander was skeptical whenever "crashed saucers" were mentioned, but what about now?  His detractors refer to Col. Alexander as "Dr. Death”. He is purported to have psychic powers and mind control abilities, is often associated with the shadowy "Aviary" group of UFO insiders, and is viewed with fear and suspicion whenever he attends a UFO conference, on a par with the Men in Black or Darth Vader. Alexander chuckles about how he is perceived by ufologists. He led special forces teams into combat during the Vietnam conflict, was involved with the US Army's remote viewing program, became the head of Non-Lethal Weapons research at Los Alamos lab, and in the 90's, hooked up with NIDS, the National Institute for Discovery Science which was created and funded by Las Vegas billionaire Robert Bigelow. Alexander was with Bigelow when the businessman purchased what came to be known as Skinwalker Ranch.  In this episode, Dr. Alexander reveals to George and Jeremy how his view of the “crashed saucers” story has evolved, shares his impressions from the recent Sol conference, discusses previous attempts to achieve UFO transparency through congressional action, and gives his assessment of fellow intelligence officer Col. Phillip Corso.  Check out Col. John B. Alexander's books here : https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-B.-Alexander/author/B001HCZBZY  •••  GOT A TIP? Reach out to us at [e-mail]  For breaking news, follow Corbell & Knapp on all social media.  Extras and bonuses from the episode can be found at https://WeaponizedPodcast.com  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Own it all. Pay off your home, travel for life, drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th.

Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion. All new drinks are now at McDonald's, with refreshers like the strawberry watermelon refresher,

and the mango pineapple refresher with popping boba to crafted sodas like the Spriteberry blast, with berry flavors and cold foam. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire? Try them all now at McDonald's. Refreshers contain caffeine. Copyright 2026, the Coca-Cola Company. Sprite is a registered trademark of the Coca-Cola Company. Coming up in this week's episode of Weaponized.

We just had some interview clips with Phil Corso on Weaponized a couple of weeks ago. And in the background, you can hear John Alexander's voice. He's one of the guys asking questions. Whatever it is more complex than we can possibly imagine. One of the issues is that become more and more with the involved with various phenomena is things are all interactive. And one of the problems I think is studying UFOs. Definitely today, if you're going to go on the hill, is we still stole the information.

So what you're saying, what we know about UFOs, is that UFOs as physical, tangible craft, are just one part of a much kind of larger issue. Is that what you're saying we know? Absolutely. Absolutely. It's far broader than that. Secrets, cover-ups, and strange phenomena.

UFOs and ideas that challenge reality itself. All these mysteries, all this time. Are we ever going to get to the bottom of these? My name is George Knapp. I dig into news stories that others can't or won't. I'm Jeremy Corbell, and for some reason, people tell me things they probably shouldn't. And this is weaponized.

This is weaponized. We're obviously in a different location here. What brothel did you bring me to there? Look, man. This is more like the movie The Shining. It's a really cool hotel in an undisclosed location. We're going to talk to Colonel John Alexander today. And if people don't know that name, well, they should because he's been around the UFO field, the UFO topic for a long time and related mysteries as well. I've known it some 1996. He was involved with the creation of Nids, the National Institute for Discovery Science. Robert Bigelow's organization, which included on its science advisory board, Jacques Bel-A., Hal Put-Off, Kid Green. Dr. Edgar Mitchell, a lot of really impressive people,

that organization has created to dig into the UFO mystery and also the afterlife. Does human consciousness go on after death? So John has been a world traveler. He's gone all over the world in search of these mysteries, more travel than any person I know. But long before he was involved with NIDS, while he was still a lieutenant colonel with Army intelligence,

he was pursuing UFOs from the inside. He put together this little informal group ATP was its initials, almost a pre-A-TEP, A-TEP, to try to figure out, does somebody have crash retrievals, or their stove pipes? He pursued it, didn't find what he was looking for, but stayed on the mystery. Since then, he went on to work with the remote viewing program, the U.S. Army, which had developed a program that grew out of the CIA's research. He became the director of non-lethaletal weapons for Los Alamos Lab.

So he's done a lot of stuff and it's added fingers in these pies and I can tell you from traveling with them a little bit and going to UFO conferences it's like you walk in with Darth Vader. There's that people look at John Alexander is this man in black kind of character. He's an evil doer

who's helped keep these secrets which and he gets a biggest kick out of that. I think he likes to exploit it a little bit. You've met him. Yeah and you know that's not true about him but so this is my experience you know I start looking into UFOs I'm filming with John Lear telling me all this crazy stuff, and I go over to John B. Alexander's house early days, and I go to film with him.

And first of all, I was astonished how kind he was and his wife, and they let me in. I thought he was Darth Vader, too, and this was, he was like a spook, right? Like a man in black. Like, here's a guy they based a movie, the men that stare at goats, you know, where the CIA is exploring all this consciousness stuff. So I had all these preconceived notions. He's really well-traveled. He's done some incredible work in this space. And he actually hunted for the UFO reverse engineering programs back in the day. And he was sure there weren't any because everybody told him there weren't any. But now I don't know if he is so sure. Yeah, I think maybe the goalpost has moved a little bit. One of the things that he did back in the days when I first

knew him was looking to Phil Corso. Now, we just had some interview clips with Phil Corso on one weaponized a couple of weeks ago. And in the background, you can hear John Alexander's voice. He's one of the guys asking questions along with Jacques Valet and help put off and me and Robert Bigelow. Yeah. And so John saw that episode and reached out to us. I thought, well, let's get him on to tell us what he did to verify parts of Corso's background, which John was the guy on the ground, doing the boots on the ground investigation. Did Corso work where he said he worked and then investigating further claim?

So he called me up and I thought, wow, he'd be great to have one on the program. Yeah. And so you got this Army colonel who absolutely was involved with CIA work. He's in like every photograph. And back in the day, just lurking in the shadows. I think that's where people get that idea. But this is a guy how I know him. It's a guy that really wants to know the truth about UFOs.

And he hunted for it on his own. I think he's encouraged by what he's heard about Grush and Grush's claims and people that he really respects it in the scientific field. Like how put off Jacques Valet, people have vouched for Grush behind the So this idea that John B. Alexander, an army colonel, went to try to find this out. I mean, I really admire that. How many decades is this later that he was working with SRI, Stanford Research Institute, working with Bigelow and a team of people to try to find out what's up with this MJ12 stuff even,

right? Yeah. He also was with Robert Bigelow when Bigelow first traveled to Skinwalker Ranch and bought the property. Met with the ranch family there, heard their stories and decided on the spot. to buy the property and then that started off a multi-year investigation of the ranch that the world didn't know anything about it until many years later. And I know John has said this before so I can say it is that, you know, after all these years are looking for, you know, the evidence of UFOs, he actually saw one for himself. And I think that that's a pivotal moment. It's kind of like for me, it's like

you can study and look for something for it. But when you have your own experience, which just sounds like he has had, so I'm excited to talk with John B. Alexander. And for those you who are kind of new to the UFO thing. You started maybe in 2017 and this is a new thing for you. This is a guy you should know because it's a guy that has been on this hunt for decades and somebody who was in the military in intelligence and his opinion matters in this sense. Yeah, I thought maybe we could talk to him about current events, what happened in Congress with the NDAA. I know he's been following that. He went to the SAL conference organized by Gary Nolan and interact with a lot of the key players there. So we have plenty of to talk.

go about. Let's get them up. Okay, let's grab them. The following is an exclusive interview with retired United States Army Colonel John B. Alexander. We'll start this way. I don't know how closely you're following the debate in D.C. on Capitol Hill. At the time we're recording this conversation with you, we just got the word that the NDAA had been significantly changed for what UFO disclosure advocates were hoping for. What do you think about that whole process and the end result? Well, first of all, we shouldn't be surprised because we knew when they went to conference between the House and the Senate variations that would be significantly different. Unlike what many of you and your viewers who are kind of UFO enthusiasts and think this is critically important, they converse on a broader scale, this is not a voting issue.

So from a pure political standpoint, this is something you could be traded away quite easily without any political repercussions for the individual. Now, what does that mean for the disclosure stuff? A lot of the critical issues got taken out. And that's kind of unfortunate. Now, we can talk about Carl Nell, if you want, as you know, I sat next to him at the, the Seoul Conference, and he gave a very interesting presentation on what was written into what's known as the Schumer Amendment. Unfortunately, the critical issues like, you know, eminent domain and you must turn over or bad things will happen to you, but pretty much got

eviscerated. You know, I'm trying to take a broader view of the whole thing. I mean, as someone who has chased this topic as you have for decades, just the fact that you had legislation that got this far, where the majority leader of the U.S. Senate is on the floor excoriating House leaders who are blocking it, talking about non-human intelligence and alien technology and the need for disclosure. I mean, it seems to me amazing progress that people,

old timers like you and I never thought we would see. I mean, am I wrong on this? here. Oh, that's quite right. We have been changing this for quite a while and that you do have Congress stepping up and doing something

formally is quite a major an accomplishment in and of itself. But a period of whatever compromise, which rarely occurs on the hill. Again, this is just one of

those things that could be easily traded away without the political ramifications. Now, the support that we're getting and the number of people who came forward is quite notable. And we saw this in the House hearings as well, the ones where, you know, we saw you two sitting, you know, behind David Grush there. But those were very significant. And whether that will happen again or not, that kind of remains to be seen. I suspect, again, political standpoint, they're going to take the temperature of the broader electoral context as opposed to just people who are streaming at them. Maybe tell us a little bit about Colonel Nell.

Our show reaches a much, you know, more broad audience than just people on Twitter and online talking about, UFO stuff. You know, who is he? Why is he important? What were your impressions of him when you guys were at that conference together? Well, frankly, I will let Carl speak for himself. I don't want to speak for him or anything. He had a formal presentation at the assault conference. It just so happened that we literally sat side by side for two days and had a lot of off-camera interviews. I found him a bit more conservative than what you're seeing in Twitterville, people extrapolating from what he said to what he actually said. Interestingly, we had some common background that had to do with Africa. One of his active duty assignments was in Africa Command, and I had had some experience lecturing there in Dubai. Abu Dhabi and, you know, talking about Africa itself was interesting.

So he has much broader context than, you know, it's just this topic. But, you know, what he did do in exquisite detail is lay out what was in the Schumer Amendment. And people were hoping that, you know, the critical issues of, you know, mandatory disclosure were going to remain in those if we've said that apparently dissipated now. A lot of people were talking that he talked about catastrophic disclosure. Did he bring that up with you, what he meant by that? Again, I wouldn't want to accept later. There are people who are concerned. I mean, they look at the whole psychological issues. And these are ones that I do not agree with. George, I think, is aware.

that my wife did the religious survey for Robert Bigelow and this was before NIT. And, you know, before that, the conventional wisdom was, oh, my God, if this is revealed, you know, religion will end civilization will be disastrous. And of course, the findings were quite the opposite. But there are certain concerns that are raised that, you know, if we suddenly said, Jay, there's a non-human intelligence that may or may not be in contact with various elements on Earth, that it would be potentially disruptive to the psychology and sociology of the civilization. My presentations have always said, now that confirmation of what you already believe, we must remember that most people actually already believe in UFOs.

But confirmation of what you believe is not going to be catastrophic. John, it seems like the question that there is a question that I ask here, and it's kind of procedurally, and it's what's for dinner? And by that, I mean, that for the people who are being addressed here, there are much more concerned about the day-to-day things that are ongoing in their life at this time than any external threat might involve. And unfortunately, this extends very, very broadly. But it's, I think, an issue that's not taken seriously enough by the UFO community who believe that this is the ultimate issue that will change everything.

and change belief systems. The question is, do you have to go to work or do you have to go to school the next day? The answer is yes. You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough.

Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises.

It matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay. This summer, serve up the cookout classics, Heinz ketchup, and Kraft singles. Every good burger needs a layer of perfectly milty cheese and thick, rich ketchup. We all know it's not a cookout without Heinz and Kraft. The same is true for Congress, right? I mean, there's always something more important for Congress to deal with the UFO disclosure. There's budget issues, there's impeaching the president, there's election security.

And, you know, there is some support now for some sort of UFO disclosure among key players in Congress. But there's always something else that takes precedence over that. When you compare this to what's going on in the Middle East in particular at the moment or in Ukraine and the balance with the Soviet Union, That dates me, obviously, with the issues with Russia, potential threats to NATO, and you throw on top of that all of the economic issues or health issues going on in the U.S. Yeah, there's a lot of things that are biting them a lot harder than UFOs. Back to the Seoul Conference. The fact that people of your caliber, Nell, Gary Nolan, Jean-Ballet were there,

discussing this in open, it feels like the ball has been moved down the field, that the playing field has changed in that the open discussion among people of that caliber about non-human technology being stashed here or there. And then the same things being debated on the floor of Congress, the House and the Senate, people asking, where is this stuff stashed? Feels like a sea change. You've been at this a long time. Does it feel that way to you? Oh, absolutely. I think there's two big issues. One is the Sall Foundation itself, that it exists with Gary Nolan. Now, this is Gary Nolan, the Stanford unit is in the Nolan Laboratories.

So that tells you someplace where he is on the food chain, very high up. And a very well-funded foundation willing to come forward and all at the institution, allow them to, to participate. Another of the speakers there, of course, was Avi Lowe. And given his procedures, position at Harvard with the Galileo project and being associated, I might mention, I'm sure George, you remember many years ago,

there was a conference at MIT with John Mack and Fisher. And it was interesting when we attended that in the early 90s, we had to sign a statement that said, we understand that we are, you know, at MIT, not by MIT. They did not want the institutional logo associated with it. So this is, in fact, a huge change in that perspective. Did Stanford was hosting? Right. Yeah. So is there anything else that came out of the Sall event that the public maybe hasn't talked about? You know what? It was interesting to me that the caliber of the presentations was, you know, it's world-class folks. But the gathering of the audience members, I would think that that was where a lot of the really fun conversations took place that we and the public never get to hear.

Well, that's absolutely correct. It was interesting. I was standing. in line that they were funded well enough that they actually provided lunch for everybody and we went outside and there were, I was surprised, but two to three hundred folks. So I'm standing in line and the guy just thought, you know, why are you here kinds of things? And he says, I just retired from the skunk works. And so we had an interesting conversation and I was asking, as you know, I had new Ben Rich. And I was looking for some people. that he would and did a name check and they came back to me. And unfortunately, the individual I was looking for has a transition.

But, yeah, it was very interesting, very broad. As you know, Whitley was there as an audience member, but interjecting periodically and jock periodically would get up and address issues about, that, you know, the lectures that were going out. So there were a lot of informal stuff. I noticed that you did a presentation the other day where the guy said he got out of his car and somebody had recognized him.

I had, identically, the same thing. I literally parked in the car. I had driven over there and this guy goes, are you? And I'm like, yeah. So that was kind of a surprise. and somebody I had never met before and wouldn't know. And that was one of the big advantages, even with the speakers. There were a number of folks like Chris Mullen,

who am I communicated with many times, but had not physically met before that. Diana Posulka and Avi Loeb, for instance, who was really a great chance to interact both formally and informally. As you said, a lot of this chat chat. that was going on in the audience itself. Let's talk about crash retrievals, reverse engineering, been controversial topics for a long time,

generally dismissed as UFO nonsense for a long time, including, I think, by you for a while. You had a chance while you were still an intelligence officer with the U.S. Army to go looking for this stuff. There was an A-TIP before A-TIP, ATP. Tell us about how that search for you began and how it's evolved over the decades. Well, it has, and it ends up with a huge, I don't know. I mean, one of the problems when you get into these fields is the data never always fit,

no matter how you cut it, are, I happen to have been, I guess, was a lieutenant girl at the time, that decided to start it and had talked to some people and a question to me was have you ever heard of area 51 and you know this was just barely breaking even in the classified circle and so decided to put together a group and invited people you had to have TSSI level clearances had to have an interest had to know who you were that literally it was an old boy network and that the participants were all male at the time and got together. Our going in position was that Roswell was real, that they had probably looked at it and said, what the hell, they have no idea what this is,

can't figure it out, we'll put it away, we'll come back and revisit it. And even in the literature and folklore today, that is kind of what you're hearing. What we thought at the time would have been, I guess, F-22s, but now I'd be at F-35. If you had a F-35 crash to the Amazon

and the Karina Quarry pick it up and look at it, you'd probably get better spears, but you wouldn't know anything about stealth or flying or anything like that. So we thought that that was probably the differentiation. Interestingly, all the people in there knew the background on the rumors, but everybody was pointing fingers and said, well, I thought you did that. I thought you did that. Got to very high levels, as you know, I interacted with the director or deputy director with all those free letter agencies, and a consistent was the same.

So either an awful lot of people lied to me, which is a possibility, I suppose, but it would have had to be really concerted. Or they didn't know. And, you know, we eventually went to SDI. We had a transition said, well, we want to get money. And I've told the story before, but General Abramson was there. I started off with UFO 101. And I introduced the entourage, and they had people from all of those agencies with me. And so asked him about it.

About 10 minutes in, he actually stopped it. And so, who are you guys really? I mean, this was like a deer gotten in the headlights. You know, went back around, expressed all the agencies, and we got that. By the time we were finished, and he said, okay, well, you got my attention. There were some intelligence issues that we'll go into that were kind of critical that we, that he didn't know, but had nothing to do with UFOs or anything. But his bottom line was, he says, now, look, what we'd like to do is make this more formal,

gets funding, he had a $5 billion budget at the time, which was the biggest in DOD, which meant everybody was out with their knives, you know, trying to get the money. What he said was, the quote was, I'm interested, but I can't touch this. If I get caught doing this, he says, no, look, I'm doing some hairy stuff now, but if I get caught doing this, you know, they're going to, you know, crucify my budget. Then he did get kicked for a billion. And so the point was, and much like we hear in the discussion even today, about the, you know, the stigma that attached with it. But in that case, it was a potential threat to, you know, what he saw it was a potential threat to the budget.

Now, there is an individual that, I know, George has met, who was, if you remember, Dean Judd, whom I brought to Nid's. the board. Well, Dean, at that juncture, was the technical director, chief scientist for SDI, and he later became the NIO and the National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology. And I am absolutely sure we talked about this literally up until his death. And for hours and hours and hours, and certainly was not read into anything like that. which tells me if these programs or, you know, what you're hearing is accurate and turns out to be right and I was wrong, it means key people were left out of the circle. It's just about criminal.

And some of it, I think, may literally be criminal, if true. So as the Gold Post moved for you in a sense that when you were actively looking for it, you couldn't find it. And I think for a while you thought maybe it doesn't exist. Now, after Congress digging into it, after whistleblowers coming forward, after Grush, testify, after a Saul conference, has a move for you. Do you think maybe it is out there and it's stove piped and it's hard to find? Well, that kind of was almost my position. I guess I was more to, it can't be true, just based on the number of folks that I had. interact with. And there's other very high level people that we interacted who said

absolutely not. I might tell one other war story, but I was briefing a very high level science board on space. And it was the same thing came in. That particular one, I was alone. and for an hour or so gave UFO 101 and then they went around and they said there were any question there were a couple of them

and this guy jumps up and slammed and just it went high order and saying you're not supposed to know that that's what you learn when you die the point is that individual with Wolle Burge I'll name him now they've died

he had been DD or an E deputy director for research and engineering for the DOD. At the time that this occurred, he was a senior vice president for Lockheed, and I know you've addressed that you think Lockheed was one of those involved. I've got to tell you this, what surprised me is that he would lose, and he definitely lost his composure, but that that would happen in a scientific, meeting among his peers was really telling to me. But we hit an emotional nerve, and it wasn't because they were hiding something.

It was like, this is just not a topic. So that's just one of the many examples that basically... But having said that, as you know, you and others that we, some we both know, have all come up and said, believe Grush. and if true, that's going to be literally a game changer. Like I said, I don't think it's going to change swing public opinion or be, as you said, a catastrophic issue for them. But from a scientific perspective, I think it's going to, is where the most of the emphasis is going to change dramatically. Let's ask about Corso.

Yeah, I do want to ask about. Of course so, but I also just want to say, I think the catastrophic disclosure kind of meme that's going around is just the idea that if we don't have in place a systematic way to slowly incorporate this information that we've been reverse engineering these, that we have samples of these craft, that was the implication that if we don't have a disclosure process set forward that is coherent, that there could be this issue with. maybe a leak or people breaking from the fold, that it would be more catastrophic, you know, the way stuff is disclosed about this. I disagree with that, but I think that's what people are kind of talking about when they mention that. Do you think, before I ask you about, Lou? Yeah. Now, my basic issue on this is I have some problem with threat assessment. In my book, in fairness, I said there's two issues. One, you know, that four from an interoperable from an international threat perspective,

the other is civil aviation because of implications in both cases. I'm moving a little away from that, but you have to remember when we say the Department of Defense relies on threats. So if you want to have funding in DOD,

you've got to be responding to something that's necessarily a threat. And as we said, that, you know, the Condon report, Condon was right. because the question to Condon was not, are there UFOs? Is this a threat? We certainly haven't seen an invasion or anything of that nature

that has taken place in 70 years intervening. So I think that, well, my assessment now in looking at it, I've always said, you know, well, as George knows, we've talked about this in some detail, terribly, terribly complex. And I liken it much unto cancer, if you will. And the reason I say that is that the government has a role to play in cancer research, but it's not the role.

And in my view, this is, I think everybody agrees, this is a global phenomenon that incorporates everybody. and DoD would have a role to play in this, but not necessarily the role, because I think it's far broader. I don't think governments in all can respond very well to something as generic and all-encompassing as this might be. I mean, they like to focus on very narrow sorts of things where you can have an ROI, return on investment, know exactly what you're doing, and establish steps in the way. So we're having what I call techno hell. It's not the men in black.

It's not the CIA. It's a bad internet connection. So John Alexander has dropped off the planet and radar. But I think we're going to grab a little bit more with him in another session. So we're going to do it that way. Due to technical difficulties, the interview was continued on a different format. So we're back. We had techno problems. I'm going to blame that on the man in black himself.

John B. Alexander. You must be monitored, John. But here we are back. And we have good audio and visual. So I want to pick up where we left off. We had just kind of started about some of the work you had done and about your attending the Soul Foundation, talking about Carl Nell and National Security. And I had a burning question and you were about to answer it before our last recording. my argument to you is that there are national security issues with UFOs, even if they say they pose no national security threat, which has been the line that has been towed for a long time to not have to study UFOs. You've written a whole book. George is going to talk about that.

But what I wanted to ask you is, isn't it a national security threat? If we are not openly studying this with our brightest minds, crafts, actual UFOs, which we know we are, isn't that a national security threat that another nation could leapfrog us, could get to the point where they are past us with these technological innovations? And also isn't it a national security threat the secrecy itself to keep the American public in the dark about the nature of the UFO phenomenon? What do you have to say about that? No, quite a lot. Actually, 35 years ago when we were doing the briefings on the advanced theoretical physics issue,

and I'm trying to convince people that we should be doing it. One of the issues was a leapfrog by the Soviet Union, China wasn't a key issue at that point, would have been unacceptable. So that was certainly a concern. And we do know that the Soviets were actively involved. You know, for decades. And we know that, George, I mean, this is something David Grush has talked about, that he was exposed to documents from a foreign nation. He said this on News Nation a bunch. He was exposed to the fact that another country knew about our reverse engineering of UFOs programs. It's not a huge leap.

And I can tell you for sure. What he's referencing is what you brought back from Russia, what you smuggled back. That's what he was exposed to in the class. realm. So you know very well that this is an issue, right? The Russians made it very clear. The head of their UFO program, Colonel Sokolov, that we interviewed, met, spent a lot of time with, said that there is no doubt about why they were studying UFOs. They wanted to develop the technology. They wanted to figure out how they could do what they do and build their own so that they would, quote, kick our butts in terms of

stealth technology. They were reverse engineering or at least attempting to understand how, to engineer fly and saucers back in the late 80s and into the 90s. So we can can make guesses about what the Russians are doing now, how far they've progressed. I know that Harry Reid in multiple conversations, private and public that I've had with them over the years, thought that the Chinese were doing the same. He thought maybe the Israelis had a program at one point. So other nations are trying to get it. There is a race to figure this stuff out. I don't know if we'll ever crack the technology of how these things work or build our own, but we are trying.

John, you had written about, I think you've made statements that you've been pretty skeptical about the idea of crash saucers and, you know, Roswell goodies being stashed in a hangar over the years. Now that you've heard David Grush, you've interacted with your colleagues at Saul, your friends, Hal Putoff, Eric Davis, people who know who know. I've echoed a lot about this and have made very strong statements about crash recovery's reverse engineering. Have you changed your opinion? Are you more open to the possibility that this is real? Well, I've certainly had to rethink that. One of the problems that I personally have is I go with my first-hand data. All of the things you've related to second-hand. And my first-hand data, we can go into some of those people.

said no, not there. But having said that, in recent months, I talked to friends who were very, very highly placed, I think howells, one of those, to say, believe grush. And I think, as you know, the issue is the pieces never always fit.

What you've done, I don't care where you enter this process. You take it, there's always conflicting. data. And as many people are saying, particularly with what David Gresh has said, it is, okay, everybody says, I have a friend that will a friend who, you know, directly participated, what has not come out yet. And, you know, it is, and I am the one who did it, and here it is. Having said that, there is one of, like, to throw in, I think I mentioned before, that we eventually got to SDI and Star Wars, and it seemed clear that they, at least the people I dealt with,

which included the director, did not have direct knowledge. And one guy that I'll throw out is Dean Judd. I'm pretty sure that George has met. And Dean was the technical director for SDI. He was later the NIO of the National Intelligence. intelligence officer for science and technology. This is the guy at E.O's are at the tippy top. This is where all of the things get integrated, because you can't go to the president and say,

well, CIA thinks this, but DIA thinks of something else. So you have to have, it used to be the ICA Center, intelligence community staff, which was before DNI. Well, that's where Dean said. That Dean was a close personal friend, and I talked to him literally up until two days before he died, and we talked about this directly for hours and hours and hours, and he definitely did not. Well, that tells you that if crushed and these others are correct, that this is a serious issue in people who need it.

to know did not. Well, just from a common sense angle, if it is so compartmentalized that somebody like Judd does not know, then the circle is very small. How do you make progress on something that is seemingly as difficult as this to figure out when worried you people allow them to see it?

Yeah, there's two issues. One, he has, you know, from size of technology and he knew space architectures inside out. I mean, he was, you know, at the absolute top of the pyramid. And if somebody's going to have to go and brief the president and say, this is what, you know, we have, we, the entire intelligence community, and are not familiar with it, that's a critical shortfall. It's almost tantamata treason.

And so what you're saying, George, is evidently correct. It was a very small circle. And he's like, you know, I've used the United States. of cancer, and it has several applicabilities. But the point here is absolutely essential that we get in with the best and brightest on one of the key issues there is making it permissible for them to be involved without risking their reputation or livelihood. And people have had problems with that in the past.

So terribly complex. and we have a terrible shortfall because if you're going to address something as complex, and it is a model I suggest now is the human genome project. And what we did, there you had a project that was terribly complex, understanding the entire genome. And the approach was to bring in multiple countries, universities across the board, and most importantly sharing the data, and that's what is not happening in this area.

Back to the Grush thing for a moment, the idea that what has been shared so far as hearsay, I'm not sure that's right anymore. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's wrong because he has testified under oath behind closed doors. Others have done so as well. People that Jeremy and I have spoken to directly have told members of Congress,

this stuff is real. I worked on it. And I saw it and here's where it is. That information was shared with Arrow, that information was shared with the Inspector General, the intelligence community, and members of Congress have even said, we've heard this stuff. We better hope it's not the Chinese or the Russians. We have to hope it's aliens.

But, you know, I think we're way beyond the hearsay point. It's just the fact that we, the public, haven't got to see any of this stuff and haven't had any of that closed-door testimony confirmed on the record. Yeah, but what I'm addressing is something is far broader than that. And that is getting this into the information, into the hands of academia and scientists across the country, because that has not happened. What you're saying is a... Relatively is still a small circle of knowledgeability. This is a lot of your books, John.

UFO's myths, conspiracies, and realities. I won't ask you to, you wrote this a while ago, but I want to ask you to quote it chapter and verse, but you have a section called the devastating psychological impact of secrecy. What do you mean by that? And it would seem like we're already in that conundrum, are we not? Well, of course, that's broader. Almost everybody that involved in the intelligence community knows that over secrecy is a terrible cost, both in intelligence. Now, 9-11 certainly brought that out where we saw that agencies were not sharing critical data That's not terrible. So this is a euphan, across the war.

Probably shouldn't bind in the air, or bang the air force, but I found they would have classified the words electromagnetic if they could. I mean, I dealt with them both in the servos and later in Los Alibos. And the tendency of the people wanting to, you know, cloister the information.

And my argument has been, physics and chemistry and those work, The same for everybody. And when you're adjusting complex problems, you've got to be able to share data and bring more in. And from a threat perspective, if you have something you deal as a threat, you've got to be able to win it. And we're still seeing that as certainly not precipitating throughout the world, you know, and these people need it. And that's common today in counterterrorism. threats. What's happening

as we speak because of the threat and you know when to go off into the political anti-Semitism issue, but there are threats here in the U.S. and how to you share that data and compare that with the complexity

out now and tell you something where, you know, you may or not even believe in the possibility. And so it's terribly detrimental. I also believe that this is detrimental of the political arena as well is that the believability of the government, when you get caught, you know, sequestering information that basically everybody knows or at least knows parts of it,

just makes you look pretty bad. 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. Wireless can feel like a world of traps, but not with Visible. It's one-line wireless with unlimited data and hotspot. Powered by Verizon for $25 a month, taxes and fees included. Plus, for a limited time, new members pay just $20 a month for one year on the Visible plan.

Using the code Fresh Start. Refresh your wireless with Visible. Tap the banner to switch today. Terms apply, limited time offer subject to change. See visible.com for plan features and network management details. Yeah, you've written a couple books on this. And so I really want to nail this home on what your opinion is. So over classification and secrecy.

If UFOs are as real as they're telling us they are, and this is happening and we've actually been reverse engineering them, what is that danger of that secrecy to the American public? Why are we fighting for transparency on this issue to understand it? What is the really like the pointed instance where you can tell us that this secrecy is actually dangerous? Well, that's far more broad than I think what you're bringing out because there are specific issues. The public agenda, as we know, believes in UFOs and many of them have it. And daily now, commercial sensory systems pick up things and they're reported.

So the question of it is enough there or not. which are really raising as a question of what's the level of government knowledgeability and the interest as to where they go. You can argue that. I argue on a broader scale, what's detrimental is the lack of trust in the government itself. Now, that I think we're seeing is more of an existential threat than some kind of crafts coming in. I think you'll see that the idea of, you know, we're going to oppose E.T. threat or something just does not matter. I used an example of Desert Storm. And when we attacked Iraq, one of the things that happened was that the first thing you did was take down the radar systems.

And the systems they have were, and Soviet, it's pretty damn good. Probably, and our leap on that was about 10 years. We were able to bring that system down in about 30 minutes where you had air superiority and then your supremacy. My point there is, if you're talking a 10-year gap in knowledgeability, and can you imagine what it would be if you're trying to oppose a, threat as a thousand years or something like that in advance. You're just not going to match that kind of threat in any way.

Right. Like if we've had the basic idea of nothing to see here, move on, what I noticed in the past was it was, well, UFOs posed no national security threat. That was a way for our government to say, move on. We are not responsible for this information. but we are now seeing, even with flight safety, the number of pilots that have come to me and George provided us footage, provided us testimony.

I mean, just within the last couple weeks of unidentified coming into either close proximity to their aircraft or even just something that they're looking at in a distance, this itself is dangerous in that if there's no communication about what's going on, you've got people distracted from their jobs. Oh, absolutely. book that George showed up, one of the day, I mentioned two things at the end. One was national security. The other was aviation safety. So we've known that for a long time.

You also found out that, you know, it was about career enhancing for, you know, pilots to come forward. I think the classic example was the JAL flight many years ago over Alaska where the UFO was seen. And, you know, well, 90 minutes or so, and you had multiple radars, different systems picking it up. And he lands in, Madnichin. In response to coming forward and talking about it, J.L. fired the pilot for embarrassing the company. So, you know, if you have that kind of a mentality, it's going to be very difficult. And so a lot of pilots of that for the, probably the recordings that you have, where they have,

They say, you know, I'm seeing something that said, you want to report a UFO? No, no, no, forget that. No, you just don't want to go on the record. This is why I get back to the issue of bringing in the best and brightest and to make it permissible for them and all of these observers to report it without risking their reputation or livelihood. This is something that George and I deal with and, you know, the last couple of weeks a lot, personally,

is that you get these commercial airline pilots and they're they are just showing, they're filming out the cockpits, they're seeing what's going on, they don't have a process or a way to really relay that information without that stigma, without having those reprisals

of being that person that does that. So they're coming to us and they're concerned. They're concerned about, you know, their livelihoods, about filming out a cockpit. The thing is, is that it's my understanding

that if there are safety concerns and they're not being handled in the proper way, then there's nothing that should restrict air crew from sharing that information because it has to do with safety. So, yeah, I guess there's an increased frequency, at least of people seeing unidentified. Do you think there's more in the sky, or do you think our technological ability to capture them

are just getting better? And I think it's more of the latter. I'll tell you the story. George is familiar with NIDS, the National Institute for Discovery Science. and when this goes back in the early 90s now, but we went to the FDA, I happened to have known the Deputy Director of Security for the FAAA.

By the way, they had been talking, this gets to 9-11, they had been talking about, you know, potentially for terrorism quite a while, and for their efforts, they got told them to get, and airlines just pat him on the ass and have people, you know, have a happy trip. So he got fired for that. But I went to him and said, we would like to, you know, become the repository for the information, the central point of contract, which did eventually happen.

Interestingly, when we had the meeting back in the FAA headquarters, I think Bob would call them and I were there, some of the senior execs were a little bit questioning, as was my friend who had set up a meeting. But when you talk to people who would come up through the ranks of FAA, you know, the guys lost, you know, getting their radars, they really didn't have any problem. I mean, they knew this stuff was going on. There was just no way to a central repository for information or a reporting channel, which is absolutely critical and really does need to happen because of the issues you mentioned.

Yeah, and I'll remind you guys, I know you're very aware of it, but our audience might not. I got to spend a lot of time in Washington, D.C., with a man named John Callahan, who was second in command of the FAA, from what I recall, and he testified in a mall congressional hearing that we held in 2013. It was called the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure. You can see all of that online, but I love John Callahan. hand's testimony because here he is back in the day high rank in the FAA and they recorded for the first time ever this huge amount of data on a UFO and so he was excited he got it he brought all those

tapes in he reviewed it they were joined by the CIA and he testified in front of these congressional members and a senator he says the CIA came in and they said you didn't see anything you're not allowed to talk about it, that's the end. And he testified about this, nothing to see here and move on. So that attitude of just dismissal, even when there are these flight safety concerns, we heard from John Callahan before he died telling us this story. I think we should play that little segment because that really kind of puts a pin in it for me. Deep classified videos, the authentic Department of Defense footage.

They had a UFO chase of 747 across the Alaskan sky. for some 31 minutes flying and controlled airspace without the FAA's approval. Norad called, they lost the target. This is the first time they ever had more than a moment of radar data to look at. The CIA guy standing estimates says, this event never happened. We were never here. We're confiscating all this data, and you're all sworn to secrecy.

The UFOs don't have to be. don't have transponders, and they don't care about our rules and regulations, they come and go. I don't know how you're going to solve that problem. Well, I believe the point of that was the JAL flight that I was talking about, because we did have radar on that one. So that's a Japan Airlines flight. So if people don't know about it, it's a very famous case, and that's why we brought him to D.C. to do this testimony was because he had direct knowledge. He actually had, in his briefcase, the actual.

tapes and we had good talks about it, but that was the Japan Airlines flight where a pilot saw, I think it was a couple different rectangular-shaped objects with pattern lights that were, you know, kind of, there were huge. Maybe it was shaped differently, but the lights, I think, were in a rectangle. That's what you guys were talking about. John, it's more important, I think, is you had the ground radar that was tracking it. And then they said there are other systems, which was probably Coburnain, which was in the black world. This was something, it was looking into the Soviet Union, but was close enough. So this is one, again, multiple radars beside the FAA, any radars, you had the defense

radars thinking up and confirming the incident really happened. John, we all saw what happened over the past couple of weeks in Congress. You had strong support for UFO disclosure legislation. Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds, Marco Rubio, Kirsten Gillibrand in the Senate, bipartisan. Same thing in the House. But the legislation got gutted at the last minute. This is the National Defense Authorization Act.

It's the biggie. They have to pass it every year. This year, our country is so politically divided. There are so many different issues that have been attached to that thing, that it actually was threatening whether we'd be able to pass it or not, which allowed a couple of key. Congressman, House Chairman, to scuttle the UFO legislation, say, look, the NDAA is not going to be approved if this stuff is in there, and they gutted it. I would remind people who are listening to

this that you and NIDS had some experience with this on the very same issues. You went to Congress in the 90s with the issues of national security and air safety, and you had basically approval for a congressional hearing way back then, and it got scuttled too, didn't it? Well, we didn't quite have approval. We did have a congressman who was in there in space who wanted to move forward. At that time, Sensenbringer had a size of technology. He was very negative. And what we were going to do was have decided to wait him out because he was moving out.

He eventually took on a judiciary committee. But the issue there, again, is you have. you know, so strong support, well, then you've also got some negative people. We can talk about that as a living. Because you're getting actually into some religious issues as well when you touch on these things. So we were close.

Some other things, I won't plan. Some other people came to town screaming and shouting, and, you know, Congress does not like that for them at risk. The key issue on all of these, particularly with the NDA right now, this is not a voting issue. UFOs are not abortion, okay? People vote on the ladder. They don't vote on this. So from a political perspective, it is easy to trade off on this because you're not going to lose votes.

I don't know if your ears were burning this week, John, but this issue of what happened to those 90s congressional hearing, the possibilities was brought up again, and so was your name. People were brought up the Dr. Death nickname of yours, which I know you get a kick out of. They say, Dr. Death killed this. He came in and forced his way into these meetings. Stephen Greer was briefing Congress, and you scuttled the whole thing, which, as I remember, that's not exactly how it went down. It's definitely not how to went down at all. It was not get involved, and it was his program that came to town that did get it killed. because it's scared, you know, he's on who raises a lot of all blue,

and, you know, Congress does not like that. And again, this is far enough back that this did not have the credibility that has strongly happened, as you pointed out, just particularly since 2017, and everything that has moved forward from there, and you did not have things like, the congressional not just a congressional area but the doD coming out and saying we're having

interactions that was you know not mentioned at the time so john i just got a question so after you know look you have been involved with this for so long from my perspective you have been like george you know fighting to try to get transparency understanding and truth every room there was where something was going down seems like you and george were in there talking with people from Corso to, you know, everything along the way. My big question to you is, what do we know about UFOs? Sure, they said UFOs are real now, but what do you know? What do we know for sure about UFOs? Well, the first line of the book that George showed up is UFOs are real. And I meant that in the physical sense, the aircraft that interact.

that the last a couple of paragraphs go something like whatever it is more complex than we can possibly imagine. One of the issues is that become more and more involved with various phenomena is these things are all

interactive and one of the problems I think is studying UFOs. Definitely today if you're going to go on the hill is we still stove like the information of what you going to allow him. Now, one of the questions is, okay, what's included? Do you, are you going to, you know, I start in my briefing, what do you mean by a UFO? And it says, I got little balls of light.

I've got craft miles across and thousands of thousands of variations in between. So what is it? Do you want to feel? The whole issue of, are we going to deal with ords? Then you get into abduction phenomena and it goes on and left. You know, stuff has been seen, as we know, for millennia. And, you know, you have a huge problem just to begin with how are you going to define what you choose to study? And what do you mean by the UFO? You can also have a lot of prosaic things that are flying around, and we do know that, you know, the misidentification of any number of things is still technically a UFO.

If you look at the thing that Jacques and Eric did when they put out, if we got to study these things, one of them is that you need to take into account of other kinds of anomalous for that one. So what you're saying, what we know about UFOs is that UFOs as physical, tangible craft, are just one part of a much kind of larger issue. Is that what you're saying we know? Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. It's far, far broader that. And I will suggest that consciousness is the key piece of it.

Now, the long people are willing to deal with little tin cans, you know, that narrow physical arena. But when you get into the broad issues of consciousness and maybe even the nature of the universe, you make it like to Max Blake saying, you know, you cannot get behind consciousness. and then we're any issues such as the physical universe arises material from consciousness as opposed to consciousness is something that's generated in your mind. Wow, you're in the areas that are just terribly top. Well, what I also said at the end of the book, though, was that we're not at the point in my view, and this is still true, of even knowing where to ask the right questions, let alone come up with simple answers.

I don't think there are going to be any. John, Jeremy mentioned Phil Corso. A couple of weeks ago, as you know, we had Phil Corso some excerpts on this program and reintroduced his claims to the world. As you'll recall, in 1996, when NIDS was just starting out, I brought the idea to Robert Bigelow and you and some others, told them about this guy I had known for a couple of years,

years since 92 and this incredible story that he had about being involved with a program at the Pentagon. You and I jumped on a plane, flew to Austin, picked up how put off, flew on to Florida, went down and met with Corso. Can you recall what your impressions were of that meeting and the one that followed to start with? And then we'll get into the work that you did to try to verify Corsos' background and the questions that you raised about him. Well, first of all, Corso was absolutely real, but a lot of things that have been attributed to him that are

not quite accurate. Now, when we met him, what you correctly mentioned in that program, I did watch it, was how the family interviewed. Basically, it was his son. And we were sitting out in the RV, as you

mentioned, talking, and suddenly we go, no, no, no, you can't say that one. The next day, we went to an Airstrip when the son has a hanger there and was making a plane. So we would take turns where two of us would go off with Phil and talk about things, and the other one would go and admire his aircraft.

That's where the picture came from, that you said. I love the guy. I mean, he was your grandpa, if you want it, and you really like it. In the book, again, you have an old chapter called the Corso Conundril because of the things that are at. accurate and there's a bunch of material that's not. There is an appendix of the book. When the book first came out, I wrote Phil Lennar, it was on seven pages, 10 pages of the book.

96 issues that said, here's what I think are wrong. And it was little things like it's a Delphi Merrill and not a Delphia mural. To know, the Cold War was not a cover for fighting Yichy, which is part of the claim. in there. And it goes on now in response, in 1998, I believe it's the 98, the book had come out,

he had seen the letter, Phil had a heart attack. I was back in the area because my son was getting very, to live just south of there, so by now, by the way, we had gone to Port St. Lucie. That was in the air where we first saw him. and he's now living a little further north. And we spent the day discussing all of these things of them. And he said, gee, I need to write another book to correct the error.

So he admitted that there were a number. One of the classics, by the way, and George, I think you have a copy. I know why do. He gave us the Xerox copies of the book that was written. Now, Phil's not computer with. So this stuff is either typed or literally handwritten. And he was doing a second one.

And unfortunately, about 10 days later, had a second heart attack that was fatal. And there's a lot of controversy as to what's in and what's not. One of the things, with a book perspective, the whole first chapter of the book as published is not part of the, well, manuscripts that we were given when it was copied.

Also not included were some of the things you mentioned about going out into the desert and encountering E.T. I gave it one pieces that just does not make a lack of sense to me. And it comes to his famous quote. He said he thought he was at E.T.

He had pictures. I don't know if you you showed the little bit, but he actually had drawings of what this little guy looked like. And he said, they had to turn off the radars so that the craft could depart. And you want us to believe that we now have somebody with the capability of going across the universe that, you know, has problems interacting with human radars. that's just a piece but it did come up with this he said what will you give me

and you're correct about the thing a new world that you can take it but the other thing about Phil because we knew him for years you know I tried to get him a movie deal and

the consistency over time all the problems when people will what to tackle away we weave, et cetera. He was very, very consistent. It was almost like you could stop him at midpoint and come back any time later, push a button.

He would pick up the sentence and move on. So the consistency of what he reported was very accurate. The technology, and you addressed a piece of that in the first one, absolutely does not hold together. and I would mention that, and he always claimed, as I recall, the idea was not to start new technologies, it was to, you know, increase, and even supposed to look at where industry was

and where they could take advantage of getting, you know, a piece of the craft. The one that I know best, has to do with night vision. And, well, if I'm running out too long, let me know. Well, the guy who literally built my vision lab was a personal friend. And he was so meaningful to these topics

because he had come on and met him through Bert Sutherland, head of Ensign, and he had come to the spoon-bedding psychokinesis sessions we had. The worst one that I ever gave, by the way, was in Night Vision Lab itself. I'm that you don't do this on Hell of Drought. So he was very open, but the technology is, you know, that he talks about, just not there whatsoever. And I went back to Lou after the book came out.

He had long retired by that time, but was still in touch and said, what is this. And part of what he told us that is not true, or a different version of it, is in the actual history of the Bidivisian Laboratory. Here's where I'm left, John, is that you did the detective work to verify Corso's background. So you come back to Robert Bigelow and do Nids and tell him he really did work at the places where he said he worked, right? He did. He did. Now, that's, that was. That was. You know, that was. You know, very interesting. One of the ones, and you mentioned General Trudeau, and the Chudot was legendary. And in 1980, they decided to do oral history on some of the generals that had been, you know,

instrumental in moving the Army forward at that time. Trudeau was one of them. Now, it's 1980. They've retired in the early 60s. When Trudeau was interviewed by the Army War College, Corso was sitting in the kitchen. They actually brought him in. So he was taught. I talked to the guy who was Corso's, I'm sorry, Trudeau's chief of staff who did know Corso.

But this guy goes on and becomes a lieutenant general. Don the potty. And he says, yeah, they used to get together and they taught. Now, there were other issues that were brought up for ensigns, small nuclear power of facilities and things like that. He mentioned Project Horizon. I didn't hear that one could go off. But they were actually, a lot of that work was instrumental in putting us on the moon.

And I had asked this with an Ed. Mitchell and that asked about it and he was familiar with somebody. But in the late 1950s, 60s, they were actually designing ways to fight from the balloon. And all of those sorts of issues were absolutely true. You mentioned the issue about, how to talk you about the day after Rome or something, did check his history there.

He was there. I mentioned the lieutenant to fluff his credentials a bit, but I've actually read the awards that he got, and they were very, very good for Captain Lovell stuff. They were not the kind of awards that would have been going to a major general who would have been instrumental in reestablishing civility in Rome after World War II. But was he in these places? Did he do those things?

I might mention, I know it comes up, is the Foreign Technology Division. FD did not exist prior to Corso going there. The other commander was, because they actually got the phone book from that area, the leader was not Phil Corso. I was a guy, I think, by name with Colonel Spangler. And I asked Phil, I said, well, who is this other guy?

And he says, well, I don't know. It says when you check the phone book and the organizational chart for it, Corso is listed as a deputy, not the director. Interestingly, I actually found a woman because of this 1990s, who had been there since 1943, as the Pentagon was being, built and actually remembered Corsoe, you know, from the time frame that he's there. So I might mention that after Corso leaves this FD branch, which is quite different from the Air Force one, that ceases to exist.

So it was a small group that was there that appears for a short period of time, and that time follows to go as Desirado. I'm going to watch my acronym. It was the deputy of Chiba Ebo's staff for research development and acquisition. That was a position that should go held. And he did bring Corso in and they did some interesting things, but which you don't find. And we checked the other technologies, by the way, that, as you said,

It's kind of a continuum, which you do not see in the R&D perspective, is what we call a step function, where, you know, it's tolling long and then suddenly increases and then, you know, dramatically moves forward. I think in the end for me, Horsesau was close with Trudeau. I find it reasonable that if they had that stuff, the materials, that that office would have had some of it. I think it's possible that Corso did distribute this to various labs and companies and may have assumed that it was instrumental in what they developed later. We can say this for sure. If any of those companies, Bell Lab or whatever, did get some inspiration from some alien technology,

they're not going to admit it that their multi-billion dollar business is built on somebody else's idea. But it's possible that Corso did distribute that material and assume, that it had something to do with what came later. It may have, and where you were correct, is that, and the story he told us, is when they gave it to the industry, everybody got to assume that what they were getting was Soviet, not ET technology,

but there was something that we had picked up in a prozantic sense that looked like it was advanced with this help. Like I say, as a conundrum, particularly with Phil, and I love the guy and tried to help him, but yeah, the pieces, that's the one, when the pieces just don't all fit. 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 show will get a $75 sponsor. 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. You know, bring this back around to current events. So we know that defense contractors twisted arms on Capitol Hill regarding

this UFO transparency amendments that were kicked around legislation and that they oppose giving up what they've got. Let's. Let's just pick a name out of a hat, Lockheed. Let's say they have some of this recovered technology. They haven't quite figured out how it works yet. Even if you haven't mastered it or reverse engineered it to the point where you could duplicate it, I'm not sure that I, as a company president, would give that stuff up at all. If I'd had it for 40 or 50 years, if it could potentially change the economy of the world and be worth trillions of dollars, would you give it up if you didn't have to? I wouldn't.

Well, no, I mean, which is a point, that was interesting, just watching the branch on this, where if we have the technology and it's owned by the public, but you give it to private industry and the advances are made, they get the profit, not necessarily we who I think would literally have a rightful claim on it. These are areas that I also think, and hard to prove as to what crime, but that the programs, my guess is, were just totally illegal. And it's going to be hard to prove. And how did they get it? What was done with it? Who owns particularly intellectual rights to things? It's got to be very complex.

but I can understand from an industrial perspective. No way in hell you'd want to admit that or give it up. John, what is the path forward? You know, there's many ways to get to the mountaintop here of basic confirmation and bringing this stuff out to be studied by a larger scientific community. Again, we can make nuclear weapons. We don't teach people how to make them,

but we can study nuclear physics. So in the same way here, you know, what is the path forward for discovery on this topic that we call the phenomenon that includes UFOs? And are you optimistic for the path forward? Well, sort of mixed on the left, would like to be optimistic and certainly agree with what in your programs that the advances have been made. And we thought before, you know, what Gary did, I was at the Seoul conference. But the idea that Stanford would not only allow it, but be quite supportive of it. You see the same thing at Harvard, where what R.V. Lowe is doing, and these things are not acceptable. I think I've mentioned, I actually think that, you know,

governments have a very limited role in this area. If they've sequestered the information, how you get that out is a different story. But from a government perspective, your rule is governance and running things on a day-to-day basis and helping on advances you have some people working on what we call basic technology so that we'll look forward. But in general, that belongs in the civilian sector. And I think this is true there that as we broaden the scope and bring in more academic industrial institutes,

things like the national labs can play a role, but not necessarily B role. So if we're the biggest thing in my view is this gaining of acceptance of credibility and acceptability in doing this and of getting to where you get our best and brightest involved. If you could be UFO God for a day, what eat it would you issue on this matter? Well, that's assuming, I guess, from a governmental perspective. Yeah. Yeah, I would look at it. I think the information should be released.

Now, I do see an issue on classification. That has more to do with our sensor systems. Our data collect it, and you don't want to gamble away the total operational parameters or vulnerabilities of class. Yeah, we do know that many of the sightings, you know, they're picked up on radar and then it's not there. How is it? If you could figure that out, that would be something you do not want to fall to others. But it would start with the basic premise, I think, that says, A, is real.

Oops, we made a mistake, and we probably should not have sequestered this long, particularly the basic understanding of them. Now, remember you run the full spectrum in the C.J. world of, you know, what do you have? Then you get to aliens and the implications of, you know, extraterrestrial or not human intelligence, not human life. That gets pretty broad. Frankly, I think, yeah, a population could handle, as I've said many times, confirmation of what you are. and he believed he was not a paradigm shift. Now, it can definitely handle it, but we ought to get them into the information out. You've got to get the baseline established everything we can

to get best and brightest, you know, integrated approach and sharing of knowledge. Jeremy, I've shared with you stories about being with John Travelyn, being at conferences with, him. It's so much fun to see people pointing at him and whispering, and there he is. It's him. The man in black, John gets a kick out of it, too. I think about nicknames, you know, from fiction. You got Dr. Doom and Dr. Strange. Those are both great nicknames. Dr. Death is right up there, and that's what people refer to John as. And they allege that he's got this mind-controlled laser beam that he zaps out and stuns people's brains.

John, don't do that anymore. Rees don't do that anymore. No, okay. Let's remember my doctorate was done under Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, who's the one who brought hospice to the ass, and I was the president of the International Association for Near Death Studies. So I've done a little work in the area called the Phanatology. That's really a name.

It's a little jake it. Yeah, I think you got a way cooler name. at least you guys both do. People of my friends that enemies call me forename or just, you know, idiot. So Dr. Death, Dr. Doom, you're doing pretty good. Well, yeah, John, I just really appreciate it, man. You've been part of what I've observed, you know, kind of growing up and seeing inside of this world. You've always been somebody who people have kind of maybe mislabeled as one of the men and black.

You're one of the good guys, man. You've always fought and tried to move this ball forward. And it seems like it's taking you into really, you know, interesting places in your life. I guess I just wonder the world has changed so much now with this UFO topic. You know, what are you hopeful for? Like, what is it, what is the best version of reality here? We seem to be learning more and more every day. People can get kind of down about it or it doesn't fall the way they want.

But we've made a lot of progress, haven't we, since you started this? Let me add to that question, Jeremy. Are you excited about the changes that have happened? You know, you think back to the beginning of Nids, Bigelow and you and Colin. L.M. Kelleher and Eric Davis and Hal Putoff and Kit and Jacques and all those people who were pushing for the kinds of changes that we're now seeing unfolding. Are you excited about it? Well, I'm not all about excited. I love enough to worry about him. I mean, you've got to still be here when some of these advances get, you know, more public on it. But the important thing

is that advances have been made, and particularly, as I said, in the civilian sector where I think this has to go. And again, the issue of credibility cannot be overstated. If you notice, even with Gryson, people like that,

you know, what you see is he had a dominant attacks. I like to tell people you want to, I'll show you the bruises. Yeah, this has happened. But we're not getting to where this is, acceptable and I think that's absolutely critical. And again, I keep focusing on best and brightest and get them involved, that's what's going to take.

The other issue is I think you're going to find that this expands in the phenomenal, logical, I'm working on Syrarians who can't go into now that I think are related that are just mind-boggling and then potentially even bigger than just is the non-human intelligence. What do we mean by that? Well, it is an exciting time. We've seen a lot of changes since when you and I were much younger and plugging away at this stuff.

And at least it feels like we're moving forward and the stigma is reduced at least somewhat. For people like Abby Loeb and Gary Nolan and big brain folks like that, to go ahead and be willing to risk their reputations and their careers to take this seriously. And that's by itself is a huge step. I think, I'd like to ask you one at least last question, and Jeremy, if you want to get back into it, the best evidence.

In your estimation, is the best evidence in the hands of some government agencies, special access programs, contractors, in light of the fact that our military is the ones who have the capability of collecting it. They have a global presence, all these sensors and satellites. You know, Jacques Valle has said, wherever the best evidence is, it's probably in some room somewhere or several rooms, and it's in the hands of government agencies or government contract.

That could be. But we'll go in at who, but again, these very senior people, if a lot of grush and these other whistleblowers are anchor, And I think that's only a piece of the puzzle. What we found out is most of the evidence is already in the public domain. And I do remember back when I saw on active duty and seeing the documents and the SCI level documents. And then you compare it to what the public already knew, most of it was there of the pieces that were missing. Most things were sources of message.

you know, how good are the sensor systems that are picking it up. And I think that's true. Again, I was talking to call a few weeks ago about this. They say, you know, governments sequesting it. There's only a limited amount that they can sequester. And that is these events happen to be, you know, just everyday people all around the world. And now with the ubiquitous, you know, sensor systems, picking this up, you can't,

the government has a limited capability on how much they can control. And, you know, the evidence has, the truth is out there. And I think you make a really good point, which is that there is a ubiquitous kind of data collection going on by civilians, by individuals. You were seeing this more and more. We're just getting more and more

footage, not just military leaks and that kind of thing. The average person is paying attention. So by diminishing that stigma, it's becoming a data-rich environment where it used to be data or because of the stigma associated with it and, you know, real stigma. I mean, loss of jobs, people saying you're not wrap so tight. So I think the takeaway for me from this conversation is you've seen it all along the way with George. And we're reaching a new era or a precipice where it is smart people can talk about what they're seeing when it comes to UFOs. And that's a huge, I mean, we've, we've crossed something major there once we've hit that point. I think, I think we have. So I am eternally optimistic, but specifically optimistic because of the data flow that I'm seeing

to me and George, the reporting where people want this information to be known without, you know, worrying so much about losing their jobs as like commercial airline pilots or something like that. So a lot of that precedent was set because people like you guys have been fighting all along the way. So, you know, thank you for that. And hopefully we get further. Hope so. Adelstra. Yeah. Thanks, John. Thanks, John. Great talking with you. It's so cool to hear John talk about this stuff just because he's been involved for so long. He's been that guy who's like you, kind of like everywhere they shouldn't be when it comes to the history of UFOs. You know, do you think that he ultimately will see the answers he,

wants while he's here on Earth. Do you think we're going to make it there for him? I'm not sure any of us are going to get the answers we want. You know, the best we can do is keep trying. Keep plugging away. We'll have to put an image up of some of the books that John has written because there are good, broad explanations that suggest how all these seemingly different topics fit together, the kinds of things that NIDS and later the Bass organizations have studied. And he's been involved in this stuff for a very long time and I would encourage people to check out what he's written. For sure. Yeah. So checking out John's books is a good way to kind of understand his path of trying to hunt the UFO thing. So anyway, very cool, weaponized,

in a strange place. Yeah. Good to see, ma'am. Yeah. Never has so few, had so much to tell, but could say so little. Following this in Weaponized, the presentation of Jeremy Corbelle, George Knapp, Dark Course Entertainment, and Cadence 13 Studios. Avail them now for free on the Odyssey app or wherever you get your shows. Thank you.