WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - UFOs And The Misinformation Machine

Episode Date: March 25, 2025

A new documentary film about the UFO/UAP mystery debuted this month, with testimony from nearly three dozen scientists and government officials about the need for transparency and honesty. But in spite of the overwhelming and unified message expressed in the film, major media outlets continue to insult, muddle, or ignore the topic, as well as insult the insiders who take it seriously. In this episode of Weaponized, George and Jeremy mention the premiere of "The Age of Disclosure" film in the context of hostile or incomplete media reports, in particular, a scathing Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal which slimed a key witness and whistleblower as a "mental patient," as well as a high-profile report by 60 Minutes which examined a five-year wave of "mystery drone" incursions. While laudable for taking on the drone mystery, 60 Minutes ignored, downplayed, and mischaracterized key evidence, testimony, and images from the most dramatic drone incidents, including the 2019 UAP swarms that buzzed the USS Omaha, USS Russell, and eight other Navy ships. The inference that those drones were launched from a cargo ship named Bass Strait is scurrilous and inaccurate. For decades, media organizations have ignored, ridiculed, attacked, or undermined the sanity and integrity of witnesses, whistleblowers, and legitimate inquiries, including the former UAP Task Force, which has had the effect of stifling and intimidating others from coming forward. GOT A TIP? Reach out to us at [e-mail] ••• Watch Corbell's six-part UFO docuseries titled UFO REVOLUTION on TUBI here : https://tubitv.com/series/300002259/tmz-presents-ufo-revolution/season-2 Watch Knapp’s six-part UFO docuseries titled INVESTIGATION ALIEN on NETFLIX here : https://www.netflix.com/title/81674441 ••• For breaking news, follow Corbell & Knapp on all social media. Extras and bonuses from the episode can be found at WeaponizedPodcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, two, a one, two, three, four. Give me a break. Give me a break. Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat bar. Give me a break. Give me a break. Break me off a piece of that. Kid me a break.

Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat bar. Have a break. Have a Kit Kat. It's ridiculous. It's like the White House coming out and saying, oh, nothing to see here. All of these things were FAA approved. After research and study, the drones that were flying over New Jersey and

large numbers were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons. We know that to not be true, not only from internal comms that we've seen, but from, you know, people high up in these regulatory bodies being like, if it was the FAA, we didn't know. So it's almost fundamentally ridiculous, but when you get Wall Street Journal and 60 minutes kind of moving over parts of the topic, especially 60 minutes, inaccurately, then we have a Houston, we got a problem. But ship logs show they were identified as drones, quote, at the time. Now, hold the fuck up.

Why do you think there's this predisposition to refer to them as drones or call them that? I mean, based on our understanding, the most reasonable explanation would be some sort of a drone or a UAV. And then you sort of go to the connotation that's attached with calling them what they actually are, which is an unidentified flying object to UFO. Our systems can't seem to detect them. We can't see them coming in. We can't see them leaving. On record testimony in one of our weaponized

of the dude whose job it was to identify if these units were coming on and off this bass straight. How this live, you know, continues to go is because people want it to be so. This is weaponized. My name is George Knapp. I'm here in Las Vegas. Jeremy Corbell, my friend and colleague, how are you doing?

I'm doing great, man. We've been hanging out a lot, hitting the pavement, doing a lot of work together that I'm excited that we're going to be putting out. A lot of traveling. We got to Austin, where we have a lot of friends. It was a gathering of UFO poobaws for the premiere at South by Southwest of this film produced by Dan Farah. What did you think of it? Yeah, it was great. So Age of Disclosure is the name of the movie. And we were invited to go see the premiere at South by Southwest. I didn't, you know, kind of realize that. every single UFO person that I know was going to be there. It was fun, man. It was really cool to get together with everybody and to be able to see the movie before it kind of hits the screens. I heard a lot about it.

Obviously, we know almost everybody that's involved with it. I think it was a powerful collection of strong voices, some you've heard from before, but many you have not, all kind of talking about the same thing, which is that this is something we're going to have to contend with, which is the reality and purpose. presence of UFOs.

Yeah, the film makes it pretty clear from pretty high-level people that this topic has been confused on purpose, ignored, discredited, and that it's time for the secrecy to end. These are some pretty high-up intelligence people, defense intelligence people. We got to see Jay Stratton. We heard from Lou Elizondo. We saw our friend Ernie Klein. There was a gathering of UFO luminaries like I have never seen before. Gary Nolan was there. It was a pretty cool time. Our friend Chris Ramsey was floating around as well.

I think the film is going to move the needle a bit, how much I don't know, because we don't know how it's going to be distributed yet, but it was great to go to Austin. It was great to see it. And I can't wait for the public to see it. For sure. I think that's all up to us. You know, this is a time, I think what Dan did in his movie is he brought together all the people that have been talking, again, that you've heard from and some you haven't, you know, to just say, the same thing, you know, just drilling it home. And I think that's so important. Visually it's beautiful. And I think the idea of having everybody in unison saying this is something we have to contend with now. It will take the average person and it will make them say, hey,

you know, I have to address this. So I think the effects of any movie, because again, no single image, no single movie, no single thing. It's the weight, the body and the weight of evidence. It's how we respond to it. So I think the power for me, what I see in products like that is that it brings it into pop culture and starts the dialogue and even can influence, you know, congressional, it can influence policy. And that's what I'm hoping is that when you get enough people of high credibility saying you've got to fucking do something, then influence policy. As we have learned over the years, there's always someone out there who will claim that this video, that photo, this can, case has been debunk. And all you have to do to debunk it is say it's debunked. I don't think there's

any video or image in the history of uphology that someone hasn't said is debunked. It's going to be hard to debunk the testimony of these folks, given their credibility and the positions they had over the years. I saw a Wall Street Journal article, you and I have talked about it before, that came out in the last couple of days, which is pretty typical of what mainstream media has done with the UFO topic over the decades. That is, is to take a dump on it and to discredit it and to muddy the waters. And wow, this was a pretty nasty piece of journalism. Don't you agree?

Yeah, yeah. Look, first of all, it was an opinion piece. People put, like, weight on it because it's in the Wall Street Journal. It was garbage. It was just absolute garbage. And so, you know, that's the problem is that, you know, you get these, like, big media outlets, like Wall Street Journal and you put weight in it. But the weight should be on the value of the content.

they were just completely inaccurate, whoever the, I don't know who the writer is. And not only that, being an opinion piece, one thing I did notice, the attacks keep coming. They described, this is the first time, a new low, they described David Grush as a, quote, mental patient. And then it was hot-linked. I didn't even want to click it. Probably went to that clip in idiots, you know, article. But it's the attacks on whistleblowers. It's the attacks on people who testified in front of Congress under oath and just, just, you know, article. And just, it's the attacks on people who testified in front of Congress under oath. And just, just trying to, you know, personally diminish the testimony, the content of what they said by calling them mental patients. David Gresh was never a mental patient. And so that was a real, that was a new low. I guess they got to swing low now. Yeah, I mean, that was really a low blow. And even for UFO debunkers, that really stands out as a pretty nasty attack because it really

doesn't fit. Dave Grush was just announced a couple of days ago. He's going to be working with a congressional committee. looking into UAP issues, advising on where they can look. I think there are still limits on what he can say about things he knew from being on the inside. But he's a solid guy. He had great courage in coming forward and testifying before Congress. He's taken nothing but grief for it. And apparently, based on what we just read in the Wall Street Journal, he's going to be taking some more. I don't think the main target of that was Dave Grush. It was probably meant to

discourage other whistleblowers to come forward, but also it was to discourage. It was to discourage. 60 minutes from continuing their reporting. 60 minutes did this piece about drones, the mystery drone story that's been percolating for a couple of years. And that was their real target, is to embarrass them so maybe they don't do additional reporting. Do you agree? Absolutely. So the Wall Street Journal article and the timing of it and the title of it and it coming out, it was to discourage, you know, it's the old thing. You know, serious people don't have serious discussions about something so unsurious. You know, that was like the 60s mentality about UFOs. Yeah, it was to discourage, you know, real reporting on the issue.

It's going to have the reverse effect because people know too much now. I do want to say, I think David Grush is an amazing pick to have to help with this task force in whatever limited ability that they can get done regarding UAP. I think even if he can't disclose everything to them, what he can do is put him in the right direction. I couldn't think of somebody better to help. with a congressional task force than David. I want to make that really clear because I'm, I think that positive things can come from this.

Now, 60 minutes. You know, you bring that up. Now, look, man, I might have a different opinion than you on this because I'm looking at some details that it's not only poorly sourced. It's, it's a lie. It's misleading. And it really bothered me. So let me get your opinions first on the 60 minute piece.

And then I want to tell you what I think. Well, I'll be good cop to your bad cop because I'm glad they covered it. I'm glad to see 60 Minutes still interested. They did a huge piece a couple of years ago. It got a gigantic reaction from the public. The producer, we know Graham Messick, he is interested in the subject. He's looking for ways to keep it in the public eye. Bill Whitaker, the correspondent for this piece, was also the correspondent in the previous report they did. I know that going in, he was nervous about what this might do. to his career. But he stuck with it. He got a great response. Obviously, they're not calling drones UFOs and they're avoiding any implication that the things that were seen over New Jersey, over Langley Air Force Base, over Plant 42 in the Mojave Desert, over the bases in the UK, that there's anything from outer space, they're, you know, kind of dismissing the idea that these are aliens or UFOs, but just covering the fact that these drones are mysterious, that they are coming from places we can't track. We can't track them when they leave. We're not able to bring them down. We can get

into some details about that. And it's been going on a long time. I'm glad they covered it. And we were going to take issue with some of the things that they said in this report. But overall, I was happy with it. And we have no idea what challenges Graham Messick and Bill Whitaker have in trying to cover topics that a lot of people in mainstream media think are nonsense. So I mean, And as with Ralph Lumenthal and Leslie Kane, New York Times, it is a heavy lift. And I'm sure they got to have editors who are very strict to get this on and to address the drone mystery without necessarily going as far as it could go is, I think, a positive thing. I see your point of view. I don't disagree essentially, but they fucked up.

And they fucked up and they created false associations. And I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call it out. You know, it's like that that's just kind of what we got to do, man. we got to keep it, but I see your point. And I, we're getting personal now. I know like Bill Whitaker and I know Graham, yes, they're creating something in a big media platform that is important. And I do applaud them for that. But we got to get certain things right. So let me start with. You just did a report about one of the incursions. And I just want to kind of hear your perspective on that and about what 60 minutes came up with and your reporting. Yeah, I've done a couple of drone stories for KLS this year.

The most recent one was about a place called Plant 42 out near Palmdale. It is where Lockheed, Martin, and Boeing, and a lot of the big aerospace contractors live and work and develop advanced platforms. In fact, this plant is where they are developing our next most advanced drone-type platforms, advanced drone technology. And for a period a year or so ago, these drones, mystery drones, are flying over plant 42. Two years prior, Plant 42 had basically boasted, hey, we've got an electronic fence, we've got anti-dron technology, we're not worried about drones. Well, whatever they have,

it didn't work, because these things came in night after night, multiple different drones, different sizes. They came from areas that were not trackable. They loitered over these very sensitive areas where very advanced platforms for our national security are being built and developed, and there was nothing that anyone could do. I know that security forces tried to follow them when they left after they recorded whatever surveillance needs they had. They couldn't catch up to them. They have no idea where they were launched. The proposal that maybe it's Chinese agents that, you know, are launching drones from some garage down there in these little towns, these little desert towns as preposterous. And it's an indication that we have a real security problem

with these drones, not only there, but in other examples that we're going to talk about. You know, they gave lip service to this incident in the 60 Minutes story. I thought they could have done a lot better job because it was a serious matter. And we still don't know where those things came from, what their objective was. It was suggested to me, maybe it's a security test that it is us flying things over sensitive places to see how personnel and systems will react. That might explain some of them, but it doesn't explain all of them. And we saw that in the 60 Minutes Report. They're talking to these high-level military guys.

If anyone would know if this is a security test, it's them. And clearly it is not. This episode is brought to you by Netflix. Most valuable promotions in Netflix are hosting a blockbuster triple headliner Saturday, May 16th. Ronda Rousey returns to face fellow woman's MMA pioneer Gina Carano in the main event. Plus co-main's Nate Diaz versus Mike Perry. And the best heavyweight in the world, Frances Ngano versus Felipe Lins. Watch Rhonda Rousey versus Gina Carrano, live only on Netflix.

Saturday, May 16th at 9 p.m. Eastern Center time, 6 p.m. Pacific time. Yeah, I mean, if you're doing what they call like a Red Force operation, you know, where you're trying to see the vulnerabilities by doing these tests to see how they respond, you're going to notify the base commander, you're going to notify the people that need to know so that they don't have some kind of unconditioned response that is bad. So it's foolish, it's ridiculous. It's like the White House coming out and saying,

oh, nothing to see here. All of these things were FAA approved. We know that to not be true, not only from internal comms that we've seen, but from, you know, people high up in these regulatory bodies being like, if it was the FAA, we didn't know. So it's almost fundamentally ridiculous. ridiculous, but when you get Wall Street Journal and 60 minutes kind of moving over parts of the

topic, especially 60 minutes, inaccurately, then we have a real Houston, we got a problem. And so, yeah, I want to talk about a couple of those problems, just so people get the facts right. Yeah, I mean, in this piece, they reference stories that we help break videos that we release to the public. The reason they have them is because we found them and put them out. But they reference the 2019 drone swarms that were reported by these 10 U.S. Navy warships, 100 miles out the sea up the Southern California coast. And it happened for several days in July of 2019. There were videos that were recorded. We got some amazing footage and testimony from the people who were there. And they just sort of wiped this away as if, oh yeah, these are drones. No big deal.

And it says it in the logs. You know about those logs, right? Absolutely. And so like, you know, again, we have to like redefine. the word drone and explain like what, you know, people can label things as like UAS started popping up, the unmanned aerial system, let's say. You know, all these words are given to them because that is what they identify and can identify them as. But we've actually talked with the people who wrote those terms, who actually wrote those down on USS Ross, on USS Omaha. We know why they wrote the words that they wrote. So we'll get into that. But let me start with the first thing. In the 60 Minutes report, it says they were shadowed for weeks by dozens of drones.

Okay, they weren't shadowed for weeks. There was a three-day period with an arc in the middle. And we reported on that. And we showed the footage and the radar and all that stuff. It was over a smaller amount of periods. So you've got to get the details right on the amount of time, the duration of these kind of performances that you get with these swarms of Navy ships. Because, by the way, we just reported on something.

we had a bunch of footage that we could put out that we obtained and released. These events are happening all the time. There's almost like an immunity with Navy people because they see these things, record these things. They don't even report them up the chain of the command a lot of the time. So it was over a three-day period, over 100 mile radius, and it was over 100 unknown units. Call them UAS, call them drone, call them UFO.

They're unidentified. I don't fucking care. Call them UAP. Call them whatever you want. I call them units, unknown units. So anyway, that was. one thing was the duration. The exact quote in the 60 minutes was, for years, and this one really pissed me off,

for years, the Pentagon did little to dispel speculation. These images were UFOs. But ship logs show they were identified as drones, quote, at the time. Now hold the fuck up. By saying that the Pentagon did little to dispel, You're implying the Pentagon knew damn well what these were, and they're just not dispelling a rumor or a myth. Well, we know that for sure, Jay Stratton, as an example, at UAPTF, was one of the individuals who collected a bunch of data on what was going on. We actually provided a bunch of data to the

Pentagon when we did our releases that we obtained, but we know for sure that Jay Stratton and under UAPTF that they looked at this with optical physicists and all this stuff, and that it was not, known and still is not known what these units were, where they were coming from, where they were launching, where they were landing. I'd call that a UFO, a UAP. I'd call it an unknown. And in some logs, they're called UAS, unmanned aerial system. And when I asked, the people that wrote that, I said, well, you thought it was spectacular. You know, why did you use that terminology? That's what was allocated to us in the kind of choices of what we could write. Why do you think there's this predisposition to refer to them as drones or call them

that? I mean, based on our understanding, the most reasonable explanation would be some sort of a drone or a UAB, and then you sort of go to the connotation that's attached with calling them what they actually are, which is an unidentified flying object to UFO. They are technically that, but that doesn't mean that they're extraterrestrial, like that's the connotation that comes with using that phrase, even though that is the proper phrase for what we saw and what we classified. Can you tell me a little bit why this doesn't fit with a conventional drone? We were always trying to listen and we couldn't really hear anything, which is also different from what we've experienced with drones that are in close as these

appeared to be. You would hear something a lot of times. Like you would hear rotors, whirling of blades, something like that, conventional propulsion. Correct for more of a conventional drone. A national drone would still have like a low hum of an aircraft flying, which you would hear. And you don't recall hearing that from these? No. What else in general just doesn't add up with the conventional drone idea?

Just in general, we were a good amount off of land, and I'm not sure if I can disclose exactly how far away we were, but it was not a range that a conventional drone should ever be able to traverse. especially for the amount of time that we were seeing these. Nothing we know of can stay out here for that long because the amount of time that we were seeing them was well beyond. I mean, if they flew out there, they would probably need to fly back. So I know that it wasn't a civilian. It absolutely wasn't civilian because there's nothing available or even that you could modify to do what we saw. So in the 60 Minutes piece, they're showing, I believe it was USS Russell, where on the night they're doing drone.

because that's all you can write when you're seeing something that does not appear to be able to hold a human. It makes sense. Of course, it's a drone. But what you're trying to do is, one, say the Pentagon knew and didn't dispel speculation that they were UFOs or UAP. And that is absolutely 100% false. And then additionally, you're implying that the word drone had any meaning in these ship logs. It is not only false. it is disingenuous. I have to say it really pisses me off because I could have put them in touch with dozens of direct eyewitnesses that could have told them the real shebang, what was going on.

And instead, you're minimizing a national security issue that a lot of people were affected by and you're doing it with slide a hand. I'm not holding back words. That's how I feel. And I want to dig deeper into that, but whatever, you get the meaning. Well, we've offered to help with that kind of stuff to provide access to them and other media outlets to get to the bottom of what happened in that 2019 series of events. And they don't want, they don't really seem to want it. I'll tell you what, what really bugged me is they had a one sentence piece in the 60 Minutes story about this unnamed Chinese freighter ship that was out there. For years, I think they said, the Navy has suggested, suspected that that ship, that Chinese ship, was launching drones.

Well, we know for a fact. That is not true. I mean, yeah, maybe somebody suspected at some point. The ship, by the way, is called the Bass Strait. There was a ship out there. It's registered in Hong Kong. And it's interesting. There's a, I think, old UFO people like me have heard the term Bass Strait before because it's a water, it's a strait between Tasmania. and mainland Australia. And back in, I think, 1978, there was a famous UFO incident, a 20-year-old pilot named Frederick Valentich was flying. He calls into the Melbourne Air Traffic Control Tower and said, hey, there's something really weird client above me. It's like a thousand feet above me. I think it's a plane. And he says, my engine is starting to go bad. And then he says, his last transmission says, it's not a plane, and then poof, he's gone. He disappeared. It's a mystery that's never

been solved, but it happened over the Bass Strait. So for a ship named Bass Strait to become the focal point of another, a new UFO mystery is really kind of ironic, I think. But we know, for a fact, that ship did not launch those drones, or any drones, because when it got into port, our friend Jay Stratton, who told us in one of our very first weaponized episodes, told us about this. He had the UAP Task Force. He had contacts with the Department of Justice. He sent agents there. They were waiting for it when it got into Long Beach, I think, and they got on board that ship, looked around. There's no drone mechanisms. There's no drone launching capabilities. And I think, as you told me, while the ship is there, landlocked,

the drone activity, the mystery UAS, whatever you want to call them, continued for the U.S. Navy. Is that correct? That is correct. Yeah, so look, the exact line, and this is like a real point for me, because what 60 Minutes is doing is they're perpetrating a lie on the American public, something that is absolutely not true. And this is something that I saw percolating through media outlets trying to say that the Bass Strait, this, you know, Hong Kong freighter, was launching and landing. By the way, these, you know, significant size, UAP or UAP. I asked, wherever you want them. And you can read it on Wikipedia. It was propagated.

Maybe it was the drive. It was propagated this false, false narrative. The Paul Hamilton was in closest proximity to a ship called the Bass Strait, which is a cargo ship that's run by Pacific Basin. And I want to start with an image that comes up about what the media has said, right, which is that case has been solved. So, Zach, can we bring up the... the first image from New York Post, they're horrible, disingenuous, ridiculous, parroted reporting

of untruth because you're about to see it. So if people can see that, mysterious drone attacks on U.S. warships solved. I don't agree with that assessment. And let's get to specifically why, but to tell you what that's saying. So there was a cargo ship that was right by the Paul Hamilton, and it has been propagated this mythology that these, 100 plus drones within a 100 mile radius were launched from and landed back to this ship called the Bass Strait. In fact, it's propagated so much you can even find it on Wikipedia now. If you pull up the Wikipedia, Zach, it's like, it's already, you know, just, okay, Wikipedia. There we go.

Just go ahead and read it, George. Pacific Basin is the owner and operator of Bass Strait, a cargo ship that launched a series of drones that surveilled and harassed U.S. Navy ships, including the USS. Hall Hamilton and the Watersoft Southern California in 2019. No equivocation. It is the ship that launched these drones. Yeah, so let's get that garbage off the screen because it's false. Okay, so but here's the deal, man. The reason why you find it trickle down to Wikipedia is because this has been a false

narrative that has been propagated by, you know, subpar journalists and subpar journalism sources and they try to trickle it down all the way. Now, someone just reads that. They're like, oh, great, case solved. So let's back the fuck up. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish.

Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply. Make Mother's Day even more special at Whole Foods Market. Kick off brunch or dinner with quality cheese and charcuttery with no synthetic nitrates.

Then go seafood. There's an abundance on sale at Whole Foods Market, where it's all sustainable while caught are responsibly farmed. At the bakery, grab seasonal treats like their strawberry pretzel cream pie, and you can't go wrong with a ready-to-heathe Kish Lorraine, deviled eggs, and fresh-cut fruits to go. Celebrate Mom with Whole Foods Market. Yeah, you got to wonder why. Here's the exact words from the 60 Minutes piece.

And the Navy suspected they came from this Hong Kong flagged freighter sailing nearby, which was the Bass Strait, but couldn't prove it, saying the Navy thought it was there, but couldn't prove it. Well, George, if you remember, I think it was episode two of weaponized. We had our friend, Active Navy Commander, Guts, John Gutierrez on. And we had a dialogue about some of these swarms. And one of the things that I believe it was in that episode we provided was audio from the individual in charge of monitoring through surveillance equipment, the Bastray in real time. This individual, if you remember the audio, he wanted to be able to say, yep, yep, we see where they're landing and launching from.

Problem is, they weren't. I want to talk about origin. There's been a lot of talk that these objects, if not launched from land, that they were launched from a merchant vessel. So the Bass Strait is a lot of people are trying to pin this on the Bass Strait. Can you tell me a little bit about that about origin and what you know about the Bass Strait? This was the closest that we ever came to on our ship figuring a possible origin outside of coming from land somehow, like you said, traversing those 30 to 50 miles that we were from the nearest islands. So at one point, we did see what looked like multiple air contacts around a merchant ship that was operating in our vicinity of our strike group. And it was a foreign flag merchant ship.

And we reached out to them. They denied they weren't a vessel of interest that we had been worried about or anything. But I think it was like five to ten of the aircraft circling around it. and we never saw it actually land on this vessel. Was it your impression that the contacts did not belong to the merchant vessel? And can you verify that you asked the merchant vessel and they denied that they were theirs? Yeah, I could verify the latter for sure. And that was also why I sort of skirted around saying many details about that merchant vessel

because I wasn't, I'm not sure where the investigation went afterwards. I sort of helped compose the message that we sent off because I, seen it and like I said we didn't see them land on it and that was what we really wanted to see like we really wanted to see either a launch or a landing we didn't know if possibly this vessel had a foreign nation's intelligence detachment on board or something like that doing this they did deny they were the source and they also never landed or launched them so right really wanted to see that because we just wanted an answer because we were we were tired of it it was not launching was not receiving the drones as much as we wanted it to.

Like we were like, this is the source. This has to be it. We finally figured it out. And it seemed like it probably wasn't just based on the fact that we never saw them land or take off. They weren't. So not only do we have the word of UAPTF, not only did we meet the FBI personally, who boarded that ship and said no, but we also have on record testimony in one of our weaponized

of the dude whose job it was to identify if these units were. coming on and off this Bastrate. How this lie, you know, continues to go is because people want it to be so that this lie will continue. It's verifiably false at this time. So just to be abundantly clear, the events continued happening when in Port and Long Beach, boarded by the FBI, we've met people who boarded it. And these units were not coming from or leaving from or docking on the baster. It's an absolute lie. And we need to just absolutely give it. We need to just absolutely get rid of that lie. So I don't know if I drove that home enough, but I am sick and tired of mainstream media giving us these lies through things like 60 Minutes and Wall Street Journal. Yeah, I agree. And,

you know, a friend of ours, Merrick, who we've had on interviewed a couple of times and talked to a lot, made the point on X. He had posted something to the effect of, yeah, great job, 60 minutes, glad you covered this. But why did you leave out maybe the best drone video, drone using it in a generic term of all time, which is the USS Omaha. Now, just a review. This is July 2019. These 10 Navy ships are being buzzed by more than a hundred of these objects over a three-day period. There were a lot of videos were recorded, logs, a lot of information, a lot of witnesses, saw these things, different-sized objects who were bedeviling these Navy warships. And USS Omaha is one of them. We released quite a bit of evidence of that. Images taken from a thermal camera in the

command center in the USS Omaha. This thing followed that ship for more than an hour, I think. It's a gigantic sphere. There's no wings, tail, rotor, no emissions that indicate it's like a regular engine. It just follows along in the dead of night, and then it goes into the water. And, all right, you want to say that's a drone. Well, how the hell does it fly, you know? It's 14 feet across, something like that. It's huge. And you don't see it coming in. You don't see it leave.

It follows along with the ship at night. You got the images. They said there were, I think you had the video that showed the radar returns, that there were 12 to 14 of them at times buzzing in and out around that ship, correct? Yeah, I mean, they were going in and out of the water. That's what the helo pilots have directly told me. That is what you're seeing on radar. That is what all accounts showed that these were transmissible.

medium. Now, whose they are and all that, we're not talking about. We're just trying to tell the difference between what you're being told, this fact, which isn't fact. You know, the word drone is used, but that is not the point here. Now, Fleer footage, I think it's a matter of education in some way. You're talking about no flight control systems. You don't have anything like wings, tail, rotors, and then you get into signatures as signet, you know, kind of signature intelligence. There's no heat plumes. There's no rotor wash. So the shape you're seeing in the black and white footage, to put it clearly, and it's not just me saying it, it's experts that work with this footage.

Even Commander Gutierrez said this in the episode. The shape you're seeing is the heat signature. What you're seeing there is what you get. When you're looking at things that have traditional rotor propulsion, like we would think of as drones, although there's tons of different kinds of propulsion, you're going to get some exhaust, some plume of heat. You see none of that, none of that. So when you see a black and white footage

that is typically going to be fleer, and when you have a lack of signatures for heat, then you know that that is most likely some sort of propulsion system that is different than something you'd see with rotor or jets. I suspect we're going to see evidence of other swarm events from Navy ships with footage in the very near future that have similar signature or absence of signature in the black and white, fleer or thermal footage. Not only do I suspect that, I know that because we're going there, George, and soon. USS Russell. So we saw some seemingly familiar imagery in the 60-minute story that looked like triangles.

That's not the footage that we made public. The USS Russell, we have communicated with those crew members, these what looked like pyramids floating over it. They're now pretty famous, these greenish-looking pyramids. And I think a lot of people have tried to explain that away as bouquet or something like that. We've seen the records. We know the information that was made available to the UAP task force from the U.S. Navy. We know that these objects, whatever they were, were detected 700 feet above the deck of that ship. It's not a star that's millions of miles away.

It was there. It wasn't a mistake. Yeah, look, I don't care if it's the shape of Mickey Mouse. I don't even want to get into that right now. But, yeah, absolutely, there were solid objects that were off the after the tail of the ship. They were used by, you know, I think it was range finders to other seven feet, 700 feet off. There were two in particular. That was an element of the footage we put out, but it was a different version.

Again, people argue about things. as if you're just seeing stars, but on all other sensors in the official documents. I mean, you know, they tell you, these were units. That's why people went out onto the deck. And people dismiss the, what I call the deck footage that we obtained and released,

where you just see lights, but that off USS Russell, but why that was so important to me, because if we didn't have that one piece of, like, iPhone footage showing self-luminosity, right, then people could get away with saying, like, oh, these are just balloons, or something like that. But when you see it's self-luminous, well, then you're dealing with something else.

So even though it's not visually exciting, that last piece of evidence we provided, and that's why we did it last, it does show self-luminosity. And again, just go back to the interview that we did with your pal J. Stratton, because he does talk about them being self-luminous triangle by angle of observation. He had optical physicists, look at that sensor system and others. And they came up with that it was pyramid in shape. Green footage from the USS Russell, which you know that George and I obtained and released. So you know somebody's filmed a screen and shouldn't have done that, but that's not me. It's journalists. There's shield law.

Obtained and released. But you've seen it. They played it in Congress. Yeah. Okay. The question about that is, was that, to do the best of your knowledge, is that a camera artifact of the iris? The shape that you see in the green footage, we'll call green. Is that an artifact of the iris?

To my knowledge, based on three PhDs, it is the shape in that video is the shape that you're seeing and that it is a pyramid and that it is self-illuminating. It's a what? That illumination is coming from the object itself. That's my understanding based on what I had. You got three PhDs? You got three PhDs? You got three PhD people to look at it.

I got three PhD people to look at it. Yeah. Were they like, often with physicists? Yes. But why go so far to show one video instead of three other videos that are out in the public that are corroborated digital evidence of one event and then say they're drones in quite, I know who named them drones. So why did they do that? I don't know. Fair to say if it was a known U.S. technology.

I would have admitted that, right? Right. I said it was unknown. Looking to see what's happening around your home? Ring's battery doorbell helps you track packages and see who's at your door in real time. The Outdoor Cam Plus protects your yard at night with a wide field of view and clearer retinal 2K video. Or upgrade to 4K cameras and doorbells with retinal vision for ultra-clear zoom in detail. Your door, your yard, your home.

With Ring, it's protected. Shop cameras, doorbells, and more at ring.com now. And that's not me saying it. That's not you saying it. That's what it was in internal documentation. If there's a correction to be made, it's not by us, it's by them. However, we do know that these units were swarming these ships and that they were unknown, unidentified still are, that they're not typical conventional drones, that they were

awed with shape and morphology, that they had propulsion capability that seems different than what we know. And just to put an absolute extra little punctuation mark on that, one of the verbal testimonies that both me and active Navy commander got was one of the individuals off of U.S. Russell and they saw it travel amongst, you know, kind of on the line of the ship, and the exact words are, boom, shot up, like to outer space. And then probably the most dramatic part of the event was once it moved to the starboard side of the ship, it just shot straight up into the air.

And the word that the sailor that we spoke with used was it zoom, it zoomed, it zoomed straight up in the air. And when you ask them, did you hear anything? you know, did you see anything in terms of like, you know, again, like exhaust or something like that, you know, or right, did you hear it? Right, exactly. And of course, the answer is no. So eyewitnesses that were there saw extreme instantaneous movement. You can dismiss it all day long, but the cumulative evidence over time is going to, you know, go against the idea of just traditional drones. Now, I'd love these to be ours. I'd love for them to know, I'd love for us to know who's they are, if they are ours. But you can't lie and say they were launching off Bass straight. I'm just done with that. bullshit. I think maybe the most positive thing to come out of the 60-minute story is the acknowledgement that we are in a world of hurt with this. Our systems can't seem to detect them. We can't see them coming in. We can't see them leaving at Langley Air Force Base, 17 nights in a row. These things popped up. And as we heard from witnesses, sometimes 30 or 40 of them coming over that base.

The Langley folks had to move the F-22s out of there. We can speculate about what else might be at Langley, and maybe in the future we're going to talk about what it might have drawn column unidentified to that particular base. So in this 60 Minutes piece for these high ups in the military admit, we don't know who's flying them, what their job is, where they're from, who's responsible, because they are unidentified. But I recall of Jay Stratton, when he was in charge of the UAP task force, getting slammed by media pundits who said, said, you know, it's really your fault that we can't detect these things. The UAP task force is so interested in trying to track UFOs that NORAD is completely unprepared for

things like the Chinese balloons that were such a big story, the dronapalooza for a couple of weeks a few years ago. You know, that's your fault, UAP task force, because you want to look for UFOs, which is the complete opposite of what is the case. They've been making the case that we need to look for unconventional objects in our space. including drones, including balloons, and NORAD, which is, you know, kind of programmed, their sensors are programmed to look for bombers and missiles, which we perceive as a threat, but they don't look for these kinds of things. And as we heard in that 60-minute story, we don't even have the capability to detect low-flying,

small objects that invade restricted airspace. UAP Task Force was a task force specifically dedicated to UAP has nothing to do with the type of work that NORAD does. Like, we have great Raytheon technology out on Guam that have incredible capability to be able to perceive, you know, threats and things coming in even very small into our atmosphere. So, yeah, that's a kind of slide-a-hand thing again. So I do want to reel it in a little bit. And I will be more encouraging. I do want to say, I am stoked that 60 minutes did a piece. You know, personal message to Graham. Keep it up, dude. We need you. You know, keep doing it. I would just say, you know, treading into the territory of reporting on things that are as important as I believe

the 2019 thing is that you want to get it right and not propagate false information. I know as journalists, if we make a mistake, we try to repent and repair and we try to put that out. But this is one of those situations where we need to call it out like our friend Merrick did, you know, saying, hey, if you're going to talk about this case, put the most important piece of footage out there with all the corroborative censor data. Don't just mention it. You know, put out the radar, put out the USS Omaha, Fleer footage, like really dive in. Otherwise, we're doing a disservice. So I do want to be encouraging. I do think it's so important that we keep this discussion going, but you're going to be fact-checked. You're going to be

fact-checked if you get it wrong. Yeah. I mean, we talked about this last year in one or two of our episodes that what we called, you know, drones as the new swamp gas. And I know that that phrase has caught on that a lot of people use it. But that's what the case is. Oh, yeah, drones. Well, yeah, we don't know where they came from or why they're here or who's flying them. But, you know, they're just drones. So don't worry about it. Well, drones is not really an accurate description for the kinds of cases and incidents that you and I are talking about because they are genuine unknowns. They are unidentified. They fit into the category of UFOs. And the suggestion in that story that the Pentagon does not try to brush that away, you know, it's happy to let that stick out there,

is completely in opposite of facts and history. So the best we can do is we can hope to obtain and release and provide more visual evidence to the public on these mysterious, pesky, UFOs, UAP. We hope that imagery like that, video like that, and testimony, like that will help kind of move the ball forward with legislation, as well as with the general public's understanding of what it is they're seeing. And I think also bringing forward whistleblowers. And I know we've had a busy number of months, George, and I just, I will say this. I mean, we have recorded with numerous individuals who you will be hearing from who have a

piece to the story, a piece of the pie, a piece of the puzzle. And I think that's really important. We have Dave Grush up there in Congress. We have. We have everybody, Commander Fravor. We have everybody that came after that. We need to continue that. And I am hopeful for the task force, whatever they can do in four months on UFOs. But I am hopeful for the future of this because I do know for sure you will be hearing directly from people, not just you and me repeating what other people say. And I'm excited for that, George.

And I hope you are too. And maybe there's additional footage that might pop up. You know, who knows? Military footage. Who knows? Yeah. I know keep in mind that there are attempts to muddy the waters it's been that way for a long, long time. It is ongoing. There will be dismissals and waves of your hand to ignore certain cases

and data and the evidence in front of your own eyes. Keep your eyes on the ball. We're going to try to do that for sure. Yeah, it's going to be a fun year. Can't wait. See you next week, George.