WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - Up Up & Away - Balloon-A-Palooza - Guest : Dave Foley

Episode Date: February 14, 2023

The presence of a Chinese surveillance balloon over American airspace culminated in the dramatic destruction of the balloon by a U.S. warplane. In the days after that highly publicized incident, three additional "unknown objects" were detected and shot down over North America. The government says it has not yet determined what the objects are. Does this represent a new level of transparency regarding UAP intrusions, or is the public being misled? Jeremy and George discuss how these incidents unfolded, what the public has been told, and why we may not be getting the straight story. Actor and comedian Dave Foley joins the discussion with his take on the confusion between UAP and spy balloons, and how the reporting of recent events reveal the truth about the now famous UAP swarms of 2019. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75-sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theatre stage on April 30th.

The powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at Yamavat Theater.com. Only at Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You in? Must be 21 to enter. And this is weapon. is weaponized. Jeremy Corbell, George Knapp here. This is weaponized.

We are doing an audio version only this week because we need to catch up. We need to catch up on some events that have happened. This is a big week in UFO, UAP news. It is the lead story and newscasts all over the world, not a UAP UFO in the sense that you and I would recognize what those terms mean, but the rest of the world seems to be suddenly interested. and strange things are flying around in the sky.

Yeah, I would argue that we don't need to catch up, but that the media needs to catch up with us. And I'm saying that because it's true. You know, we've been doing these drops. First episode of Weaponized, Mosul Orb, a confirmed UAP, not a balloon, a UAP that was episode one from a conflict zone. First time the world has seen,

and it will be confirmed officially, the UAP from a conflict zone. Episode number two was... John Gutierrez, Guts, our interview with Guts, an active duty Navy commander. I went after every military person that I knew that I could get to. I know that out of personal interest,

that Guts also talked with a number of direct eyewitnesses. So what we provided to the public in episode two of weaponized, other than my good friend and buddy, John Gutierrez, coming on our show, talking for himself, not representing any military organization. We did talk about the 2019 UFO or UAP swarm events, which had flight characteristics that were phenomenal, and finally the world got to hear for the first time direct eyewitnesses to those events.

And I think it was like two different witnesses out of the so many that have come forward to us that allowed us to use their voice. So that was a great episode two of weaponized. But then episode three, Jay Stratton, Jay Stratton is maybe the most important UFO investigator to ever come forward in history. He was involved in the three major modern UFO programs. He was a consultant to AOSAP, the program run out of the DIA. He wrote the very first paper investigation into the Tic Tac incident. He was then directly involved, worked closely with Lou Elizondo on ATIP, which was the successor, program to Alsap, a smaller focus on military encounters with UFOs, but still a really important

program. After Lou went forward and broke the story about the existence of ATIP, Lou Elizondo, broke the story with the New York Times about the existence of ATIP in December of 2017, Jay Stratton gets pulled back into the UFO arena by the Pentagon, asked to head up another program, a program that existed, which didn't really have a name. He put together a structure for both collecting and analyzing UAP information, UAP encounters involving the military, and then that eventually became codified by Congress into something called the UAP Task Force.

Jay, Dr. Travis Taylor, his chief scientist, put together an analysis of 144 UFO, U.S. incidents. 143 of those could not be identified. They made that report to Congress, even after Jay had left the UAP task force, but this is the guy who's seen it all, who knows more about what our government files on UAP show than maybe anyone in history. And he came on our show, talked to us, gave us at least a glimpse of what he knows, there's so much more to come. Yeah, we recorded a lot longer with Jay than we showed the public, didn't we? Yeah, we did.

Are we going to show them the rest of that interview? There will be a lot more coming, and Jay has made it clear he's going to be making more statements in the public. He's not going back into the shadows. He believes the public has a right to know about this stuff, and we're going to be hearing a lot more about him. But the first interview was on Webinar. That's right. And so a couple of things about that, just getting everybody caught up, especially the media, because I've really ghosted going on any media, because I'm waiting to see if one network is going to throw down and join the conversation,

to report the news because I feel like they've been lacking. And fingers crossed everybody that they're going to do a service and start actually reporting the news on UFOs. But hold on one second. Let's record scratch again and back up. So here's the deal, George. If people could see where we're recording right now, I mean, this wallpaper is wild.

I don't know where we are, but we're at an undisclosed location. It looks like a brothel. Okay, I didn't want to say that. It's a beautiful place. But I just wanted people to know that, look, As George has said now, you know, that this revolution will not be televised. It will be weaponized.

So we're trying to give you right now something as up to date as we can within these platforms. So you'll be here in this Tuesday morning. Now, I'm hoping nothing major happens between them, but I think there might be. So I just want everybody to understand. Once in a while for weaponized, when something is real breaking and people asking us thousands of questions, we can't even open our phones because of the number of texts. We're going to try to do audio to get. this to you so that you get current and up to date. It's no good filming things in advance

and putting them out. So that's how we find ourselves here right now. But again, I urge you, I urge everybody, make some noise. Your media is not covering what they should be. They're covering a strange, twisted narrative. I got to ask you a question, George. Is this war of the worlds right now? Shoot downs. A UFOs. What's going on? You know, both you and I have had so many texts and emails from people asking that exact question over the last 24, 48 hours because of the flurry of news events stemming from this Chinese spy balloon. It's an extraordinary series of events, extraordinary in multiple levels. And there is subterfuge and really some sneaky stuff going on. I think there's a legitimate news story, but there is also active efforts on the part of someone

to use this opportunity to cloud the waters further, to muddy the waters about the genuine UAP mystery. It starts with this Chinese balloon, and we're going to be talking about that in detail with a friend of ours a little bit later. But look at the sequence of events that's happened. After the coverage of this Chinese balloon and all the debate about how we, handled it? Should we have shot it down before it got over U.S. airspace? Was it an overall success for our intelligence services to normally block the ability of that apparatus to transmit signals back to China, but then to shoot it down in a way where we can recover it, study it, we may end up learning more about the Chinese surveillance program than they learn from their

own device, which is pretty cool. But a lot of folks equated that Chinese spy balloon with UFOs and UAPs. And I think there are some overlaps in that story. There's a natural overlap there that makes sense. However, it totally got distorted along the way. And I think it not only shows a weakness on the part of America's defense system, how we monitor unknown objects in our skies, but also the complete ignorance of our national media in how they cover this stuff. You know, All right, so we had the Chinese spy balloon, and then within a couple of days, you know, the Biden administration, the Pentagon, get all kinds of criticism because they didn't shoot it down right away. They didn't shoot the thing down right away, which, you know, critics would find a way to bash Biden. If he'd shot it too early, they'd be bashing them for that. If they didn't shoot it early enough, they'd be bashing him for that. We don't know how to respond to something like this. We didn't exactly know, I think, our intelligence, disease knew what the heck this thing was from the beginning, but couldn't make up their mind whether it was a good idea to shoot it out or not. However, what's happened since then is absolutely remarkable.

Because of the criticism they got, I think they've developed sort of a hair trigger mentality is that we can't let that happen again. We don't want to be criticized again. So if something like that happens again, we're going to shoot it down right away. And it happened over Alaska. Unknown object. The terminology that comes out, from in these national news reports, unknown object flying in the skies. Now, what do we think about? Unknown object flying, we equated with the UFO. And in yet another development, you know, call it tit for tat. Could I say tit on the air? You just did. All right. China, this comes out Sunday morning. China scrambled jets to go shoot down a UFO.

Maybe it's in response to us shooting down their spy balloons or whatever, but, and we don't know what exactly it is that their pilots were going after. But again, you've got to be careful what you wish for. You know, suddenly everybody is shooting down stuff that's in the sky could lead to some real serious earth problems here. Earth problems. And George Knapp officially just said tit. I'm going to put on my safety helmet here, and it's made of tinfoil.

But check this out. I was so curious to see a network that doesn't usually cover the UFO topic what I would consider to be from a straightforward advantage. And I was really interested to see some of the words coming out of their mouths on these anchors. I mean, my mom was sending me news clips. Oh, man, they're fucking with you guys. Check this out. And what they would do is they would say things like,

the pilots saw different things. This object influenced their instrumentation. That they, I mean, just strange things that I'm starting to feel like, Are you trying to portray that this is a bona fide UFO that we are firing upon? Because the choosing of wording that they used to describe these object was so off-brand for straight reporting. How did they get those quotes from, or not quotes, but these ideas from pilots who need to go do debrief, get right back on the ground? I haven't looked it up. Maybe they did talk. It's absolute bullshit. There is no way in hell.

You know, this happened Saturday. and by Sunday morning we're seeing reports that the pilot said there was no visible means of propulsion. It interfered with our instruments. That is bullshit. There's no way that news reporters got access to those pilots within hours after them landing and encountering these things. I don't believe it. So you've said, and look, you know, I could be wrong. I don't know the exact timeline. I'm not able to look at news. My phone. I can't even touch right now. We're having similar problems. But check this out. You do have a source. And your source says, something really interesting to you. Let's just say a friend. And if I get this right, your friend said

to you, if this was it, and this is somebody in the position to know, I think that's all we can say. But they said to you, if this was a real UFO or UAP that we shot at, it would not, it would not be in the news. What do you make of that? And is that correct? It is absolutely correct. So as soon as the Chinese balloon furor dropped down a little bit, you know, we were in touch with people that we know to kind of get their take on how the whole story played out. And then the next episode happens where there's a unknown object shot down over Alaska. And, you know, the fact that they use those words, it's not an accident. That comes out of the Pentagon, unknown object flying.

They know how the public is going to react to that. So I reached out to some people that I know really well, and people can make their own guesses who that might be. And the statement back to me was very clear. If this was a real UAP, it would not be in the news. Flat out. And we'll talk about this a little bit later in this episode, but do we shoot at real UAP?

We'll talk about that at the end. We have something to do in the middle here. But let's continue on this because I'm really baffled. And why I'm baffled is people are fucking buying this shit. Now, I know how the news media works. I know that you can get a narrative on one place and then it will be repeated. But this looks like fuckery to me. This looks like embedded specific language to make everybody feel that what we are engaging in our airspace and now in other countries such as Canada and China as far as this morning,

that that language is being used as a weapon to be repeated to make you think that, hey, we're shooting at UFOs and you're going to, you're going to hear. hear about that. It's going to open up. So you've got people thinking, oh, this is a moment. This is a moment. You got other people thinking it's war of the worlds. But they're like, this is the moment. Oh, no, no. Hold the fuck up. This is the moment. You get the rug pulled out from underneath your feet. That's what I think. Now, it could be wrong. Oh, I absolutely agree. And it's my first reaction is there is some serious gamesmanship at work here. I have said this for the last 30 years, that the people in charge of muddying the waters about UFOs, of trying to keep the public interested in anything else,

are a lot better at their job than people like you and I are at ours. The fact is, they know how to manipulate public opinion. The use of language in this series of events, the first the Chinese spy balloon, then the object that was shot down over Alaska, then the next object that was shot down over the Yukon and Canadian territory, and then a report about a mysterious object detected on radar, a radar anomaly in Montana that results in the shutdown of that airspace. Jets are scrambled and they can't see anything.

Pilots supposedly saying that their instrumentation is messed with by whatever this unknown object is, cylindrical objects of unknown propulsion systems, all of that is taken right out of UFO, UAP lore. someone is mixing the messages here, muddying the waters, clouding the issues, and I think ultimately they're trying to use this to dissuade the public from having interest in the genuine phenomena of UAP. They're trying to make it seem like all this is balloons, because that's what it's going to be. It's going to be balloons. Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader came out Sunday morning just a little bit ago on some of the talk shows and says, I think it's going to be balloons. You and I knew

damn good and well, they're going to be balloons. Even though the descriptions, supposedly from the pilots whom no one has interviewed, no reporter has talked directly these aviators, these military guys flying F-22s or F-35s, there is no way in hell they talk to reporters. These are, these statements are coming out of the Pentagon, and I think it's done on purpose. So we're recording now, and I think if I do my math right, and again, I'm not great at maths, but I think we've got 38 hours till people hear this. So a lot could happen between now and 38 hours. And if it does, I want everybody to immediately go to George's in my social media because we're going to, if something happens, we're going to talk about it there. But right now, we want to be as close as possible to

getting you the information before this drops. Let me just add this. Is, you know, we knew the first thing was a Chinese spy balloon. The whole world knew about it. And there was a lot spillover of UFO terminology. A lot of UFO folks were interested in whether or not it was involved, whether it was a deception program or not. The second object, unknown, spherical object, unknown propulsion. Sounds a hell of a lot like a balloon to me. The third one, same thing. But the last one, this last one might be the most interesting of all. In Montana, they shut down airspace because they had a radar anomaly. Now that term gets my attention. And then when the jets scrambled up there, they fly around to the spot where the radar anomaly is detected.

They don't see anything. That sounds like an actual UFO case. That's a real UAP mystery. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's a malfunction of the aerial systems or the sensor systems. But that sounds like what we've heard in so many instances around the world. Yeah, and I think the second one was cylindrical is what they're... Sylindrical, right?

Right. But so, look, it's funny. We, so much stuff comes out. us so quick from insiders just from friends that text us so even for us we haven't had time to like take notes and write it all then I'm glad people online are doing that so all of those facts as little details pay attention to them interestingly enough George is clicking his pen you know while George is clicking his pen on our podcast I have to do something very important if you can listen carefully that would be a

course hold on okay check it out we'd like to welcome cores to our family of sponsors. I don't think that's true or not. I wish. So check it out. Listen up, everybody. I have a friend who's been absolutely just so interested in watching this media stuff unfold. And when he was watching it unfold, he was just texting me over and over.

He goes, this proves deception. And I'm like, what are you talking about? And this is just when the first balloon, Chinese reconnaissance platform, gets shot down, which to me was hilarious. It was like tough America. All of a sudden a missile comes in. It didn't down an enemy target. It popped a balloon that looked like it was filled with the powder confetti. And by the way, if you watch the video, they didn't really hit it quite center now, did they?

But anyway, it's just so funny to me, this theater of this shooting down a balloon. These reconnaissance balloons have been part of our reality for such a long time. It's absolute bullshit that we're just like we're going to publicly now put this shooting out down. Maybe more people saw it, but I got to say, man, if you talk to anybody in position to know, this is a common, common occurrence over decades. So check this out. My buddy, our buddy, he's been just going kind of like wild about it. So I said, hey, man, with authorization, let me copy and paste to you some of the thoughts of people that are tasked with defending these air spaces.

I'm not going to say who they're from, but just let me know what you think. And so this friend of ours just got super hot and bothered. He's on set for this new film he's doing. And he was just like, we've got to get on the phone. So it's going to sound a little different here. But we got George, me, and our buddy on the phone. And he actually wanted to make a little statement right now just prior to. to our conversation.

Hi, I'm Dave Foley, and if you don't know who I am, then you're probably not a 50-year-old Canadian. But if you are a 50-year-old Canadian, then first control your excitement. I just want to urge you to listen to Weaponize, a podcast presented by investigative reporter George Knapp and the extremely handsome Jeremy wrote this, Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer-Corbel, aka foreign name. 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 ocean front 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, Oscar Meyer hot dogs and Heinz mustard. Grill up a dog, add classic yellow mustard, or loaded Chicago style. We all know it's not a cookout without Oscar Meyer and Heinz. Hi, this is Dave Foley. You may know me from a lot of lame comedy I've produced over the last 40 years.

Kids in the Hall News Radio, all that crap. All that crap. What's the set you're on, Dave? It seems like every time I'm going to read about you. You're on a different show. Well, right now I'm in Calgary working on fifth season of Fargo. So we're, and we're getting, getting close to the end now. We're working on episode eight of ten right now.

Can you tell me? I can't tell you anything. Can you tell me whether or not you wear an eye patch on this new show? I think I can say that I can confirm that. Yeah. I think that's about it. Yeah. You can confirm with 100% certainty that you wear an eye patch

on the New Fargo TV show? Yes, I think I can confirm that, yes, without violating my NDAs. Are you sure? I'm not sure, no. So I may have to call you a liar later. All right, Dave, all of a sudden, I get a bunch of texts about balloons. Can you explain yourself? Well, as soon as the coverage broke on the Steve's quote-unquote spy balloon,

I thought, and then when people started trying to conflate it with the UFO, UAP story, but the coverage itself is an absolute indication that we're talking about something vastly different. It's the, in fact, the response highlights the lie, you know, because here we see what happens when it really is something Chinese, and we don't know if it's a spy balloon or if it's just a weather boom, we really don't know. But if it is Chinese, here's the response. You get wall-to-wall news coverage.

They feed it out to the press nonstop. You get official condemnation. You get a lot of diplomatic ire. You get Blinken canceling a trip to China. And ultimately, you get jets scrambled and Chinese asset shot down. So that's what happens when we know it's China. But when they pretend it's China or allow people to infer that it's China, as when you guys the story you covered so well, the Omaha swarming,

when they just sort of allow it to be hinted that these, that all of those craft were drones that came off of the Bass Strait and they don't deny it or confirm it. But they allow the press and everyone else to say, oh, these are just Chinese drones. And then the response to it is, don't worry about it. end of story and the press doesn't cover it so when it's when they're pretending it's when they're pretending it's when they're pretending as chinese but they don't know what the hell it is there's no

reaction no coverage uh no press releases no you know no discussions and amongst politicians uh but when it's clearly something is basically as boring as this balloon is you know based you know the technology they get advanced technology it's the same technology phineas fogg used to get around the world in 80 days um so You know, as I said, just the response itself just underlies how absolutely different the two situations are. Whatever happened at the Omaha was not Chinese technology, was not quadcopter drones, and did not come off the Bass Strait. Right. So I think you're going really deep for a general audience that really needs to catch up. And that's why we're doing this just audio, this revolution will not be, you know, visualized, we'll say.

Maybe it's not video because I look fantastic right now. I'm in makeup for the show, so I look great. Why was this put in the news when it's identified and they did this big show of shooting it down and how does that relate to UFOs? I would say the only thing I can think of is that this balloon is so huge and so obvious and it got seen by people over Montana. And if there's a UFO connection, maybe it's because people are looking for UFOs more than they used to.

So maybe a bunch of civil, normal citizens were looking up and saw this and thought it might be a UFO and started reporting it. And so then the, you know, then the government had to address it, whereas they were probably just helping it would pass over and no one would notice, as they've done before. You know, rather than making it a diplomatic issue. In your mind, what we're seeing is that more people are paying attention to this and then the media picks up on this and they put it all over the news, not a threat, just a reconnaissance thing. We're kind of contrasting this with what we do know about what happened in 2019 off the West Coast, very infamously now, the UFO swarms of 10 of our Navy warships that George and I have reported on. But George, explain to me what's happening.

I don't understand why this balloon got so much airtime. Well, I mean, as Dave said, it was clear that a lot of people were going to see it as it's floating over, that it was going to be noticed by the public. What amazes me is, you know, we, our military leaders were able to ignore it. And the reason they said they ignored it is because they didn't know what it was. It was unidentified. It was an unknown object, which is preposterous. If your job is to protect the air defense of North America and there's an unknown object coming in, you ignore it. That's your response because you don't know what it is. You send it off to the UAP task force or do you take some action. It makes no sense.

I think it makes a very strong argument about the legitimacy of the UAP investigations to begin with. You need to know what's flying around in your airspace, what's buzzing the Omaha or the Russell or those other ships off the West Coast, what's buzzing Oceania along the East Coast or the carrier groups, nuclear carrier groups all over the world. You need to know what's flying in the skies. And for our government to say, well, I'm not going to, we're not paying attention to it because really we didn't know what it was and we weed that out. We're only looking for missiles. We're only looking for something that we know as a threat. That's pretty scary.

I mean, if China wants to take us out, I guess they could just bombard us with balloons carrying the new version of COVID or something like that. It's preposterous. I'm bothered by the people who tried to take advantage of this to, again, as I said, remoddy the waters. Here we are. We'll make a progress on the UFO-UAP issue. You know, the UAP Task Force hands it off to Arrow, this new organization,

is now launching its own study, trying to get its head around a really big mystery that's perplexed us for at least the past 75 years and maybe throughout human history. And just at the time we're finally turning the corner and maybe going to get on an even keel and go after this thing along this comes. And people are trying to take advantage of it to exploit this balloon story, balloon of paloosa, in order to cast shade on the UAP inquiries. Don't worry, you know, like this balloon, they're all going to be identified. Like this balloon, they're all probably coming from China.

And in fact, as I quoted from that story, they know that they have no evidence saying that those drones over the West Coast were Chinese drones, Chinese drones that flow into the water that have no location where they came from, where they went to, that demonstrate technology that we do not have, those Chinese drones, it's a bunch of baloney. The press coverage of the balloon is proof that it's phony. Because if it was a true story that the government and the military was willing to back up, then it would have been Waldewell coverage, nonstop, press releases, and outrage and complaints to China.

But the fact that we see what happens when they can clearly determine something's Chinese, you know, the response is predictable and obvious and simple and it's nonstop. And they turn it into a story. And it also outlines, this deliberate, willful ignorance on the part of the media when it comes to a much more interesting story, which is the Omaha swarming. So how belligerent is a big lumbering balloon compared to whatever those grafts were that, yeah, they could outperform anything that the best American military has to offer?

And then they allow it to be believed that it came off of a Chinese merchant ship. And we're supposed to believe that the U.S. knows it came off. Chinese merchant ship, but just let that merchant ship leave American waters. And it's still out there. So the coverage itself is the proof that the two are totally unrelated. Point is well taken. The different ways that media have covered this, it's pretty telling. There was a really great article in the Hill, sort of that builds on the same thing. It was by Marique von Rennonkamp a couple of days ago. Forget China's spy balloon. Military UFO incidents are far more intriguing. And you're referring to.

refers back to another series of events on the East Coast, 2014-2015, off of Oceania, W72. We've reported on it. We've shown images from that. Ryan Graves and others have come forward, pilots, aviators to talk about it. And this article gets into some of the differences and the lowered expectations for major media. It's talking about aviators flew within 200 feet of a mysterious object, tracked simultaneously by. radar and infrared sensors, yet they saw nothing visually. If for the sake of argument, an adversarial foreign power developed and deployed technology rendering its surveillance platforms invisible in early 2014, the media's lack of interest or investigative reporting

amounts to a staggering journalistic failing. I'd expand that further. You know, after the New York Times stories of December 2017, there was a flurry of media coverage. UFO teams were formed in newsrooms all over the world in major media. Where did that lead to? We saw 60 minutes jump in. They did a story. And poof, where did it all go? Why isn't everybody on this story?

Jeremy, you and I get emails from and tweets and things of that sort from people who want to smack us around a little bit. I don't believe this. Why would Jay Stratton, someone of his stature, waste his time talking to you guys? You're not big shots. You're not the New York Times. You're not 60 minutes. And I just want to reach out and slap somebody and just say, because we work at it.

Because we work at it and they don't. That's why, I mean, you got to put in the time. You got to earn people's trust. I agree with this article in the Hill. It is a major failing on the part of journalism that big news organizations haven't dug into this, haven't developed their own sources and be able to confirm some of the stuff on their own. Well, I totally agree. I think what I've seen is that the main.

stream press want to do as little as possible, but put something out so they can say, we covered it and then let it die. And that's their main objective is to do the bare minimum. They don't want to, they don't want to start any kind of a chain reaction. And we've been told for 70 years that rational, intelligent people don't discuss this. And I think they're still indoctrinated into that mindset. So they don't like talking about it. They don't want to talk about it. They don't want to, they don't really want to follow up the leads you're giving them. They just want to put out the least amount of work and let the story die. Well, you look at the New York Times. So I quoted this article by Julian Barnes. He's the guy that wrote the pre-bunking article

a month or so ago that tried to stick a shiv in the ODNI report to Congress. This article comes out, muddying the waters again, trying to conflate the Chinese balloon with UAPs and and confuse the public. You know, the New York Times, they quote in here, in his story, unnamed sources that confirm it might be Chinese, even though they have no evidence. When Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal and Helene Cooper were writing an article, the December 2017 article, and tried to get subsequent follow-ups, they're not allowed to quote unnamed sources. They have to name their sources on the record. That was the standard they're held to. The debunkers are not. The fact is New York Times has been hostile.

to this topic since about 1960. They don't want to give it a fair shake. They've been hostile to reporters who want to cover it. They've denigrated people who investigate this stuff. They've been totally dismissive of the subject matter altogether. And now, after that story comes out and Brooks open some doors, they're allowing the pre-bunkers and debunkers back in to get the last word and not holding them to the same standard. I mean, I've talked to you about before there was a book, Noam Chomsky wrote called Manufactured Consent a long, long time ago. That kind of highlighted the mechanisms that turn a free, supposed free press into a propaganda machine.

And a lot of it is built around laziness and about, you know, the reliance on something called reliable sources. So you can't alienate reliable sources. And when you have reliable sources like, you know, the Pentagon and the U.S. government, then you don't have to do a lot of work because you can just quote them. But there's also, he pointed out, you don't need massive conspiracies to silence people. All you need is to create an atmosphere within which some things are not acceptable to think about. Not even just write about or broadcast about, but some things are unacceptable to even think about.

Hey, if news radio was a real newsroom, they'd be on this story. Oh, my God. Joe Rogan worked there. Of course, we would. What do you guys talk about? What's news radio? Just the great sitcom of the last hundred years. No one goes to Hank's for his spreadsheets.

They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet. So Hank decides to bring back the $1 slice. He asks co-pilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs. To help him see if he can afford it. Co-pilot shows Hank where the money's going and which little extras make the dollar slice work. Now, Hanks has a line out the door. Hank makes the pizza.

Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365 copilot.com slash work. 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. So now I think we can officially confirm, on the record, some top-secret information. Dave Foley wears an eye patch on his new show, Fargo. He looked good. He looked good on the set when we were talking to him via Zoom.

He looked pretty good. He's fired up about this UFO thing and about the deception that he sees. Dave's a smart guy, and I look forward to having him in person. We do it in a weaponized studio where we can. can get together and talk to him. He's a smart guy. He thinks about things before he says him, and he really does keep abreast of these topics that you and I dig into. So he's cool. I look forward to seeing him in person again, too. But two things. One is, what is a weaponized studio? Well, we have a studio where we record weaponized. I know. It's like a skiff. We basically

recorded a skiff. Exactly. Okay, so check this out. So Dave, yeah, he really does keep on top of it. and he's one of the most insightful friends of mine who, I mean, it'll be, you know, 2 a.m. He's in the middle of a set. He's getting ready to go on, you know, to go act in this show. But he'll be texting me. He wants the information. I really appreciate his input because he thinks differently than I do. And he's very rational.

He has great insight into our mutual friend Joe Rogan, too. Those guys go way back. That's right. You know, he's been on Rogan show so many times. And I think it was probably supportive of you and I being on. Rogan show at some point. So we owe Dave a debt of gratitude in some ways. Yeah, you know, for bringing people together that want to talk about this, that want to at least have the conversation. And I do credit very much that the open-mindedness of people such as Dave to really promote,

hey, you know, this is important. We should talk about it. And he's tried to help us like get some information out. Now, talking about information, you have specific information that I think is so pertinent and important right now. And it's based out of your, I would say, kind of like undercover work going to Russia during Glasnos and Perestroika. And let's just say obtaining and very minimally distributing some information about the Russian UFO exploitation programs. Can you tell us how that relates to this right now and then we'll talk about what we're

going to release? Sure. We'll take a little step back. You know, here we are. We're recording this on Sunday. morning. And we've been watching the news shows and reading different stories that are produced by national media about the sequence of events, the Chinese spy balloon, the shoot down over Alaska, the shoot down over Yukon, the closing of the airspace in Montana. It's an amazing sequence of

events. So you have members of Congress coming forward and saying, we need to do a better job of monitoring and protecting our national airspace. That's great. Absolutely. You know, we've sort of NORAD, as we learned a couple of days ago, NORAD ignores UFOs. They ignores Chinese spy balloons. They've weeded it out. They set their sensors to, unless it's a missile coming in from China or Russia,

they exclude it from their sensors. From their sensors for sure, and we're about to get into this after the Russia thing, but I have said, and people are pulling clips, the reason we would shoot at a UAP, which is just unknown, whether it be some, you know, extra-trot,

restroom vehicle, which is not what I'm saying yet, right? But whether we do that or it just being a reconnaissance balloon, the reason, the choice, how to make that kinetic action choice, it's a real problem there. And people are starting to pull that clip and be saying that a couple of times, like once on Rogan's show. Now, it's because sometimes of just simply proximity to ground troops or if it appears to have a payload. But before we get into that, why we shoot at things, have we shot at UFOs? I want to hear from you back to Russia. Tell us what happened. So in the 90s, I made two trips to Russia. We had hired a Russian physicist who had been the national security advisor to Boris Yeltsin, had been the national security advisor to the Russian

parliament. He was in the United States. His name is Dr. Nikolai Kapranov. He'd been in the U.S. on a tour of our national security sites. He gave lectures at places like Los Alamos, Livermore, other nuclear sites, talking about nuclear disarmament issues and challenges and how our two nations could maybe get together and not blow up the entire planet. As he was getting ready to go back to Russia, a congressman, Jim Bilbray, the late Jim Bilbray, introduced the two of us. He said, you might want to talk to this Russian guy if you ever want to try to explore the idea of what the Russians know about UFOs. And I did. And I met him, I meant Nikolai, have a beer, and just to kick things around. and eventually in the conversation after learning about his background, I ask him,

do you know anybody ever heard anything about UFO studies and investigations by Russia within the Ministry of Defense or the KGB? He's now not really, oh, wait a second. Yeah, you know, now that you mention it, I do know. I knew a guy who worked for KGB who said they had a UFO program there for a while. And he says, and then after a while, two more beers, he says, I think I know somebody else. I said, well, great. We gave him a stipend, set him up with an office in Russia, and I gave him the instructions,

find people who were in a position to know, but who have never spoken to either Russian media or Western media before, who have a story to tell, who might have documentation and evidence to support it. So he did. We spent eight months going back and forth with him, him looking for knowledgeable sources in Russia, and he found him. Maybe the most important person he found was a guy named Colonel Borosokalov. And it turned out that Colonel Sokolov had been given instructions to head up what might be until OSAP, the biggest UFO investigation by a government

in the history of the world. For a 10-year period from 1978 to 1988, every unit in the vast USSR-then-Russian military was ordered to investigate, Coalate, collect information about any UFO, any orb, any ball of light, anything anomalous in the sky, seen by military witnesses or over military facilities, collect that information, interrogate the witnesses, collect any photos, videos, drawings, and put it all into one place and send it to the Ministry of Defense. Colonel Sokolov is the one person that saw all of that, and he shared it

with me. But he said in the course of that interview, I asked him about encounters, dramatic military encounters. He said in the course of that 10-year study, the Russians had 45 incidents where their warplanes chased and tried to engage with and shoot at UFOs. Three of those cases, most of this cases, 42 of the 45, the UFOs just zipped away and were gone. Boom, just out of sight, gone. Three of those cases, the Russian warplanes tried to shoot them down, and it was the Russian planes that went down instead. Three planes crashed, two of the pilots died. He said, after that, the Ministry of Defense issued an order that to, when you engage with these UFOs, leave them alone. You see a UFO, leave them the hell alone. Because they have, in the words of General Igor

Mols, of Russian Air Defense Command, he said, they may have incredible capacities for retaliation. So when we talk about, go ahead and shoot down UFOs, let's shoot them all down. Be careful what you wish for because they might shoot back. I want to make sure people really hear you because this is not something that you were told. This is something that's also in documents. Yeah. Okay, so let's get really clear. These are top secret documents from Russia that you were able to obtain. They are verified. They are vetted. And in fact, you have given them to the current UFO program at the time and they've translated them and they are using them

to understand what Russians know about the United States UFO exploitation programs and you've said the closest thing to disclosure you're ever going to get are these Russian top secret documents that you literally pulled

the top secret pages off and you put them in newspapers and walk through security Oh, don't tell them that story. No, it's too late. I mean, I can cut it out but you're going to hear a lot more about this and you're going to see some of these documents

But I want to get back to one thing. Let's be very clear. You're saying that you have direct informational knowledge of top secret documents that show that three times, was it three or four, that Russians, Russian fighter pilots tried to engage. That means to fire a pawn, to take down real UFOs. There were 45 instances in that 10-year period. There have been more since then. But in-45 when they went after the UFOs. Hold on.

45 where they tried to shoot at them? They went after them and tried to engage with them and shoot them down. In 42 of those cases, the UFOs zipped off and were gone. Boom. Three times, they shot at them. And of those three times when they shot at them, all three of those planes went down. Two of the pilots died. Holy shit.

Yeah. But the thing is, the Russians were doing it, and so were we. We've done the same damn thing, and you know it. So here's the deal, right? So when you're saying that they shot on them and people died, so this is the kinetic action, right? idea of shooting at these UAP. These are not normal craft. That's the thing. These are from the UFO documents that were classified. But now we do know something, George. And I have said, I think if people go looking five times publicly that you and I have concrete, verifiable, sensitive information that our

United States government consistently fires upon what we call UAP. unidentified, anomalous phenomena, so craft of unknown origin, and that we can prove it, and it's happening on a regular basis. So I've said that because you and I have something we're going to release to the public. And I'll say right here, it's informational, but it's also visual. But you know how I roll? It might be a still image. But either way, that's coming.

And our Pentagon, they know it to be correct. will be able to validate this shootdown and you're going to be able to understand how that information is conveyed publicly compared to within, let's say, documents that portray it quite differently. 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. Let's circle back and sort of bring this all home.

So the events of the last week have been extraordinary in a couple of different ways. The Chinese spy balloon thing, a lot of people suddenly they see the crossover with the UFO mystery and how our government has responded to it or failed to respond. The sequence of events after that, shooting down something in Alaska that is going to be a balloon, that's what it's going to be, shooting down something over the Yukon, that is also going to be a balloon, no matter how mysterious they try to make it, and then the closure of the aerospace in Montana, an amazing sequence of events. It reveals to us a couple of things.

One is that someone is trying to manipulate that real series of events and using actual events to muddy the waters, to cloud the issue surrounding genuine UAP, the choice of language that they have used that clearly is meant to invoke what we all think of as UFOs. It's not an accident. on purpose. We can learn from that. Now, the one big thing that the public needs to take away is the use of that language, somebody is really taking advantage of the situation to cloud the larger issue of the genuine UAP mystery, and they're good at it. The second thing is, you know, this morning on the Sunday morning talk shows, we had members of Congress saying, you know what,

we need to fix this. NORAD should not be excluding unknown objects because they don't look like missiles. It does not make sense. We need to have better sensors and a better system for understanding what's flying around in our skies. That is absolutely true. But it's true not only for potential threats from foreign powers, it's also true for trying to understand the UAP mystery. It's a legitimate mystery. Our government is now trying to investigate it and get its head around it, and they need more resources. And if Congress now steps up to the plate and gives them what they need, make sure that we do not just discard cases, intrusions into our airspace, because they don't look like a missile, that's great. And to give Arrow, our new UFO, UAP program, give them the resources they

need to separate wheat from chaff. I hope Arrow is going to be honest in its evaluation of what is really flying around in the sky. I hope they do not cloud the issues, as we saw at that congressional hearing, where they tried to dismiss certain things that we know were really genuinely mysterious and dismiss them as drones or, in this case, like balloons. There are balloons floating around in our skies from foreign adversaries. There are drones floating around in our skies over a military basis from foreign adversaries, but not all drones and balloons, what we characterize as drones and balloons, are necessarily built by other nations.

Some of these things are from somewhere else, and we need to figure it out. Or put on your safety helmets and your tinfoil hats. This is War of the World, and you're about to see an alien invasion. One last word of caution. Being trigger-happy about UFOs is not necessarily a good idea. If they truly are unidentified, in these instances, they are unknown. That's what we heard from our military. They're unknown, and they shot them down anyway.

that is a recipe for disaster. Now, I think they had an idea what they were when they shot them down, because to do otherwise, you could shoot down something that's got people in it. The second thing is, you could shoot down something that doesn't have people in it, something that in the words of the Russian Ministry of Defense could have incredible capacities for retaliation. Do we really want to shoot down an alien spacecraft, something from somewhere else, when we really don't know what it is or why it's here or who's in it? We need to think about that before we do that. Whether this was on purpose or not, the sequence of events over the past week have been sort of a dry run, a test case, a trial balloon using balloon in a generic sense. How would the public react if our military shot down a genuine UFO?

Well, now we have some data. We have some indication of how we would react because that is the headline. That was on all the major news organizations on broadcast. That was the headline in newspapers. Unidentified objects shot down. It is a great test case for our Pentagon to see how the public would react. And the public reacted by saying, tell me more. They didn't freak out.

There's no mass panic. They want to know more. So if you needed evidence of whether or not the public is ready for more information, you got it. And if you're trying to hide information and it's not about public reaction, it's going to come out anyway. Yeah, it's coming out. Thank you so much for joining us. We got something really cool coming.

Oh, we got heavy atomic bombs. This is Go-Go-Go UFO time, everybody. Listen to Weaponize, the presentation of Jeremy Corbell, George Knapp, Dark Course Entertainment, and Cadence 13 Studios. Available now for free on the Odyssey app or wherever you get your shows.