Live Q&A w/ Danny Sheehan - UAP Disclosure Act, UAP activism, etc.! - Dec 5 2023 - with transcript

Hey, folks, we're going to get started in a few minutes. There's going to be a few minutes of coordination that takes place. So you're going to hear us just babbling about Twitter spacecraft. I'm going to make some announcements before we get started and kind of set the stage. But give us a few minutes. And, you know, probably we'll start at like 6.02. Don't don't tell anyone, but there's always stragglers. We're not going to wait for all of them. Jeremy, I see you've requested, I'm going to put

you on speaker for a second, just because it sounds like you've got something to say, but we're going to be taking questions from folks a little later in the conversation. Let me add you as a speaker just now, if you wanted to say anything as we get started. I just wanted to be a speaker when there was time for a Q&A, that's all. No problem. How do you do this? This is actually good exercise for me because I can... Oh, there it is. Boom. Thank you. That actually was really useful because I just

wanted to re-familiarize myself with some of the buttons you get on folks. I'm gonna turn a few people here on. Lester, you've got... a co-host invite. I don't even remember what that means. Let me get a new paradigm. And of course, we're gonna add as a speaker. Hello, good sir. Hey, Lester. And let me, gosh, let me see if I can find Tyler. I thought Tyler was going to be coming in separately. If you guys see him under the other account that they use... Folks, if you've requested, you can turn

that off for a little while, because this is not going to instantly go to audience Q&A. It's actually a little easier if you request a little later. There we go. Oh, it puts people who have requested at the top, of course, so it does get a little easier. Hey, Nick, I have Danny here on Zoom, and we're going to have him join here in one moment. That's great. I see that there's a new paradigm logged in as a listener. That's him. That's him. So let's go ahead and give him mic access, and we can get

this room moving. Yeah. Now, hopefully, he sees this invite. There's a new paradigm logged in as a listener. Could you mute, Tyler, for a second? Yeah, I got you. Make sure to let him know that he has to request that speaker invite using whether he's on desktop or the app. God, give me one moment. See folks, this is why we start a few minutes early. We can get all the coordination out of the way. I mean, I myself am relatively new to spaces. Oh, and I need to jump into the space on my computer

as well. I'm going to try to keep an eye on the, Just the messages that are taking place around the space. That's where I'm going to be focusing, by the way, for a little while. I am not going to be watching my DMs so much. It's just going to be a little hard to keep up with. There we go. And I think this will let me up more. I can watch all the comments already coming in. Thanks everyone for joining us this evening. We had a few days notice on this. I'm really looking forward to it. We'll get i

nto some of that in a moment. Is Joe here? Oh, there he is. Do you see that Joe? I think you have been granted the, what do you have, like the speaking stick or whatever? They need like a little speaking stick that you can pass around. Joe, I don't know if you, there you go. How's it going? Let's just, you know, say hi. Joe, how's it going, man? Hi, I am here. How's LV doing today? Las Vegas is nice, it's beautiful, and it's ready for passage of the UAP Disclosure Act so we can celebrate Las Veg

as style, which I don't even know what that means, because I'm not a big partier. But yeah, I'm excited about this. It's great. I'm appreciative that you allowed me to come in here and be a co-host. And I'm really curious to see what different kind of questions we can come up with Danny, because he's done a lot of interviews lately. And one thing, I've been promising my Danny Sheehan mega transcript forever. It's like multiple interviews and lectures he's done over the years. It's 70,000 words.

So I'm going to try my best to get it out tomorrow or by the end of the week. And every time I promise, I a lot of times don't come through on my promises because transcripts take forever. But I will try my best to get the one out. There's some really interesting material in there. But yeah, looking forward to this. Thanks again, Tyler. Do you want to do the zoom? Or do you think doing through the actual app is going to work best? Oh, he may be working out those details in real time. I, you know

, I'm not in love with the spaces portion of the Twitter app. I and I'm also going to mention I had a hard crash in a space a few nights ago. If that happens, just keep your eye on active spaces. I'll kick a new one up for everybody. I'll be the host and you know it will lose a few minutes to it, but we should be able to get it going again quickly. That will be the protocol. As I mentioned a little earlier, we're going to start off, I think, with Lester, Joe and myself talking with Danny a bit.

We obviously follow all this stuff really closely, as do many of the listeners here. I think we have a pretty good sense of the territory that a lot of people have questions about. My goal is to start with speaking about the UAPDA more specifically. Kind of Danny's read on where it's at and just some of the mechanics how that's unfolding All that good stuff like keep our eyes on the prize kind of stuff Oh, and Joe if you don't mind, could you mute when I'm getting a little feedback from you? I T

here we go. This app is so funny, like people do things and there's a delay and it's, you know, it's so hard to know what's going on. So, you know, I want to really make this about activism predominantly and kind of what's going on with this important bill, but also this movement that's building them. You know, it's funny, we kind of had the UAPDA sprung on us, essentially. And, you know, because a lot of us were already kind of starting to get going with some of this movement building stuff. An

d then like the UAPDA dropped out of the blue in July, mid July. And that was just kind of like, okay, we got to go into go mode really fast. So, you know, that's down to the wire, I want to focus on it, then I want to kind of talk about some of the more like, inside baseball stuff a little more broadly, just about Danny's views on kind of the UAP issue and some of the statements that he's made. And, you know, some people also have questions about some of the more Yeah, just some of the ideas an

d beliefs that Danny has shared over many years now, frankly, about the phenomenon. We're going to try to save that, I think, a little towards the end if we want to go into that territory. But again, it's my goal to be pragmatic here and really try to keep this focused on how we can be most effective in this time and get Danny's view on that. But again, we have some time. I think they, Tyler's, there we go. Let's see if we can get them. Hey, everybody. Thank you for your patience. I have Danny S

heehan here on Zoom. We couldn't figure out his Twitter, unfortunately. But Danny, now we are live on the Twitter space. So say hello to everybody and we can take it from here. Hi, folks. I'm here sitting in my office. I got back from Washington, D.C. I'm back in California, Santa Cruz, sitting atop the Holy Cross Mission Church. adjusting live from there. Everyone, how's the audio? Is that audio acceptable? Yeah, that'll be fine. And, you know, one thing I'll just ask, Tyler, is when you're not

speaking or when Danny's not speaking, just hit mute for us and keep, you know, I think everyone, as best as possible, even speakers who come in later from our guests, just ride the mute really well because it works better for everybody. You know, I'll just kind of start with a quick introduction here. You know, Danny, we've actually brushed elbows a couple of times over the years. One was about, I think, in 2001. I believe it was within a few days of the main Disclosure Project event at the Na

tional Press Club. I can barely hear you guys. Like, you're super far away. Give me one second, Danny. I'm going to improve the audio. All right, guys, give me one second to hook up better audio for Danny. I'll be right back. Sure thing. It's tough when you're getting someone kind of on-boarded with spaces as a speaker. If using even Twitter is less familiar, it's like, I just wish the desktop app was full-featured. That budget was clearly cut when Elon was trying to save some money, right? We'r

e scrapping the desktop version of spaces, folks. We're just keeping it where it's at. I don't care if it has bugs and doesn't do everything, you know. So this is what we get with the new X. Well, you know, when I go to YouTube and I say, let's just move it to YouTube, I don't get people don't want to come out, come on YouTube and talk, even if it's just audio. I don't get much participation. So people love spaces. But yeah, there are limitations, obviously, as we're seeing right now. Yeah, and

you know, it's funny that app club room, which spaces seem pretty much just a rip off of, I guess they folded or something. But I wasn't seeing the appeal back when that app was out. And you know, now that it's so integrated into Twitter and similar functionality, I get it. It's pretty interesting, and as long as we keep the drama low, that's great. Yeah, while we're waiting for them to just kind of patch through the audio, let me just kind of, again, set a couple of almost ground rules. Again,

we're gonna have Lester Nare from UAP Caucus, and of course, Joe Mergia from, Joe, I don't know, what are you from? You're just a presence. I don't even know how to describe it. I'm from Long Island. Nice. I'm a presence. Exactly, exactly. We always need Long Islanders in the crew. Long Island, so Everyone like ground rules. We're all going for politeness Succinctness as best as possible. If you want to talk you're there to ask a question today. Not don't wanna excuse me, Nick I don't want to in

terrupt you, but I just want to do an audio check for Danny real quick Okay, that's wonderful everybody and you guys can hear Danny okay, yep, I OK, perfect. We're going to kick off. Sorry about the tech issues, everybody. No worries. This is we're using new technology and in creative ways. So. So anyway, I was just laying out some ground rules for attendance. You know, when we do get to the Q&A portion a little later, we're going to probably chat for 30, 40 minutes and then kick up the more. Th

e audio is a little echoey there now, all of a sudden. OK, I'll be I'll make sure to one second. So I guess 10 seconds ago. We're just dealing with the latency here, one moment. Just mute, Tyler. Unless Danny is speaking, just keep your Twitter app on mute, and I think that should hopefully cut down on some of that. Okay, got it. Danny, all I have to do is just be muted whenever you're not sharing, and the echo won't be a problem. Okay. Continue, Nick. Keep us in the loop on that, and if you guy

s need to take breaks periodically, just just feel free to jump off and take a moment, anything, it's fine. So as I was saying, we're going for succinctness, politeness, no rants when we get to the Q&A, that's not what we're here for. If you've got a question, ask your quick question and get the response. You know, we can follow up the conversation in many ways, but we're not here for people to go on soliloquies today. I'll just, again, I was kind of saying, I met Danny very briefly at kind of a

satellite event to the main disclosure project event that happened, I believe this was in 2001 around the main NPC event. There was like another event you could go to and sign up for as a member of the public. It was a little less press oriented that that, you know, if you were on Greer's mailing list, you know, you could go. And I live in Baltimore and my girlfriend and I went down and had the pleasure of kind of being introduced to the presence that is Danny Sheehan, like kind of weirdly, Dan

ny and my favorite college professor, who I was always closest to, they kind of brushed elbows doing Latin American work around Iran, Contra and other stuff. in the 80s. So like, it was funny, because kind of this multi generational involvement with Danny Sheehan working issues. And, you know, I was able to bump into him again, on July, I think, what was it, July 26, at the hearing, which I was able to get into. Danny and Steve Bassett were like, right in front of me in the room there, you see u

s in a lot of the shots. And I was able to say hi to Danny and thank him for his many decades of work around various issues, including, of course, the UAP issue. So Danny, It's such a pleasure to have you on today, and I think how we'll get this started and what I think everyone is really curious about, because we hear a lot of different things. I've heard different things in the last few hours about the status of the UAPDA. As you understand it, where are we at in the negotiation process? Is it

close to decided? Do we have weeks yet? I've heard rumors that maybe some language on what might resemble a more final NDA could be essentially imminent within a day or two. But, you know, we also have this sense that we want to be active and the public should be engaged and loud, kind of in taking the Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over approach. So I'm really curious just from your end of the trench, where are we at with the UAPDA right now? Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. You guys still so

und like you're off in a far distant room somewhere, but can you hear me? Okay. You sound, you sound great. You sound great. Yeah, they can hear you daddy. Yeah, I can hear you Tyler, but I can't hear them very well. The question is what's the current. Okay. Here's, here's the story. The, uh, the, the bill as drafted, uh, primarily by the Senate intelligence committee, uh, staff, was approved by the Senate by a vote of 89 to 11 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. It went over to t

he House side. The House side, the eight people who are causing lots of trouble most of the time, the ones that tried to block Kevin McCarthy's speakership and all of that, they inserted into the body of the National Defense Authorization Act, which is some thousand pages long, they inserted half a dozen extremely reactionary kind of social positions, like prohibiting the expenditure of any of the defense budget to provide any kind of contraceptives for anybody in the military, prohibiting the p

ayment for any information used to train people on racial sensitivity or gender identification sensitivity or gay or lesbian rights issues. They put all of these amendments into the National Defense Authorization Act, So for that reason, the Democrats all in the House of Representatives voted against the National Defense Authorization Act because they wouldn't approve it with that language. And so the vote was something like 219 Republicans or 219 to 211 or something. But anyway, they approved i

t, but all the Democrats voted against it. and so that it had to go to a conference committee. Now, nobody touched any of the language, the 64 pages that had been inserted into the Senate version, which is called the Schumer rounds amendment that dealt with the UAP issues. Nobody either in the House or the Senate attempted to change any of that language. But when the bill, the House bill with this half dozen social let's call them conservative or reactionary amendments in it, had to go to the co

nference committee. Immediately, the chairman, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, whose name is Michael Turner, immediately opposed the provisions in the UAP, in the Schumer bill. Now it turns out that Mike Turner is from the 10th Congressional District in Ohio, which is the home base, not only of the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, but it's also the chief field office for Radiance Technologies. which is a high-tech aerospace industry that is working on a program calle

d Prompt Global Strike, which is the attempt to back engineer UFO technology, which they have apparently secured from another aerospace industry. and that they're attempting to build not just a supersonic missile, but a missile that functions with UFO technology, that in fact can travel at 20,000 miles an hour with no air resistance and can turn at a 90 degree angle at 20,000 miles an hour. So they've apparently been able to back engineer that specific propulsion system. And that is their chief

field office over in the 10th Congressional District in Ohio. And so the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the Republican chairman, Mike Turner, opposed the bill. And what he said is he opposed the provision that would have empowered the board of review that was provided for in the Schumer bill with the power to exercise eminent domain on behalf of the American government to retake possession of any technology that had been put into the hands of any aerospace industry by whatever the

deep state element is that has been in charge of this super above top secret seizure of UFO technology from the Krass Saucers and is also in possession of the biological evidence of a non-human intelligence that is, in best of our judgment, extraterrestrial in origin, but it presents itself as appearing to be extra dimensional because of the way that it propels itself in travel. So the bottom line is Mike Turner was the first one to oppose the portion of the bill having to do with the eminent d

omain power of the board that was to be created by the bill. He also opposed the subpoena power, which means that if in fact any aerospace industry, or any one of the six military services, or any one of the 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, or any one of the 32 Defense Department agencies, or any of them who simply refuse to provide information to the board that was created by this, that there was no subpoena power to make them do it. So he took a shot at the two enforcement provisions of the bill

, the eminent domain exercise to recover the technology and the subpoena power to force them to turn over the information that was required by the statute. Now, he then enlisted the support because say that Radiance Technology is in his home, his home congressional district. right next to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is, as we all know on this call, is the place where the UFO craft that was recovered, the debris was recovered from Roswell back in July of 1947 was taken. Okay. And t

hat they've always played an instrumental role in the housing and the sequestration of this UFO technology. And now Turner reached out and enlisted the support of a guy named Mike Rogers. He is the Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee. In his home district is the second district of Alabama. And that is in Huntsville, Alabama, where the Redstone rocket missile testing facility is, the main one for the United States. And it is the headquarters office of Radiant Technologies. in R

adiant Technologies, as I mentioned, is the group that is working on applying the UFO technology to our U.S. nuclear missiles. Uh, and it is, uh, it is called the prompt global strike program, uh, that is trying to design a missile that will travel from the United States launch to the Russia or China in under two minutes, uh, at, uh, at super UFO speeds, uh, and is absolutely unstoppable and is, uh, unable to be defended against and would be able to hit the Russia or China before they even were

aware of the fact that it was on its way, because it's totally invisible to radar. Now, this is a horrendous use of the UFO technology on behalf of the United States Deep State. And they have been concealing this technology from not only some presidents and secretaries of defense, and of course, secretaries of state, and they've been concealing it from the United States Congress. even the intelligence committees, because they have been so bent upon maintaining exclusivity over this technology th

at they were lying to Congress about it, asserting that they had never recovered any UFO technology. They were still maintaining up until 2017 that UFOs weren't even real. Tyler, I just want to jump in briefly and see if we can steer it just a little bit more back specifically to UAPDA status. And another question I'll interject, but I really do want to hear Danny's views on status is, you know, this information on radiance, which he's alluded to before, this would seem to be highly compartmente

d classified information that relates to this kind of adaptation of UAP technology by this particular corporation. Can Danny characterize, not specifically by name, that would obviously be inappropriate and kind of wild, but you know, at least kind of where that kind of information is coming from, how he gets access to this. Is this through former insiders who were read into these programs? Is this through anything he's hearing from elected officials? Is this, you know, other sources that he has

access to? So I'd like to know kind of where this information on Radiance, at least generally, is emerging from. But again, you know, with this resistance that might come down to this particular corporate entity, and this particular program potentially, what's the status? How is that site going right now? Well, the fact of the matter is, it's true. I've gone so far as to name the project's codename, this Prompt Global Stripe program, and one of the technology companies that is in control of it,

And it explains why Turner who is, uh, who is the Congressman from the office where their principal office is next to Wright Patterson. And why this other Mike Rogers, who is the Congress person from the congressional district where the Redstone missile test facility is where they're testing this, this technology. That's why these two guys are the first ones who came forward to totally resist the, uh, the, actual eminent domain power in this statute. And when we confronted them and said, look,

why would you be objecting to the eminent domain capacity of the board? if in fact, there's no such technology. And if in fact, there's no private aerospace corporations who are in possession of it. And what happened is because they were so resistant to this particular eminent domain provision, I reached out to sources that I have had for years. that have worked with us in the Iran-Contra case. They worked with us in the Karen Silkwood case. That's how we found out about the smuggling of the 98%

pure bomb-grade plutonium out of the Kerr-McGee nuclear facility in Oklahoma to Israel and to Iran under the Shah. It's the same way that we found out these sources, the same way we found out in the Iran-Contra case that they were smuggling the weapons through Ilopongo, the El Salvadorian military base, into John Hull's ranch down in Costa Rica, into the Contras. This is an alliance of actually primarily former US military intelligence people. that I've been in communication with all the way ba

ck to the time when I was one of the lawyers for the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, where I developed a relationship at that time with the commander of the CID, the Criminal Investigations Division of the U.S. Army, who has passed away now. But we have a dozen, at least, actually more than that, particular people who are deeply embedded intelligence officials who have taken a position that they're opposed to the criminal use of the secrecy that has been provided to the intelligence

agencies, the pursuit to which they're not only smuggling weapons to extreme reactionary people around the world, but they're smuggling cocaine and heroin. and they're secretly utilizing gold that has been recovered from the Philippines. This is all true. And these people were so offended at what was going on in the deep bowels of the national security state that they've made the information available to me. I've used it in the past in these other cases. And in this particular instance, even tho

ugh there's no litigation underway against this, I've been taking the position in support of the Schumer bill that look, unless you're willing to accept this Schumer rounds bill, this sets up a very responsible constitutionally sound procedure by means of which the UFO information can be provided to the Congress of the United States, specifically to the intelligence agencies, you know, we're going to keep coming forward with this information. You know, and either you set up a responsible process

by means of which this can be provided to the Congress, or we're going to demonstrate to you that we're in possession of this information and we're going to come forward with the information. And that way you have enough specifics about the information to be able to track it down and verify it. So that's, that's this process that I've been engaged in for 50 years, you know, like in the same way that when people wanted to know when we published the Pentagon Papers back in June of 1971, the incid

ent that, you know, I'm the one that got the call from the New York Times and James Goodell, who was chief counsel for the New York Times, called me because I was the one that initiated the case that went to the United States Supreme Court. to establish the right of journalists to protect their confidential news sources. And so we had to protect the confidential news source in that case of Neil Sheehan, who later was obviously discovered that it was Dan Ellsberg. But at the time, I refused to te

ll anybody who the source was. I refused to tell anybody who the source was in the Soquid case. I refused to tell anybody who the sources were in the Iran-Contra case because what I was doing is putting forth the details that were adequate for anybody who had the capacity to do so, to verify the credibility of the information. and the access to their sources, who the people are that provided it to us, is not the point here. This is a super first strike weapon that is under process of being devel

oped right now and being tested, and there needs to be a treaty. that the United States has to be the one that comes forth and proposes this treaty because at the present time, the United States is the only one who has thoroughly developed this technology into a potentially deployable missile system right now. And that this is the critical time in which they have to come forward through President Biden and they have to reach out to Putin in Russia, they have to reach out to Xi Jinping in China a

nd offer this treaty, while they are the ones that have the advantage of this. They have to lay down this weapon. You have to lay it down and allow this to be disassembled. You can't have this weapon because it totally destabilizes the entire nuclear architecture that's been put in place over decades, which I've been working on since I was back as chief counsel at the United States Jesuit headquarters in their social ministry office, you know, for 10 years in Washington. that this is an extraord

inarily important moment here, and that this is one of the reasons the secrecy of this particular program is one of the so-called family jewels. that they've been trying to protect and not allow anybody to know about it. We offered them an opportunity. We offered them an opportunity to set up a program whereby they could keep that potential weapons system confidential if they chose to do so. But they've come forward now led by the people that are basically on the payroll of the private aerospace

industry, you know, to try to block this bill. And so that what we're doing is coming forward now with some of the specific pieces of information to let them know that if they, if they don't let this bill get passed, if they don't pass this Schumer rounds bill, this sets up this responsible process by means of which to, to revive the information to the world, about the UFO technology, the fact that it is real, the fact that it is under the supervision of a non-human intelligence. This is a piec

e of information that we have now chosen to reveal publicly, and we will reveal more information if they don't back off and allow this statute to get passed. Are you getting a sense that that is an effective negotiating tactic based on what you're hearing from the Hill right now as these negotiations continue to unfold? Is that the risk of more information about this program and Radiance specifically? Yo getting light showing on it is it going to tip the scales are these people going to kind of

gamble with it and just see what happens and still resist the act of being you have any teeth in it at all clearly you need the subpoena power. eminent domain seems like a no-brainer if these things make typical nuclear weapons look like a joke. It's hard to imagine how the US government wouldn't be able to assert a right to control that technology at any given moment and not have it completely under the control of a private corporation when we would never do that with even just typical nuclear

weapons. So is this risk to airing the program enough to get the UAPDA passed in a meaningful way, or do you think they're going to take a risk on it and we may have to just see how this keeps unfolding through some of these other mechanisms that you're talking about? It's not clear yet, but we know that the Sandia labs are involved as well. as Radiant Technology, and CACI International in Virginia is directly involved in this. We know who the companies are, and we know that these people have be

en providing funds to both Turner and to Rogers. you know, uh, in that this is, this is a completely untoward. They're basically bribing, uh, uh, the members of Congress to, uh, to keep this, this secret. Uh, and, and in the, in the meantime, they're keeping secret from the entire world, the existence of an extraterrestrial civilization, the fact that we're in possession of their craft and that there's every indication that there's been some sort of communication is going on, uh, with them. and

they're keeping the entire world in the dark about this. So what I'm saying is I don't know whether they're going to yield to this type of option. This is just exactly like we did in the Pentagon Papers. We told the Nixon administration that the New York Times were going to be publishing portions of this. And they came forward and demanded an injunction from the federal court in the Southern District of New York against us. And they refused to communicate to us what the pieces of information wer

e that they thought would irreparably damage the national security of the United States if they were revealed. And because they wouldn't do that, we came forward with all 47 volumes. And that's what's happening here again. Either they're going to accept a reasonable process by means of which this information can be vetted, or in fact, we're going to come forward with this information. And what I'm in the process of doing, we are, is trying to see whether or not the United States Congress is will

ing to hold hearings. The Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight Committee, are they willing to hold more hearings where they're going to have more people come forward of these sources that we have and provide the information openly to Congress? uh, unless they're going to provide for the existence of this, this, uh, records review board and give it subpoena power to undertake an investigation. So our, at least our intelligence committees can find out about this information. The fact

, the fact that the, the people in the arms industry, uh, and the central intelligence agencies, operations directorate and others, are involved in this and they distrust our own United States senators and Congress people in the intelligence committees who have high level clearances from being informed about this is absolutely outrageous. It's fundamentally unconstitutional. And that's my perspective. My perspective is as the co-founder of the Harvard Civil Rights Law Review back in 1968, and a

student of Professor Lawrence Tribe in the constitutional law field, you know, I know perfectly well that this is unconstitutional. And therefore we have a responsibility as citizens to move forward, to do what is necessary to get the information given to our Congress. And if these people won't reveal it to the Congress, we will. Danny, before I turn this over to Joe and Lester to get a few questions in, before we then move it on to kind of taking audience questions, let me ask you this. The pub

lic through Declassify UAP, my organization, UAP Caucus, which is Lester's organization, other tools, just direct outreach, has been going crazy reaching out to our elected officials, both people's personal representatives as constituents. They're also calling on a broader swath of representatives who have either attached themselves to the UAP issue or who are key people in the negotiation process of the UAPDA and the NDAA. What can you say to members of the public who, I think, universally pret

ty much, not maybe Ted, the last person, but most people agree with your take that this seems just like a radically off-base situation, it seems blatantly unconstitutional, all sorts of weird stuff going on, not to mention just potentially theft and grifting off of other resources and funds that are made available for different programs. What can the public continue to do, not just now in support of the UAPDA, but how do you see the public engagement side as advocates around UAP transparency, as

activists continue to unfold and get even more powerful and maybe even more coordinated? Just how do you see the movement of this, the movement side affecting all of these processes and how that continues to take place in the future? I think what people need to do is they need to immediately go on the internet and go to newparadigminstitute.org and find who their congressional representative is that's there at that site. It's got their email addresses. It's got all the names of their United Sta

tes senators. And what they need to do is is broadcast this information to every friend and family member that they have, you know, and get them to contact the senators and the Congress people and tell them that they absolutely have to pass the Schumer rounds amendment as originally written. and get it inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act. They've got to do that right now because we have to be able to demonstrate to these people in the deep state and deeply into these secret aero

space industries that we've got to demonstrate to them that the citizens of our country have the ability to mobilize and to focus on an issue and to reach out to their congressional representatives and insist that they exercise their constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight over these programs. As of right now, it's not even clear that the President of the United States knows about these programs and has no ability to determine what deployment is going to be made of this weapons syste

m. You remember all the way back into the 1992 U.S. missile crisis, the person who was on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was the head of the United States Air Force, he was trying to instigate a thermonuclear war with Russia over the island of Cuba. They actually advocated that in the Northwoods project, they actually advocated dressing up Cuban refugees who fled from the Batista regime in Cuba, dressing them up in Cuban uniforms and attacking the Guantanamo military base and killing American se

rvice people. They proposed blowing up private shopping malls in Miami, specifically targeting, killing people from the Cuban refugee community in order to instigate a nuclear war with Russia, because they thought that we had a particular advantage in military. that time, and that if we could instigate a nuclear war, we could win. You know, this is ridiculous, the way these people think. And right now, the major danger is that while they're in possession of this particular UFO technology, and th

at they believe that they're on the brink of having it deployable, who knows what kind of decisions they're going to make left unsupervised by our United States Congress and by the elected representatives. So this is what we have to do right at this particular moment. Now, the fact that this is intertwined with probably one of the most important secrets in the history of the world, not this particular weapons system, though this is a terrible situation we're faced with here, but the whole fact t

hat there exists this extraterrestrial civilization in which we are surrounded in the universe, and that they're keeping this information secret. And they want to be the arbiters of what our relationship is going to be with this extraterrestrial civilization. And we know perfectly well what they think the relationship ought to be. It ought to be that we are in a position of some military superiority over them. They view that as their mission assignment, and they cannot be allowed to be the ones

that are making decisions about these policies. any more than they can be allowed to be the ones to make decisions about the deployment of such a weapons system. They clearly would oppose having any treaty where they give up their unique advantage that they think they have by having developed this technology as far as they have already. So that's, that's, I think, I don't know what, I don't know, uh, what, uh, what effect this has had yet. I do know that, that, uh, Senator Schumer has gone to th

e floor yesterday of the Senate and, and specifically called out these specific Republican opponents to his bill. Uh, in the, in the, we have been told that he, he is fiercely resisting allowing this bill to be gutted and then put into the National Defense Authorization Act and give the American people in the world the entirely false impression that there is an effective agency of any kind that is trying to extract this information from the deep state and provide it to our Congress. They can't a

llow a completely fraudulent bill to be put in. And not only that, but nobody of sound responsibility will be willing to serve on a board of review over these issues if they don't have subpoena power or the power to reclaim the technology into the hands of the American government and put it under the control of our Congress. So the people need to come forward. In short answer to your question, right now, we need to go to the new paradigm institute.org website, get the, the private emails of all

of the members of the Senate in the, in the house and reach out to everybody, you know, and spread this word and get to them before they finalize this. Because once they finalize the, the, whatever format this bill is, is going to be going into the national defense authorization act. If they finalize it without the eminent domain power, without the subpoena power, without the kind of authority to really extract this information and put it into the hands of our Congress. If they put in a bill, it

will occupy the space and everybody will be told falsely that there's an actual operation underway to, to responsibly process this information. And it will not be true any more than the president's arrow office. has been viewed to be functioning. The whistleblowers don't even want to come forward and give the information to the Aero Office because they don't believe they're going to do anything about it because they're under the control of the Defense Department and the intelligence agencies, n

ot under the control of Congress. And I'd also like to echo Danny's call to action. The new Paradigm Institute website has a very intuitive and streamlined process where you can simply input your information, your address, your zip code, and send a message template that was designed by the NPI team directly to your representatives. Joe, I want to have you jump in next. I know you have a bunch of questions. I'm sure you have a bunch of additional questions now after hearing a lot from Danny alrea

dy. What is top of mind for you? And take it in any direction that you want to take it in, man. First of all, thanks for doing this, Danny. I wanted to stick just once on the Radiance technology question. It's my understanding that Jay Stratton was the one who found the crash retrieval program and then brought in David Grush to confirm the information, which he did in a big way with his colleagues. You've said on another show on that UAP talk, that UFO podcast that Jay Stratton and Travis Taylor

were basically bribed hundreds of thousands of dollars to work for Radiance to take a position against the Schumer bill, which didn't come out until like 14 months after they were hired. So that's a really strong accusation that questions their, their integrity. And I wanted to see if you would like a chance to retract that. Well, I've already sent a note to Jay on this. It isn't my intention of attacking Jay or Travis on this. The fact is that this practice on the part of industry, reaching in

to the government of the United States and extracting people from the inner workings of our American government to be brought into their corporations to provide some kind of inside information to them, and to give them kind of a competitive advantage over other people has been going on for decades. But with regard to this particular issue, this issue of the UFO reality, the extraterrestrial reality, is of such importance that what I did is it I've already told them that I didn't intend to contin

ue to pull on this rope with them personally, but I felt necessary to tell what it is that Radiance Technology is doing in the same way that I've found it to be necessary to tell people about CACI International, to tell them about Sandia Laboratories, the ones that are working on these programs, to direct some kind of direct citizen pressure on Congress to get the information from these companies that they have, you know, that they've got subpoena power. The, the oversight committee has got subp

oena power. They can go get this information from them. But I, what I'm proposing is that they refrain from opposing this particular bill. If people want to go to work for these aerospace industries, I guess, unless Congress passes legislation prohibiting them from doing that, which I think they should, they just have to stop exercising the kind of authority that they have and credibility they have to try to stop this bill. That's all I'm saying. But I've sent a note to them saying, I don't inte

nd to get into an internal fight with people who have spend a lot of time trying to generate some disclosure. But this bill in its written form has to pass. And I don't want people going to their congressional representatives in Florida and in Utah and in other places, you know, and trying to talk them into opposing this bill. I just want people to stop doing that. That sounds very fair. Lester, I'd like to have you jump in next. I'm sure you've got a bunch of questions of your own lined up. Is

there anything top of mind, either on the activism front or relating to radiance? I'm looking at their website now, and it's interesting because they speak to space programs, hypersonics, directed energy. Yeah, they do have hundreds and hundreds of employees. Yeah, they might be a useful firm to kind of put something into that was working on these kind of things. But there isn't a ton of information on them. You know, they have a typical kind of contractor, you know, looking website. But I encou

rage people to look at it. It's just radiance tech.com. And again, the hypersonic stuff is something I've been keeping a close eye on for decades. So It is interesting to see that they're in there. Lester, what thoughts come top of mind before we start taking some audience questions next? I'll just quickly take this in a slightly different direction. And thank you again, Danny, for joining us today. I think I kind of want to be a little bit forward looking, perhaps, and get you to kind of help u

s. I think you have great context. Having done large social impact issues in the past, assuming whether it's the easy way or the hard way, this conversation moves forward in the public dialogue. What are your perspectives on what the spectrum of legal implications will potentially be or look like? The, you know, idea of a truth and reconciliation commission, what kind of, you know, class action lawsuits, what are the potential directions from your vantage point of having the information? Do you

see this going again, presuming there is an easy way or a hard way to move to the next stage here? Well, my opinion is that the critical question is whether or not the Schumer Rounds Amendment, as drafted, is going to be inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act. And this board is going to be appointed by the president to undertake the activities that have been specifically authorized by Congress. If it is, then we're going to be in one world. If in fact Schumer stands up and says, lo

ok, unless you are willing to put it in as written, and all you're going to do is try to water it down and put in a fake bill, that he would stand up and totally oppose any bill. being put into the National Defense Authorization Act pertaining to this so that we could then approach it in some different way. But we can't have the space occupied by a phony bill. And so that if in fact we can succeed in getting it put in, then the next step will be to make sure that the proper people are appointed

to that particular board, the UAP Records Review Board. It is provided for in the statute, uh, that I have recommended a number of, I am one of the, the people, our organization, the, the new paradigm Institute, uh, is one of the organizations along with the, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders of the house, the secretary of defense and others who have been authorized to, to nominate people. for this board. Our New Paradigm Institute has designed

a set of people to be appointed to this board, or at least nominated by the president. And that will be the next step to focus on who the members of that board are going to be. And then once that gets established is making sure that that board does its job. And that very importantly, that the military services, the intelligence agencies, the defense department agencies, and very importantly, the private aerospace industries who have been put into possession of some of this UFO technology are or

dered to turn that information over to the Senate Intelligence Committee and to the House Oversight Committee and through this board, that there are steps that need to be taken one after another, depending upon which of these worlds we end up in. If we end up in a world with a board operational, then our New Paradigm Institute is right there on Capitol Hill, that we are perhaps the only civilian organization that is, that is officed inside the federal enclave, designated in the statute as being

one of the ones to participate in this process. We're going to be exercising oversight authority on behalf of the citizenry, to make sure that this board is functioning appropriately and that the military services and intelligence agencies and private corporations are in fact responding to the order of Congress to turn this information over. And we are going to be involved as the board releases information for public understanding of what's going on. we're going to be participating as the New Pa

radigm Institute in helping to organize and structure that information and make it public to people so that they can understand what it is that's being said and what the full implications really are. Not, not only from a, uh, an economic point of view about what the impact might be on the various, uh, inventions and technology that might be derived from the UFO technology, in a peaceful manner. But very importantly, we hope to lead the way in insisting that there be a treaty. As I mentioned earl

ier, a treaty absolutely prohibiting the use of any of this technology to develop any weapons systems of any kind. And we're also going to be deeply involved in trying to develop a new alternative worldview that takes into account the existence of this extraterrestrial civilization and our place in it. so that we no longer believe that even though we've been, uh, forced to acknowledge all the way back to Copernicus and Galileo, that we're not physically in the center of the entire universe. Uh,

but they, they, most people still believe through the spectrum of human worldviews that we abide at the apex of the pyramid of all sentient life in the universe. And we have to come to grips with the reality that that's not true. We can't be thrown into the position of believing that we have no value at all, that somehow our whole human culture is going to collapse as though we were some island in the South Pacific that discovered in the 1950s that there was an outside world. The New Paradigm In

stitute is going to be instrumental in helping to work with all of our citizens groups to develop a new, constructive, holistic worldview that places our human species in the proper relationship to the extraterrestrial civilization. Danny, I want to make sure we get time because we have a lot of people who have requested to speak and I hope both questions and answers we can try to keep as succinct as possible because I want to get to a lot of folks. Mo, you've put so much work into informing peo

ple about what's going on with all of this legislation and political activity through Disclosure Diaries. I want to recommend DisclosureDiaries.com to everyone here. Check it out. It's great for getting updates. Mo, I'd love to have you jump in with your question next. Hey, thanks for, uh, for, for hosting this. It's been a great conversation so far, and I really appreciate the shout out, Nick. Um, as usual, you have me blushing, uh, Danny, thanks again for, for doing this as well. Um, and thank

s for all of the work you've done in the past, uh, genuine inspiration, especially from a constitutional perspective. I think you've done some of the most important work, um, that I've, uh, that I've come across on that in that regard. The question that I have is pretty simple. You've, you've spoken, um, in the past as well, uh, on the role of the president and perhaps more broadly, the White House, um, in supporting the UAPDA. I was wondering if you could shed any light on that and perhaps even

on the White House's involvement on the drafting of the UAPDA, uh, in its original form. Well, uh, okay. Let's take it one at a time. The fact is, is that the, the original drafting, of the wording of the statute went on primarily inside the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. It was led by Senator Rubio from Florida. As you know, he is the United States Senator for Lou Elizondo. I legally represent Lou Elizondo and was the coauthor with him of his formal complaint that he lodged with the Insp

ector General of the Defense Department protesting the fact that the Defense Department and the intelligence agencies were lying to the United States Congress and to the president and others about this program. Therefore, Senator Rubio led the activity inside the Senate Intelligence Committee to draft this legislation. It went through a larger process of being addressed by the different members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The full bill in its present form was drafted by them. There wer

e legal counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee that were involved. A number of them actually out in private practice now that have retired from the government. But this bill has been in the process for some time now. And that's why the reference that were made earlier that, oh, you know, before the bill was even put into the House, other things had taken place. The fact of the matter is this bill has been under construction for some time now. You can see that it's a full 64 pages with int

imate details of how the process should go forward. And we've been involved even before the voting on the bill inside the National Defense Authorization Act in its original form. you know, was undertaken. We were interviewing people as prospective members of the board. So we've been at this for some time now. That's, that's how the process began. And then the, we, we, we got a vote 17 to nothing inside the Senate Intelligence Committee with Republicans and Democrats all voting to support this. A

nd we then got Senator Gillibrand came on board in support of the bill so that we had Rubio and Gillibrand as major people on the bill. We got Mark Warner, who was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee when the Democrats were in charge of the Senate. He came forward and supported the bill. And we finally got Senator Schumer himself. to co-sponsor the bill. And then, uh, we reached out to rounds in South Dakota to come on board. Uh, and so we, we've constructed a, a representative, uh

, cross section of Republicans and Democrats that, that virtually, uh, unanimously support this particular bill is the sound and responsible way of going about this. Uh, and it's, uh, it's, it's bizarre. that the defense establishment didn't fully support this. It's the people inside the Defense Department who have come to know the most about the program that are the largest supporters of this particular bill. So that's the status of the thing right now. We still have a significant chance if Sch

umer will tell the House of Representatives and tell Turner basically over in the House to look, either this bill goes through in its originally drafted form with the independently appointed board by the president, with the subpoena power and with the power of eminent domain, or we should have Senator Schumer pull the entire bill. and not allow a fake watered down bill to be put into the National Defense Authorization Act, giving people the false impression that something has been done. That's t

he key. That's the balance point right now where we're at. And that's why it's so important for citizens to right away go forward and contact their senators and Congress people right now, because they're in the process of trying to finalize this language right this week. uh, you know, by the, and here we are on Tuesday and by Friday evening, you know, they're going to be putting the, the, the draft of the bill into the hands of the, the writers of the National Defense Authorization Act. Uh, and

once that gets put in, uh, the people are only going to have that to vote on up or down as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. So we have basically about seven, seven days or so, uh, the remaining time in this week and the weekend, to get the information to the senators and congresspeople to insist that this bill be put into the National Defense Authorization Act as written, not amended. Danny, I'm going to bring in some more listeners here who have questions of their own. UAP Gabe,

I've got you on there next. And if you're done with your questions, feel free to take yourself back down to just listener or feel free to stay as speaker. But chances are we aren't necessarily going to have time. But Gabe, can you jump in with your question, please, sir? Yeah. Hey, Nick, can you hear me? Yeah, a little fuzzy on the audio. It's a little hot, but we can hear you pretty clearly. Awesome. OK, I'll be terse. Hey, Dan, fellow lawyer here and a huge admirer of your career. So in 2025,

we're likely to have either President Trump or President Biden. Let's presume both of them know we have evidence of non-human intelligence. but neither of them have chosen to disclose. So my question is this, from a president's perspective, what needs to happen in our society for the president to disclose biological evidence of non-human intelligence? Thanks. Well, the answer is clear that the president needs to have the support of Congress to do this. He needs to have the support of the intelli

gence community. in the intelligence committees in both House and Senate to support him. One of the reasons that President Biden has been as successful over the period of time he's been in the Senate and served as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, served as vice president, that he understands that in order to undertake a monumental step of this nature, This has to be done by the collective elements of power inside our Am

erican government. Now, given the fact that there exists this deep state element that has been secreting this information and attempting to back engineer it in secret, it's becoming the centerpiece of the whole argument that's going on only because they're resisting us. you know, if, if they will in fact stand down on this, uh, the president has the ability to have this, this board in place that is going to be engaged in a very specifically, uh, identified and explicated process by means of whic

h they're going to call out the information that can be provided to the public, uh, uh, within 180 days after they receive it. Uh, there's a whole process of 300 days being provided to all of the different uh, government agencies and private corporations that possess this information to put it together in a digitally recoverable form so that the, the intelligence committees can handle it and research it. Uh, there's a, there's a very responsible position, uh, and programs been put together in th

is bill pursuant to which to do this. And so what I'm saying is that the president, uh, it would not be, politically wise, it would not be judiciously wise for any given individual president just to take it upon himself or herself and simply say, oh, as president, I've decided I'm going to release all of this information. It would be extremely disruptive with regard to the internal functioning of our complex government. The Schumer rounds bill has a role to be played by the independent board. It

has a role to be played by the president himself. It has a role to be played by the justice department in passing upon the applications for subpoena power. Uh, it has a role for the judicial branch to pass upon the subpoenas that would be issued by the, the attorney general, uh, for information. Uh, and so this has to be a collective undertaking. on the part of the executive branch, our legislative branch, and our judicial branch to show that there's a uniform and unified position on the part o

f our government coming forward to make this information available. Now, they have to also have communication with other nations in the world. They're going to have to be communicating with Russia and with China. and with our other allies to let them know that this is going to be taking place. You know, so there's a whole process, a complex process that has to be undertaken here. So the president has an authority to try to initiate a more forward leaning process of making information available,

but a president has to function within the constitutional constraints of our government system and the political realities of our system. And so I would not advise a president to be taking just unilateral action like this. But I do think that President Biden should take the initiative to try to establish a treaty pursuant to which we can have this agreement among all the nations of the world in a way that's effectively enforceable, that none of this technology be allowed to be used to develop a

weapons system, which would require the President ordering the standing down of of this particular prompt global strike technology that's being developed now by these corporations. We have to put that on the table and offer to stand back from this in the same way that we should have stepped back from the use of thermonuclear weapons. Right at the beginning of the atomic age, we should have been willing to forgo the temporary strategic advantage that was given to us by the possession of nuclear w

eapons, because it's inevitable that the technology is going to leak out and it's going to become available to Russia and to China and to possibly other countries. And the fact of the matter is we need to take the initiative on this. And the president does have that responsibility. I think that as a matter of fact, this should be made a major issue in any upcoming campaign. The people who want to buy for the presidency should take a position on the need to have a treaty over this issue. That's d

efinitely a goal, I think, of a lot of people here to try to turn this into an election 24 issue. I'm going to have our next listener with a question jump in. Brian, again, we're just going to try to get in as many people as we can. So if both you and Danny can just try to keep it a little on the succinct side so we can get to as much Q&A as possible, because we are getting close to 730 here on Eastern Time, which I think is when we're going to have to cut. But Brian, why don't you go ahead and

let us know what your question for Danny is. Thank you. Oh, Brian, are you ready? I see that you're muted. Maybe Brian's not ready to speak. I'm going to kick you. Oh, it seems like we're having maybe some glitches with spaces, which happens. Brian, are you able to speak now? We're still not hearing you, man. You might want to leave the space quickly and come back in. I don't know why I keep elevating you. And for whatever reason, it's not coming through. So I recommend just jumping out, jumping

back in, turn on the request status. We'll have one other person probably jump in in between. But I'd love to be able to get to your question. It's just, for some reason, I hit the button. And it says you're a speaker. Okay. Let me quickly get to someone else here. A lot of you have had your hands up for a while. It's also like totally impossible to organize who has necessarily had their hand up the longest, but I know one of them is Appalachian Astronaut. I'm going to add you. We'll get his qu

estion in. He raised his hand really right as we were kicking off. So Appalachian Astronaut, do you want to jump in with your question quickly and Danny try to get to that and then we'll get Brian back in here. Hey, Danny, and everybody else, I appreciate your time and letting me talk. Nick, I appreciate you putting this together and all the help you've done to raise transparency on the UAP topic. My question for Danny was, is I was just wondering, I know that only anybody can only say so much,

but as far as like the technology that they're working on, is it something that would provide basically the ability to manipulate space-time to travel inter-dimensionally. And I think that's kind of what Lou and everybody else is kind of hymns around at, is what's happening. And so I just wanted to hear your thoughts about that. I know you've talked about it a couple of times before, but if you have anything else new that you can add or just want to kind of summarize to get out there, I'd apprec

iate it. Thank you so much. I would, I would say this. I think that this is the kind of information that the board that is, uh, it is provided for by the Schumer rounds bill, uh, needs to really evaluate and needs to discuss what type of details, uh, are going to be revealed, uh, about this, that we can't, we can't just yield to kind of curiosity about this. And I, I I'm being respectful in that regard. But I think that we need to focus on really the reality of an extraterrestrial civilization a

nd the fact that we're in possession of their interstellar spacecraft and that we're in possession of actual biological evidence that these are sentient beings. in point of fact, that we've actually in the past recovered live beings from these crap. I mean, I think that that's much more important than the particular technology of how the missile works. So I would think that we Well, I'm not a great fan of the United States developing all kinds of these extraordinarily sophisticated technologies.

I don't want to make unnecessary enemies of the people that are in charge of the weapons development program of the United States government. by unnecessarily just going into details that we're aware of. So I would just suggest that what we should do is support the board to help make these decisions and make recommendations to the President and to the Secretaries of Defense about what information needs to be revealed and what might not serve the interests of anybody. That's, I think, a reasonab

le approach, at least from my perspective, but, you know, of course we have to have that board and they have to have teeth. Hopefully that happens. I don't know what is going on with Brian. He just, I don't, he keeps bouncing in and out his speaker and that's either a bug in spaces or something weird he's up to. Brian, can you jump in? I think we've got you a speaker. Is anyone hearing Brian? On my end, I'm seeing him in connection limbo. His status is just still connecting. So I will continue.

Yeah, we'll get to someone else. I don't know what the problem is on your end, Brian. Hopefully, you're at least hearing this. I'm going to get Anton in here. Anton, when you come up as speaker, feel free to jump in. Anton, you ready? Yes, I am. Can you guys hear me? Yep, go for it. Awesome. I just want to say thank you guys, especially you, Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Nick, Lester, Mo. You guys have been doing incredible service to humanity. So I'm going to ask a question that's not necessarily law

-based or even short-term disclosure-based. I wanted to ask you, Danny, there's a very evident problem in the systems of of how we operate as evidenced by how the military industrial complex has treated these technologies. And I feel post-disclosure, we're going to hopefully see new faces and new people involved in this. My question to you is what advice do you have to the future leaders, movers and shakers of the post-disclosure world? I'm sure there's a bunch of them in the chat. Thank you. I

think, for example, that the people who are lining up to be potential candidates for the presidency in 2028, most of whom have already acknowledged that the likelihood is that in 2024, the Republican Party is going to nominate Donald Trump. The Democratic Party is going to nominate Joe Biden. The only other really viable candidate seems to be Robert Kennedy Jr., who is polling around, you know, 25 to 30% of the vote in a head-to-head competition as an independent in this case. I think that the p

eople who are vying for candidacy in 2028 should get out ahead of this issue and come to understand it thoroughly and begin to move into a position of advocating the treaty that we're talking about as one of the primary issues that needs to be debated so that the new administration or the administration that comes in in 2024 understands that the people who are planning to become president, uh, after the next administration are going to be moving forward on this particular issue. And so we would

hope that this would cause the administration, the 2024 administration to, to deal seriously with this issue. That's what this bill is proposing. This bill is set up in such a way that, uh, while the, the members, of the Record Review Board that is created by this Schumer bill will be appointed by President Biden. The actual operation of the decisions made as to what information is going to be released to the public and what the disclosure, the controlled disclosure campaign is going to look lik

e is really going to be determined during the 2025 period. Okay. So the new president or the president that's going to be elected or reelected in 2024 is going to have the responsibility of making sure that the 300 days of the first year of the administration is devoted to getting the information put into the hands of the board. So I would say very frankly that that the campaign for the 2028 presidency should focus on this issue. And I think that it would be wise for the Republican and Democrati

c Party at the present time to prepare the way for this by putting this board in place. to be able to organize the information and coherently evaluate the information, propose at least the draft of a controlled disclosure campaign so that we can all become involved in this. So that's what I think ought to be done. That's the key to this thing. All right, I'm going to add Jeremy next. Jeremy should be coming up as a speaker. And Jeremy, whenever you are in a speaker, you're welcome to ask your qu

estion of Danny. Hey, thank you. Thank you both. And first, Danny, thank you for your your legal contributions. They're historic. And, you know, your your work speaks for itself. The the your website rather mentions your lifelong deep faith and that you actually once considered priesthood. and of course served as chief counsel for the Jesuits who strongly prioritize doing the best for humanity and social justice. Just curious, how has this influenced your legal practices? Not asking your persona

l beliefs, but how has it influenced how you practice law? Well, you can ask my personal beliefs. I'm pretty clear about them. I believe that the law The law, the ultimate reference for the law, is what is true. Because people make judgments, both individually and collectively, to comport their conduct as best they can with what they view to be true. Therefore, the determination of what the ultimate truths are, in accordance with which we balance our lives, is how did our universe come into bein

g, which is the ultimate cosmological question, You know, uh, is our universe unfolding pursuant to any kind of, uh, structured, uh, algorithm that can be discerned? That is the teleological question of the unfolding of the universe. Uh, the, the great ontological question and that is, is, you know, what is the nature of consciousness? Did consciousness precede the material manifestation of our universe? Or is it a sub product of the interaction between mass and energy, some sort of a epiphenome

non of sorts? Uh, And the fourth of the pillar questions is the epistemological questions. What are the means by which we, what we have at our disposal as human beings, by means of which we can determine the answers to questions like that? These are profoundly important pillar questions, the answer to which, if in fact one provides an operational answer to these questions in one's own personal life, that are internally and self-referentially consistent with each other, the answers to these four

pillar questions, it generates a fundamental philosophy, which in turn generates your political philosophy. And we have a present spectrum of worldviews from the authoritarian to the reactionary, to the conservative, to the moderate, to the liberal, to the utopian. These are presently operative in our human family. But what we don't have yet is a new worldview that integrates into it the reality of an extraordinary extraterrestrial civilization and our place of our human family in that. Now the

religions of the world have been attempting down through the millennia to try to address the issue of a kind of an extra dimensional realm in which our consciousness traverses, potentially even in repeated cycles of life. This is all the stuff of the realm of religion and theology. And we've succeeded in getting the Catholic church to actually issue a public statement, which says that now it's become obvious that much sooner than had been previously anticipated, we're going to come to realize th

at there is life elsewhere in the universe. And they've made an official call to have the citizens begin to engage in an important conversation. of the theological philosophical questions that are posed to our human family by the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe. Now this obviously also includes questions of geopolitical nature, a social psychological nature, a personal psychological nature. But what impact does it have on people to realize that we're not at the apex of all sentient l

ife in the universe? Are people afraid of this reality? Is there some way to adjust ourselves to this while still recovering and maintaining our sense of value? These are all profoundly important questions. As I mentioned, one of the missions of the New Paradigm Institute, in addition to trying to make sure this legislation gets put into place and monitor the activities of the Record Review Board and the agencies that are supposed to respond to it, One of our missions is to help work on gatherin

g these kinds of conversations among people to reflect upon these questions so that we can help participate in developing a new alternative worldview. that takes into account the expanded reality that we find ourselves in. I've always viewed this right from the beginning when I was a little child and looked up into the stars and said, holy mackerel, as soon as I realized what they were, that these were suns. other suns like our sun. And that I've always been convinced that there were planets, yo

u know, orbiting these other stars and that there are people, there are beings on these other planets, some of them. And now that we know that they have, have discovered the technology by means of which they can travel to our planet, back and forth between their world and ours, whatever the extra dimensional dynamic of that is, you know, this is opening onto the entire realm of religious belief in our people. And so I think that This is an extraordinary moment that we have, and we shouldn't have

to be talking about how can we prevent one one thousandth of one percent of our human family that is part of the aerospace industry and the deep state military and intelligence community, you know, make a determination as to what our relationship should be with this extraterrestrial civilization. And we have to spend our time trying to prevent them from building a nuclear missile that can reach across the planet in two minutes to destroy people. We should be turning our attention to the positiv

e aspects of this discovery. and of the existence of this civilization and what we can do to integrate ourselves in it without losing our absolute value as a species. This is the theological and philosophical question that we need to really be addressing once we can get a board like this put into place. because one of the things I want to do is recommend at least one person on this nine-person board who is going to be addressing these profound theological and philosophical and metaphysical quest

ions in addition to the scientific and geopolitical questions that need to be answered by this panel. Danny, I want to get a couple more in before we wrap. I don't know if you still have a hard stop in about seven or so minutes, but we're certainly happy to have you go. Once we get talking about this, you know me. No, I love it. That's great. We have a lot of questions and a lot of people who want to get in here to ask some stuff. I'm going to add Who is Axelrod next? Go ahead, jump in with your

question. Try to, again, please keep things succinct as possible so we can get as many folks in today as possible. Hey, can you guys hear me? Yep, just fine. Okay, perfect. I have a couple of questions. It's actually like a three-parter. Okay, so the first thing is, if the Schumer Amendment does pass, how will the panel decide what is disclosed. Is it a majority rule? Is it a unanimous vote? Um, and you know, of course that's going to skew things. Like if we have one person on the panel that ma

y be a little bit corrupt and it's a unanimous rule, I mean, that will throw the entire, the entire thing off. Okay. The second part is, um, Danny said last year, he mentioned Radiance and that they were awarded a $4 billion contract to develop basically UFO, it was like a UFO contract. What exactly was he talking about? Like, what was that for? Was it for, like, did it actually involve UFOs? And I mean, just, just go ahead with those two. I'm a little bit distracted right now, but, uh, those ar

e the two, the two main questions that I have. Okay. Well, actually I never did say anything about a $4 million contract. I don't know where that came from. Uh, I've, I've talked about radiant, uh, technologies, but I've never specifically talked about the $4 million contract that they had. So that came from somewhere else. With regard to your first question about what the nature of the voting will be in the panel, that's something that the panel is going to be determining. One of the things the

y have to decide once they come together is what are the rules that they're going to be following within their discussions and how do they go about coming to a decision with regard to these things, whether it's by a majority vote or by a unanimous vote. My guess is it's not going to be a unanimous vote because of the very point you made, not that there'd be a person who's corrupt, but they can't have to have absolute unanimity on every single question. So they're going to be having to design tho

se rules, but there's a great deal of detail that is in the 64 pages governing the standards that they are to follow. Not only with regard to what their qualifications need to be and the fact that they need to have security clearances, but there's all kinds of criteria that are set forth in the bill. I would, in addition to my specific request that everybody listening today go to the newparadigminstitute.org and get the name of your particular congressional representative and senators and use th

at device that's on that internet. to put your information in and contact them. But in addition to that, I would specifically recommend that you go on to Google and get a copy of the Schumer-Rounds Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act and read it. I mean, you will see how profoundly detailed that is. and the criteria that are set forth governing the type of decisions that need to get made and the procedures that need to be followed. So you'll see the kind of work that's gone into

that bill and why it's so much more important than just a simple three paragraph, uh, insertion into the National Defense Authorization Act, giving the authority to the Secretary of Defense to decide what, if anything, he or she is going to release to the public. That's not sufficient. It doesn't have adequate guidelines. It doesn't have an adequate review process. So I think that the decision making process of this nine person panel is going to be something they have to come up with. And then w

e'll find out about it at the New Paradigm Institute. As I say, since we're one of the agencies that are going to be nominating people to that board. and that we may well find ourselves at some point in time advising on what ought to be done. And lastly, I'm sorry, lastly, but I remember the last thing that I really, really, really wanted to ask you was if eminent domain is actually, if it goes into effect and all of these materials and data and sensor information and everything that is pulled f

rom all of these lower defense contractors, if that is confiscated by the government, who will be the holder of that? Where will that be turned over to? And will that be, like, to one major contractor to get the research and, you know, development contracts? Who is going to be the master of that? Will it be in one central location, or will it be distributed? Okay. Well, first of all, you have to understand that the exercise of eminent domain is not to confiscate anything. It is to basically take

title. to the materials. That's important. You need to understand that the recovery of these UFO vehicles that has taken place over the past decades, you know, actually was undertaken by the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency had this global access program pursuant to which they deployed teams to recover these craft. And then separate decisions were made about what the, the rules and regulations were pursuant to which any of these aerospace industries would be put into possession of

the technology to be able to research it, analyze it, try to determine how it operates and to figure out if there's some way to back engineer this. The debate is over whether or not those aerospace industries have title to and own that technology, and or whether they can develop patents of any kind over the derivative technologies that are developed. That's what the eminent domain is all about. The fact of the matter is that the possession of that, the actual ownership of title to that, has to

reside in the United States government. I think that it's going to be quite clear personally, and I think that the board may well recommend that there be a specific agency established in the United States government that's under the joint auspices of not only the executive branch, but Congress itself to determine what use is going to be made of this technology. I'm a strong advocate of having it made number one, having a treaty imposed that none of it can be used for the development of any kind

of weapons system. But secondly, that it cannot be owned for the personal profit of anybody. The fact of the matter is it needs to be made available for the world. This is a history-altering event that's taking place here. and that this technology ought to be made available for our entire human family. So there needs to be negotiations with foreign countries. There needs to be negotiations with the United Nations. There needs to be potentially new juridical structures established to be able to h

ave some sort of a planetary decision-making process about the peaceful uses of the technology. but nobody's going to come and confiscate them right away. If there is a determination that is made by the board that a particular craft needs to be placed back under the control of the United States government, then they can, they can make that decision. But it isn't, that isn't the general nature of the exercise of eminent domain. It's a question of who has title to the property. Is it fair to say,

Danny, just a quick response, but like the government where I live in Baltimore has eminent domain in the sense that if they want to build a new light rail line through my house, they may be able to assert the ultimate right to do that. It doesn't mean they are building the light rail line through my house and are going to be kicking me out of my house. Is that is that a useful way of looking at it? Well, I think, for example, let's do a better example. The government asserts eminent domain over

the airspaces, and so it has the authority above a certain height over people's property to make rules and regulations about air traffic. for example, flying in and around those spaces. They have in effect asserted eminent domain over that airspace. They assert eminent domain over certain national forests, for example. But the bottom line is that it's not a confiscation of anything. The determination as to whether or not the physical material has to be taken out of the hands of a given aerospac

e industry or a given agency of the federal government and placed into the hands and under the control of some special agency that's going to be developed for this. That is a set of questions that need to be answered by the board. Uh, that, that isn't addressed in this. It's just that the exercise of eminent domain is to give the government the authority to make decisions regarding that particular technology and potentially the physical presence of any, any material. Where in the legislation are

the intellectual property rights, where is that written? There's no guarantee that that will stay with anybody that's in possession of any materials. And the materials some people have, They have acquired them through many different means, not only by, uh, that's been distributed to them via the government. So what about those materials? Like where are their intellectual property rights and what guarantees that that's not going to be taken away? Although that's, that's an assertion that you're

making because I don't think any of us are necessarily listening to his dog valet. He, he actually does say that, say that he has acquired many different materials. And we talked to Jacques about this. He's the one who used the term confiscated. He went to the site of one of these things, one of these events and recovered some of the molten metal that was there. I know that he expressed some consternation about the whole idea of possibly having it confiscated. But the reality is that If, in fact

, the government is authorized to confiscate somebody's field because they are going to be building a facility of some sort that they need to build, you know, that certainly the ability to take into its possession, you know, direct evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization or an extraterrestrial technology, it's not something that a person has the right to hold for their own personal advantage over the advantage of the entire human family. This is of an extraordinarily important nature. And t

here needs to be some sort of a juridical regime that makes decisions about that on behalf of the benefit of our whole human family, not to be, you know, just seized upon by an individual to try to take their own personal private advantage of it, to say nothing other than just having a trophy in their house somewhere. You know, so I'm saying that, that I think that the exercise of evident domain needs to be undertaken judiciously and responsibly. But the general libertarian resistance to the exe

rcise of state power in general is an issue that needs to be discussed by the members of the board. What position are they ultimately going to be recommending to the president? with regard to the exercise of eminent domain, because the president and the government itself is going to have to be the one to make the decision about exercising eminent domain. It's not going to be exercised as such by the panel, which is a civilian panel advising the president. Well, and I think, you know, the one of

my perspectives on this, Danny has been like, just the real basic, like, you know, litmus test. Do they really want a couple of tiny little pieces of slag or whatever that Jacques Vallee or Gary Nolan have? Is that really what we're talking about here? And to me, the answer is no, that's, that's not what we're talking about. That's the little piece of slag that Jacques has in a little dish is not the thing that would potentially allow you to build some, you know, piece of technology that's way b

eyond hypersonic aircraft that would clearly have to come from something significant being in the possession of someone. And I don't see why gathering up every little scrap is really what the focus of that is. Now, Joe, you have a very interesting question, Joe. I want to bring you back in before we get to any of the other just listeners here today. And this is, I think, an interesting one that you have to bring up right now. Danny, first off, I support full disclosure. Whatever we're dealing wi

th, which I don't know, I support full disclosure. David Grush has said, at best, we're dealing with, from his information based on his four years of interviews, 40 people. At best, we're dealing with an intelligence that is neutral or indifferent towards us. He also talks about people being murdered by the phenomenon. An investigative reporter— No, no, no. He's talking about people being murdered. by the National Security State. killing and mutilation. So if that's true, I don't know if it is,

why are you so confident that we should try to have some sort of relationship with whatever we're dealing with? Well, because the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, we could, we could all start listing, you know, instances in which the United States military forces have mutilated people, killed people, done all that kind of stuff. It doesn't mean that we somehow, you know, withdraw our loyalty to our government. And it doesn't mean that, you know, that our government shouldn't have diplom

atic relations with other governments. you know, that the, the, uh, the only incidents that I know of, I know of one from having talked directly with Ingo Swann, that Ingo was involved in going to a site where there was a UFO, uh, that rose up out of this Lake up in, I think it was in Southern Alaska actually. Uh, and that, uh, he and another person actually Axelrod, if you remember the person was with him, that was the code name the person had. and that they were there observing this craft. And

what Ingo Swann told me is that when the craft realized that they were there, it fired a light beam at them. Now it didn't hit them. And he said that he and Axelrod sought shelter behind a boulder. And he asserted that he thought that if he'd been hit by this, this light ray that he would have been injured or killed. Now, and I know of instances where people, for example, have laid their hand on a craft and they have become ill. Uh, and I know of, uh, incidents in which one of the law enforceme

nt officers that picked up one of the bodies and carried it, uh, became ill and died. Uh, there are some examples of those things, uh, that I, at this point in time have never ever been told of a particular instance where the, uh, the UFO entity was mutilating or murdering or killing another human being. I don't have any of that such information to confirm at all. Danny, I wanted to get to Brian, but he just keeps bouncing in and out. We should be able to develop peaceful and productive relation

s with any civilization, even if any of their individual members conceivably had engaged in some sort of inappropriate conduct. Uh, we need to really explore all of this to determine what the policies are that they have been assigned. You know, just, just because, you know, one of our Marine Corps groups, Mile A, massacred an entire town, uh, doesn't necessarily mean that that was an official policy of our government. Uh, the question is, you know, what, what steps have they taken to rein in any

activity like that on the part of any individual, uh, member of an extraterrestrial civilization that has come to our planet? We don't know that information yet. That's why the passage of the Schumer rounds bill is so important because we have to have a careful, completely objective and honest evaluation. And I agree. I agree. I just, until we know what we're dealing with, I would just say tread lightly. That's all, you know, not assume that they're here to help us. We don't know. We don't know

. I think that's a fair point, Joe. And, you know, Danny, you use the word civilization a lot. But, you know, I imagine that if we're talking about the scale of the galaxy, potentially, or potentially even beyond that, through a variety of dimensions that we might consider that go beyond the galaxy, the the universe or other planes or even stuff that's a little more obscured from us here on Earth. Do you think of it more as like a loose federation or even not necessarily representative of one pa

rticular civilization? You're using that kind of as a broad catch all. Or do you have a more particular sense of what that term galactic civilization or just civilization means to you? But I use it in general terms, just like, just like we refer to our human civilization, even though we have like 193 separate nation states and we have, you know, tons of different languages and we have tons of different cultures and stuff. Uh, you know, we still have a human civilization. Uh, and therefore I thin

k that, uh, that each given species that we're encountering and there appear to, you know, there are various numbers that are, that are, uh, quoted. But I know of the details of some, I think, seven different species that you would believe are categorically distinct. in that they probably come from different star systems, each of those species, you know, unless there's more than one species on more than one planet in one given star system. You know, so that, that my sense is that I'm, well, I'm

using the term civilization in broad, the broadest terms of there being some sort of a galactic civilization. as to what degree of communication they have with each other, what type of arrangements they might have with each other. It's not clear. I interviewed one man on his deathbed who called me and had me come to meet with him. He's got tubes on him and he's lying in his bed dying. He was a member of Project Blue Book. that he was a part of the team that monitored the classified portions of B

lue Book, the sections where they realized that you had a real UFO that they were dealing with. And he said that when he went to the site where there was a live extraterrestrial being, that being was questioned and they had discussions with that person, that being, and that being said that he was part of a group that they came from different star systems and they were working in a coordinated way to monitor what the state of development of life was on different planets inside our galaxy. And the

se were the people that were coming here to our planet to monitor what our civilization was like. And so there was some degree of cooperation, he indicated, among those. And when he was asked, you know, well, what, who's in charge there? You know, what, what was the entity that was in charge of bringing those different star systems together to cooperate in this survey? And he said, well, uh, the, the beings said, according to the, the, the, the person said that he said that it's something like y

ou might refer to as God, but it's very different than you think. Do you think, do you think Danny, Again, I think that in light of the fact that he was on his deathbed telling me about this, I tended to give credit to what he was saying. But he was so upset about the whole thing that he refused to tell anybody about it until he was on his deathbed because he said he didn't believe him. He thought that the being was diabolical in some way. Now, he was an incredible fundamentalist, this guy that

was dying. And so he thought that it was demonic, the being, but the being was at S4 where he, where he was there. And it was actually the, he wasn't talking, he wasn't communicating directly. His commander was, but they were taking notes and putting them on note cards when the interview was going on. And that's what he said was on the note card. So, I mean, that's all I can tell you about what I know about, at least from that direct interview about what he said. My sense is, again, the importan

ce of having a responsible board with a staff that are professionals and objective about ascertaining the truth of all of this stuff is absolutely essential. And I think that we've now come to that point in our life as a nation. where we have to have our citizens insist upon having such a process put in place. That's the importance of the Schumer rounds bill. It is exactly that. It is coming to that moment in time, that cosmic moment, when we're actually going to put in place some agency in our

government structure under our constitutional framework to get the answers to these questions and then make sure that our Congress and our elected representatives are in possession of that information. pursuant to which they can decide policy. That's what needs to be done. And we need to hold our elected representatives responsible for sharing at least as much of that information as can be shared with us so that we can participate in guiding the policies of our country. That's what a democracy i

s all about. In this Schumer bill, is an exercise of constitutional responsibility on the part of our elected representatives. And we need to get back off these five people that we know of in the, in the House and Senate, you know, Mitch McConnell as the minority leader in the Senate, one other guy, Roger Wicker, the Republican Senator from Mississippi. And then you got the, the Turner, the guy from the 10th Congressional District of Ohio, who's the chair of the Intelligence Committee in the Hou

se. And then the other guy, Michael Rogers, who's the Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee. And then this new guy, Johnson, Michael Johnson, who's the Ayers Twyle, the Speaker of the House, this guy, you know, who basically, you know, doesn't know where the keys to the laundry room are. You know, I mean, these are the five people that are blocking this because what you'll discover is that the key people are being paid by the aerospace industry. Their campaigns that, you know, L

ockheed Martin is the number one contributor to Mike Rogers, who chairs our Armed Services Committee. Although they have they also contribute to Schumer. I mean, so I mean, there's very few senators that don't take money from the defense industry. Right. I mean, they get they put it around. Well, except that the national headquarters of one of the major aerospace industries that has this technology is in Mike Rogers' congressional district. He's taking photographs, selfies with the executives of

those committees, of those corporations. So there's a difference there. Yeah, and certainly as the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, you know, he's interfacing with those types of entities very regularly as part of that. I want to get to Ronak next. After that, Shai, Kenan, I'll get to you. And then we'll try to get to Brian as well. And hopefully his issues are worked out. But Ronak? Thank you again, sir, for doing what you've done so far to motivate a lot of the grassroots activity

around making noise on the UAPDA and so many other things. You really fostered a lot of that, and it's so appreciated by many of us. Ronak, what's your question for Danny today? Thank you very much, Nick, for the kind words. And thank you, gentlemen, for hosting this space. Mr. Sheehan, thank you for your dedicated efforts over the years. Based on my understanding, a significant barrier to the release of more convincing UAP videos appears to be the stringent UAP security classification guide. C

hristopher Mellon recently noted that he is acquainted with one of the creators of this guideline system, who now feels that the classification criteria are overly strict. My question is, what are the necessary steps to ensure the release of more compelling UAP videos, as it has been mentioned from various government officials that such footage does exist? Okay, well, the most important proper proposal on what to do about this is in fact the bill itself, the Schumer-Rounds bill. It is the consen

sus, basically the consensus approach on the part of the overwhelming majority of the senators and the House members, both Republican and Democrat, to how we ought to go about modifying this classification system. And one of their charges is to develop a protocol and a set of classifications that can be applied to this information. Okay. So that's, it's clear that that is the, the present codification of the best judgment of all of the, the vast majority of the members of the House and Senate as

to how this ought to be done. You know, without such a, a bill being inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act, the plan B would be to have the American citizens who are contacting their Congress people, their senators and representatives to demand that the classification system around this information be updated and be modified to provide more information to the American people. The problem is that that kind of citizen pressure on individual members of Congress doesn't really transl

ate very well into reaching into the defense department and getting them to do anything. They view themselves as being basically inured to outside pressure. They don't believe that they are supposed to be subject to the political demands of the majority of the citizens. The military and the intelligence community views themselves as being basically semi-autonomous. There are some positive constitutional benefits to all that, because that way they're not subjected to the political whims of a part

icular political party. We've taken some pride in the fact that our Yet our United States military remains above partisan politics for the most part, even though it's probably true that, you know, 75% of them are Republicans because they believe that the Republicans have a more stringent view of national security, which is basically designed to establish full spectrum dominance over the planet. And so as to promote and promulgate our continued privileged access to the strategic raw materials tha

t are needed by the major industries of our country that are largely Republican. But that having been said, that having been said, the reality is, is that the, the, I don't think that just major public pressure on your individual Congress people are going to be able to reach down into the defense department to get them to change those standards, uh, in classification criteria. That's why a board like this and this bill has to be passed. Shai, I'm going to get to you next and just to queue it up,

we'll try Brian one more time and then I'll go to Klaus and then hit on some other folks if Danny still has time. But Shai, why don't you jump in with your question, please? Nick, one moment. I'm going to check in with Danny. Danny, how are we doing on time? I'm fine. Okay, great. I'm fine. Thanks. And we really appreciate your flexibility, Danny. I can't tell you how glad the community is to be able to get this kind of direct access to you. It's really appreciated. And I think you're answering

a lot of questions and giving people great info. So thank you for that. Shai Keenan, why don't you jump in with your question? Thank you for joining us today. Hello, you. Hi, Nick. Thank you for the great space. Oh my goodness. My question is for Danny, if that's okay. Hello, you. You rock and my head is lower than yours. That's all I can say. My question is, do you think, darling, that there is any movement on getting whistleblower protection? And if not, should there be? And if so, if you kno

w that there's a better path, what would that be? I get a bit nervous these poor sausages are going to come out and tell stuff and well they're going to be at risk because of that so I just sort of wanted to know what do you think they're doing enough to protect the truth tellers? Sorry that was really badly asked but thank you for the mic. It's a great question and thank you for asking it. Danny, what do you think about the actual physical protection? There's been rumors that people who have ac

cess to these UAP programs are even potentially physically threatened if they ever speak out. I had a clearance once and when you get your indoctrination briefing, they tell you basically for an hour all of the horrible things that are going to happen to you. You know, they don't talk about offing you or your family. I mean, you know, some people have said it goes that far. What's your understanding? What do you think the actual threat to whistleblowers is, as Shai Keenan was asking? And, you kn

ow, is there any additional mechanisms to protect these guys? Well, we've gotten the statute passed already now in the bill that helped set up the Aero office to mandate that there be no reprisal taken structurally and institutionally against anybody who comes forward to the air office to provide the information that they have about the UFO issue or the extraterrestrial issue or non-human intelligence issue to the air office. Now, that's a narrow focus because they set aside any of their non-dis

closure agreements on the civilian side. In any of their security clearances, they've set them aside specifically under the bill that created the Arrow Office, the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. Now the question is that if in fact a person doesn't trust the Arrow Office, as they clearly didn't under the regime of Sean Kirkpatrick. They didn't believe that it was an honest and objective effort to get information about the UAP programs. They believed that it was way too passive. They sat in

their office waiting for people to come to them, and then they questioned them in a way that was semi-accusatory. The reality is that dozens and dozens of, of, uh, whistleblowers, uh, would be, uh, witnesses about this, uh, don't trust the Arrow office. And that's why it's no use whatsoever to try to simply substitute the, the Arrow office for this independent presidentially appointed board that's provided for in the Schumer bill. That that's a non-starter trying to substitute in Arrow for that

office. that would make the act useless because nobody trusts them. They're under the complete control of the Defense Department and the intelligence community, which are the entities that have been keeping this secret for 75 years. That doesn't really work. And so they've been coming forward and communicating with the Senate Intelligence Committee, and their staff who have the proper clearances so that it doesn't violate any of their national security oaths because they're only sharing the inf

ormation with other people who have the potential clearances. Now, for that reason, there's no reason why, legally at least, anybody should be threatening them because they haven't breached their security clearance. They've only shared the information with other people who have similar clearances. But the reality is that we know from the internal government documents that we've recovered that In this regard, you have to credit the people like Richard Dolan, who has published the two volumes of h

is work called UFOs in the National Security State, in which he actually publishes the previously classified documents that prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that that there was a conscious campaign that was mounted by the elements deep in the United States Defense Department and inside the operations directorate of the Central Intelligence Agency to punish people who tried to come forward and make public information about the UFO phenomenon. and that it was not only directed toward people who h

ad security clearances, it was directed toward average citizens in the country that were threatened and intimidated. And according to direct witnesses, they were threatened with death if they insisted upon going forward and publicly revealing information that they had ascertained about the UFO issue. Now, again, these are accusations that need to be evaluated. by the records review board that is insisting upon getting access to any kind of written reports, uh, in orders that were given to anybod

y to do anything like that. This is why this bill is so important that it provides an investigatory agency, unlike Arrow, that is in a sense, not an investigatory agency. It's simply a repository. where people who insist upon coming forward with information can come to their office and safely convey it to them. But, but it doesn't, it doesn't impose any kind of investigatory obligation upon Arrow. Okay. And that's what, that's what differentiates this bill. The Schumer rounds bill is an actual,

it creates an actual investigatory body that is, that is equipped with subpoena power, is authorized to conduct sworn depositions, can hire professional investigators with clearances to go and interview people. They can evaluate material evidence, et cetera, hire professionals to evaluate a physical evidence there is, for example, of non-human biological life. you know, that this is the group that can protect the whistleblowers, if you would call them that, because they're actually coming to a g

overnment-created agency or board to provide that information to them, particularly designed to get the information to the intelligence committees in Congress. And so I believe that those people would have adequate protection that would would prevent certain elements of the national security state from threatening the whistleblowers. But I've told the story before. It's important to remember when I was doing the Iran-Contra case back years ago, we went and met with Senator Durenberger, actually

a person that was working with us, went and met with Senator Durenberger, the United States Senator from Minnesota, and we provided information to him about the fact that the CIA's covert operations directorate was engaged in criminally smuggling cocaine into the United States and providing arms to the Contras in direct defiance of a direct congressional mandate in the Boland Amendment, prohibiting them from providing any aid, direct or indirect, to the Contras. And we gave him the information.

He went up on the Senate floor and publicly demanded the creation of a special select committee to investigate the enterprise. And that night, three men entered their homes. out in Virginia and dragged his wife out of bed in her nightgown and put a gun in her mouth and threatened to kill her if Senator Derenberger didn't go back up onto the floor and withdraw his request. So he went up the next Monday on the floor and withdrew his request. And that Wednesday on the front page of the Washington T

imes was a full page article about his mistress. And here's a photograph of the love bungalow that they have in Washington. And then also talked about the fact that he was an alcoholic. And by that Friday, the Washington Times reported that he'd been committed to an alcohol rehabilitation facility under some right-wing fundamentalist Christian group out in Virginia, and his political career was totally destroyed. But the fact is, they had actually physically threatened to murder him and his wife

. for simply trying to reveal the fact that they were smuggling cocaine and weapons. So this secret, the secret of the UFO technology and the fact that they exist, and the fact that we know they exist, is viewed as the deepest secret that our United States national security state is in possession of. And so the lengths to which they have gone in the past is one of the things they're most concerned about with this committee. That if in fact this records review board has the authority to get at ev

ery single document, every single email, every single internal memo that's ever been promulgated by any of these military agencies, they're going to discover the lethal lengths to which some of their operatives have been directed to go to keep this secret. And that is one of the things that they're terrified about. And it's one of the reasons why they're opposing this bill because they don't, they don't want that information revealed. So that is all a rather lengthy way of saying that you can't

tell what lengths they're willing to go to, to stop this information from coming out. because you're dealing with literally trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars of potential profits, private profits that can be made by these aerospace industries, you know, by having patents in control over the technology derived from the UFOs, which belongs to the United States, that belongs to the United States government. It actually belongs to the people of the world. It doesn't belong to some private f

or profit group that is going to try to hold monopoly control over this technology. And they have their own private security companies. These aerospace industries, they have their own private security forces. We've uncovered them in the Karen Silkwood case, for example. We discovered that the Georgia Power Corporation that was doing illegal surveillance against opponents of the private nuclear industry, that they had a group inside their public relations department called Risk Management. And al

l six of the men who were employed by them were political assassins, you know, from the Phoenix program in Southeast Asia. And, you know, we know who they are. We know their identities. We know what they did. You know, these are dangerous people. And it's the people in that same group that ended up killing Karen Silkwood. driving her off the highway and killing her simply because she was trying to deliver to the New York Times documents proving that the, the private nuclear facility, the Kerr-Mc

Gee nuclear facility in Cimarron, Oklahoma was actually smuggling 98% pure bomb grade plutonium to Israel and to Iran under the shah of Iran. And she was killed to keep that secret. You know, this is a dangerous group. And people need to be concerned. And that's why it's so important that we have a bill of the, of the power of the Schumer bill that provides the kind of protections to these, these potential whistleblowers that needs to be provided. So they will come forward and share the informat

ion with our elected representatives. That's what's necessary. Danny, I want to get Klaus in next. Klaus has lots of wonderful thoughts always on, on this topic and other areas of esoterica. So Klaus, What's your question for Danny today based on everything that we've been hearing so far? Hey, Danny, how's it going? Honored to talk to you. I really appreciate how much not just like UFO specific history, but just general, you know, like world history. You kind of provide context for all this stuf

f with. And one of the things that you talk about that I don't hear anyone else talking about, you mentioned it earlier, is the is the Japanese loot that was hidden in the Philippines that was looted by the OSS and basically used as a political slush fund for Truman. The story goes in the book Gold Warriors, which totally transformed my understanding of how our country came to be in the national security state right now. Basically, Truman decided to keep all that money hidden, and I guess they p

ut it around the world in different banks, and basically used it to overturn elections, or mess with foreign elections, and all sorts of stuff, and basically just fight communism at any cost. And I just wanted to know if you've read that book, Gold Warriors, and how much of it you put stock in and how much that might affect what we're seeing today. Strange you should ask that. I was one of the sources. You know, I knew all of those guys. I knew Bob Curtis and I knew all the guys. I was the one t

hat met with Bob Curtis and the others and talked with the authors about that while they were writing the book. You know, I ended up coming across that information because when I was at Jesuit headquarters, I was tasked to go to the Philippines to brief the top 50 business people in the Philippines about what the repercussions of global climate change might be on the island states. And in that context, I was put into touch with the president of the Senate of the Philippines. And he revealed to m

e that he and another very wealthy person had recovered one of the troves of treasure. There are 176 of them actually that were buried in the Philippines. And they've recovered just one of them that had $100 billion worth of gold, bullion, silver, platinum, and 50-gallon drums of precious jewels. I became at Jesuit headquarters thoroughly familiar with the entire history of that operation and how they recovered 12 troves of those treasures back in 1945. Ed Lansdale, who was the G2 for the U.S. A

rmy, tortured the driver of General Yakushima, who was the guy who ran the Golden Lily operation of the Japanese military to garner all that treasure and buried it in the Philippines when they thought we were going to be invading. So I know all about that. uh, and I'm perfectly cognizant of all of that. Uh, they have $1.2 trillion. That's in 1945, uh, value of gold at $32 an ounce. It's now something like $1,400 an ounce. And they've, they've got that. So they, they deposited that, that it, uh,

in the international credit bank in Geneva, Switzerland, underneath the supervision of this guy, Guyon. Uh, and then they transferred it later to the city bank. where some of the treasure is kept. And it was processed through the Nugent Hand Bank down in Australia. So I know all about that in great detail. And it shows the lengths to which there has developed an ultra-secret, self-funding, covert dimension of our government, which views not only Russia and China and any you know, flavor of the m

onth, you know, a group of people that they view to be our adversaries, you know, but they also include the people of the United States to be their adversaries because they don't want us knowing about things. They view the members of Congress as their adversaries. They view them as part-time employees of the government that come and go from office and therefore cannot be trusted with this kind of ultimate secret. And so they've gone to great lengths to prevent this from being done. And they have

great amounts of secret funds at their disposal. And they've been using them to say nothing about having generated the entire black budget in the Pentagon of hundreds of billions of dollars. that have no oversight by Congress at all. And Congress has acquiesced to that and it has to stop. You know, this, this moment where we have this Schumer rounds bill to put together a, a responsible board that is going to be extracting this information from the deep state and ascertaining what's been done t

o protect these secrets, what lengths they've gone to, to create a totally destabilizing technology, which they want to deploy on behalf of you know, establishing full spectrum dominance over the planet. You know, this is not a legitimate undertaking on the part of our constitutional government. And we need to take steps here. This is a first step toward remedying that in some large strategic way by having a board that can review this information, and determine what information needs to be made

available to the American public about this, and therefore to the world, but very importantly, at least, to the intelligence committees of our United States Congress. Jared, I want to get you in next. You've been very patient, as has everyone. Again, I really appreciate it. Many people, obviously, are interested in asking questions, so just keep them requested, and I'm going to just try to get to as many while we have time today. Jared, why don't you jump in with your question? Thank you, man. T

hank you so much. I'll throw that thanks right back at you. And thank you, Mr. Sheehan, for this space. My question, to be brief, is I had a spontaneous spiritual awakening that kind of led me down the path of human-initiated contact. I first discovered you, Mr. Sheehan, by listening to Mark Sims, who was with you at the time. And as you talk about learning more about NHI civilizations, I was wondering if you think human-initiated contact has a role within that process. Thanks so much. Oh, is th

at all? All right. Okay. Uh, look, the, the issue of human consciousness, uh, is at the core of this, uh, because that we share a common consciousness, you know, with extraterrestrial beings. They're a highly sentient, intelligent, uh, set of species. And they virtually certainly have access to the same kind of consciousness that we do, that is self-conscious, that is able to have what we refer to as metanoia type experiences, their numinous experiences. that enabled them to have access to remot

e information and knowledge as our human species is capable of through the remote viewing program that was undertaken at the Stanford Research Institute under Hal Puthoff in Russell Targ and the people. This issue of consciousness resides at the core of the mystery that has to do with the UFO phenomenon. I mean, I can, I can leave it at that. but it's also the opening onto our, our, our commonly shared, uh, consciousness with these beings. And that if we can get past all of the things that diffe

rentiate us in the same way that on our planet, you know, we, we have people that we differentiate ourselves by race, by gender, by age, by nationalities, you know, by, uh, by the climactic systems in which we, uh, we, uh, evolved, you know, we've got to try to overcome this. And what I'm saying is that this particular phenomenon, the UFO phenomenon presents an opportunity for us to actually come together as a unified human species. So let me get a drink here. Just one second. Take your time. Th

ere we go. And so that I think this, this issue of consciousness is key to the entire issue here. And it's, it's clear that, that, These crafts, some of these crafts are actually piloted and navigated through consciousness. The consciousness of the pilots interact with the ship itself to give it propulsion and navigation. And this has been a factor that's been one of the most challenging scientific questions that has been posed to these people who are trying to back engineer the technology. They

were unable to figure out how to access the consciousness that necessary to navigate the craft. Now, I don't know whether they hotwired that process and this, this, new super weapon that they've developed. This nuclear missile is capable of arriving at Russia or China within two minutes of launch. whether their guidance system is something much more prosaic or not. But I don't believe these are obviously not manned. This is not a manned craft, but they may, well, if they've punched into the tec

hnology of it to be able to provide it to a missile, they may have craft now that are capable of, of utilizing this propulsion navigation system. Uh, but I don't, I don't know what the issue is with regard to conquering the issue of consciousness. Uh, and again, it's the, the old, the old adage, uh, Sufi saying is that when a pickpocket meets a Saint, all he can see are his pockets. Uh, and therefore this, the military industrial complex, when they've encountered the UFO phenomenon, They instant

aneously decided they wanted to make weapons out of it, rather than the opening onto the extraordinary dimensions that are being offered to us as a human family. to move into an entire new epoch of our history, becoming a space-faring nation and becoming part of a larger galactic civilization of some sort. But this issue of consciousness is critical to it. And it's going to be the key to the evolution of the religious institutions on our planet to be able to accommodate this much larger perspect

ive, uh, in which we find ourselves. Uh, and as long as we can be assured of the similar levels of consciousness of these, uh, other species, uh, these extraterrestrial species and extra dimensional species, that then this is a source of solace for us all that we can all join together in a, a communion, a communion of sentient beings that can hopefully become peaceful. But we have to be able to achieve that on our planet among ourselves in order to qualify for participation in this. Otherwise, t

hey don't want us there. They don't want us coming out into space. you know, carrying with us this kind of warlike, dominating type of consciousness. So we have to transcend that consciousness and try to increase and strengthen the higher levels of consciousness of our human family. That's the task of the religious institutions. If we can reform them. If we can reform our systems of governance, if we can reform our systems of religion in economic practices, then I think we're going to qualify fo

r participation in this larger civilization that surrounds us. Joe, I know you have another question. I want you to jump in before we get to some more audience questions. What was what was picking on your brain? Danny, when you met with Lou at the IG, when Lou spoke about classified information, were you able to stay in the room? And if so, how does that work? Did you need a security clearance? Is it a lawyer-client privilege? I've never, I've never agreed to accept a classification clearance. I

was told by Bob Fink, who was the chief investigator for Congresswoman Bella Abzug back years ago when I was doing the Iran-Contra case, he said, look, given the network of sources that you have, you're able to find out virtually anything that you're trying to find out about. And so therefore you don't ever want to take a security clearance because they will then try to stop you from telling about anything you know about, uh, pretending that you got it because of your security clearance. So I'v

e never agreed to a security clearance. What the procedure was, and I'm not, it's not appropriate to go into great detail about it, mainly because I don't want to offend the people that we were working with. But the bottom line is when they had to discuss something that was classified, I guess they were being gentlemen about it. Rather than have me leave the room and be kind of rude, they all got up and left the room together and went into another room to discuss the classified stuff and then ca

me back into the room where I was. And I provided to them all kinds of information, which they thought was classified beforehand. And I made it a point to make it clear to them that it was not anything that I had gotten from Lou, but I was able to get this information and I was providing it to them, you know, complete with names and in phone numbers and contact information and people that they should be talking to in order to assure themselves that what Lou was telling them was true. So I was ab

le to confirm a lot of that. That's the reason, of course, why Lou retained me as his attorney. You know, it wasn't just any person that any lawyer had to pertain. You know, I was the, the attorney, the general counsel for the disclosure project for 20 years, uh, and was, had been working on this from the time I was at Jesuit headquarters back in 1977. I was John Mack's lawyer at Harvard when he got confronted by the faculty over his taking a position about the reality of the UFO phenomenon in e

xtraterrestrial life. I've been at this for 46 years now. I didn't need a security clearance and I've never agreed to accept one. Di, you're next. Thank you for joining us. I know it's a little later for you in Wales. What do you have for Danny today? Hi, can you hear me? Just fine. Well, first of all, thanks, Nick, Lester and Joe for hosting the space. And thank you, Danny and the New Paradigm Institute for taking the time to speak to us. I understand you're incredibly busy at the moment. My qu

estion, Danny, on the Engaging the Phenomenon podcast recently, you talked about a captive extraterrestrial person that was alive. Is that a situation ongoing or is it something from the past? And those familiar with the UFO law will be aware of the Victor, so-called Victor interview. Is it related to that? Because you said they were interrogated telepathically as well. Yeah. The particular first person account that I got of this, it was conveyed to me, I think probably as much as four years ago

, uh, uh, the person on his deathbed when he conveyed this to me and the details of it, uh, and he was recounting an event that took place years earlier, uh, when he was still active, uh, in Project Blue Book. And so in Project Blue Book went on until, you know, 69, I guess, you know, in that, that, but it was somewhere around then that he had this particular experience. Uh, and it was at S4, uh, where he, where he saw the, the, uh, extraterrestrial being, uh, and his commander actually engaged

in telepathic, uh, exchanges with the being, uh, in this man is the one who was refused to go, refused to go communicate with the being because he thought he was demonic. Uh, and, but he was reviewing the cards, the interview cards that, uh, were kept there. They, they showed those to him, uh, I'm assuming that this took place sometime in the mid to late 1960s. I don't know whether the being is still alive, is still being held, and I don't know. About that particular being Danny was it your impr

ession that that was a forced? Holding of that being or was it was there just not an effective means to send it home Like what was that arrangement? Was it actually imprisoned? Well, it wasn't it wasn't clear to him. All he knows is that he was brought he was brought to s4 But he went to area 51 first and they went over to s4 or they went down in the elevators down to below ground area He saw more than one extraterrestrial vehicle there. They were being shown this, his commander at Project Blue

Book was being shown that, the man that was in charge of the classified portions of Project Blue Book. And when he went to the place where the being was, the being was in a room. It looked almost like a skiff. It was, there was a door to it, it was a closed room and it had the two-way mirror. He could see through the wall, through the mirror, could see the being there. The being was just about as tall as his commander. He said he was somewhere around 5'10", 5'11". It wasn't a little three, three

and a half foot being, but it was a being with the large head and the large eyes. And he, they had clothes on him. like some kind of a jumpsuit that he had on and that he was communicating telepathically. He didn't, he didn't seem to be afraid. He was being cooperative and appeared to be friendly in his communications with his commander. He had been cooperative and was talking, was communicating telepathically with other people that were there in the program. who were the people who provided th

e cards, these, uh, these note cards, uh, that this man had been shown. Uh, and, uh, I don't know whether he was being, uh, the being was being held involuntarily or, but, but he was, he was cooperative, uh, and, and shared all that information that was, they, they had taken the notes on. Uh, I don't, I don't know what there, I know that there are, uh, all kinds of accounts as you all well know, of the beings to being able to pass through walls and to be able to do all kinds of things that we wo

uld consider to be magical. And it's possible that he could have left whenever he decided to do so. I don't know. Because the fellow that I was talking with did not offer any information on that. When you speak about this classified side of Blue Book, are there any histories of this or can you name any of these individuals who were part of that command structure separate out from the more public facing side of Blue Book? You know, there's been murmurings for decades and decades that you know, th

e public side of blue book was really just to filter certain interesting things up to the more clandestine side of the program. Um, is there just anything you can share about that that might not be in the public domain or any resources that you would push people towards if they wanted to learn more about that side that you're talking about? Well, I'm sure you're not going to find anything on it. I mean, uh, he, he related to me the names of not only the commander, but the base where they were op

erating from, the names of some of the field agents that he knew, and the time periods through which they were doing it. He conveyed all of that to me. He was reluctant at first to do that, but he was dying after all. And he had come to trust me. And he had contacted me because he knew that I was legal counsel for the Jesuit headquarters in their social ministry office. So it was sort of a, sort of a confessional setting in which he did it. Got it. It existed. And it was, it was completely class

ified. And, you know, they, they acknowledged in the report, the ultimate report that they had over 700 instances in which they uh, were unable to, to come up with any cockamamie story to explain away, uh, those 700 sightings, uh, because there were multiple credible witnesses to many of them. Uh, there were photographs of many of them. You know, I saw the photographs that were taken of a particular crash retrieval, uh, that was back in early 1977. when I was serving as special counsel to the, u

h, the congressional research service, uh, report that was being prepared for president Carter at his request. Uh, and so I've, I've seen the photographs that were classified. I was in the room with a whole room full of classified files. Uh, and, uh, and I got to talk with this fellow who was, uh, who was one of the, He was the principal administrator of the classified portions of Project Blue Book. He was there for a long period of years and was the primary administrative officer, or enlisted m

an, actually, of the classified portion of Project Blue Book. One imagines that that would be very interesting fodder for the UAPDA review board to get a hold of and release to the American public. No doubt about that. And I told Sean Kirkpatrick all about it, you know, when Sean asked me to come and talk with him. And so I spent, I don't know, almost two hours with Sean, you know, under oath, you know, providing all the information to them. I don't have any reason to suspect that they've done a

nything whatsoever to try to follow up on it. Electron Voodoo, hit us up. What's your question today? Thank you for joining us, by the way. Yes. Hello, everyone. First of all, great space to the host and all the speakers. Mr. Sheehan, in your opinion, what does catastrophic disclosure mean to you? And could you maybe also go over some constitutional ramifications? I love how your legal mind works. So if you maybe could talk about the constitutional ramifications of that. And then specifically re

garding the UAPDA, what legal precedent would the eminent domain set? And could you maybe discuss how or talk about how it is the same or different from the Patent Secrecy Act of 1952? Thank you very much. All right. Well, let's take it one piece at a time. It's clear that the term that is being used inside the legacy group, as they are referred to, who have been briefed in on this program, that one of the things that they view to be potentially catastrophic would be the revelation, as I mention

ed earlier in our talk, of the fact that they have undertaken lethal steps against people to silence them, to keep them from revealing this information, and that they're extraordinarily sensitive about that. Also, the fact that they are completely dedicated to the maintenance of what they refer to as the elements of power, uh, in our government that, uh, they believe that, uh, this information, uh, if it were revealed, uh, uh, sort of willy nilly, uh, to the public, uh, that it would, uh, it wou

ld have a devastating effect upon the geopolitical and economic, uh, and religious institutions. They, they believe that now that doesn't mean that they're expert on any of those things, but they just happen to think that that's true. And they view themselves as the safe guardians of those institutions and structures of power that has to do with the stock market, has been made direct reference to, the banking system, the currency systems of the planet, the geopolitical alliances that exist now.

They believe that they would be impacted in a way that would alter the power and the control of the people who are in positions of power and authority now. And they believe that since those are the people who are in part responsible for keeping all of this secret, they don't want to alter that. Also, there's been an expression saying that if in fact it were ever revealed what the depths were to which these people have gone to conceal this information, and to lie to the American people and to lie

to presidents and to secretaries of defense and joint chiefs of staff that were ever revealed the lengths to which they had gone, the complete confidence of the American people in the present structures of power would be destroyed. And that the people would believe that this was the granddaddy of all conspiracies. and that therefore the people would immediately start believing all of the most cockamamie conspiracy theories that actually abide in our culture. And therefore chaos would reign. Now

I should point out that I believe that this is just sort of the latest version of the oldest rationale in history for the elite to be remain in power, that they believe that if they're not in charge, making the decisions pertaining to everything, that somehow the great unwashed masses, who are completely incompetent and incapable, would run roughshod over the world, and there would be no order. There would be no law and order. there would be no economic system, there would be no system of gover

nance. You know, the threat of chaos is always uppermost in mind of those who are fixated on the idea of control, and more specifically, their control. And the problem is that the military intelligence agencies of our government view their mission in part to be to protect that element, to remain in power, because they believe that things are going pretty well pursuant to this present organized system of power. And they tend to ignore the repercussions of this. They tend to ignore the 10 million

people a year that die of starvation every year, tend to ignore the people who die of diseases that we've known the cure for for a hundred years. They ignore the tens of thousands of people that are killed and murdered during the invasion of the Middle Eastern oil fields by the United States military pursuant to a complete boldface lie you know, that was promulgated by the Bush Jr. administration and Dick Cheney and his people, you know, they don't view that as being within their pay grade to ac

tually second guess those types of decisions on the part of people of power. And so they view themselves as being the guardians of the present structures of power. And so they view any significant alteration in those structures of power to be a catastrophic impact. And they believe that the revelation of not only the lengths to which they've gone in the past to silence people about these secrets, but the actual revelation of the existence of the extraterrestrial civilization would so alter the p

resent geopolitical structures of power, that they have to exercise all of the discretionary authority that they believe they have the right to exercise, and the kind of lethal power that they believe that they've been uniquely delegated to exercise, that they are willing to exercise on behalf of the maintenance of these secrets. And that's the kind of catastrophic consequences that they believe would come to pass. Now, I pointed out before that this is the exact same kind of argument that was b

eing made by Whitney North Seymour, who was the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York back in 1971, when he was attempting to get the Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York to prohibit the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. He said that, you know, if any information is revealed in these papers, it could have absolutely catastrophic effect. It would irrevocably damage the national security of the United States. But he was refusing to te

ll, you know, the court even what that might be. He said that the court didn't have the adequate security clearances to be given the information and just relied upon the authority of the nation state, of the national security state specifically, to get the judicial branch to go along with them. Fortunately, we were successful in arguing in that case that they had no right to do that. And so we won that case. We got to publish all 47 volumes of the content of the Pentagon Papers. And no catastrop

hic results occurred, except of course, the fact is that it contributed significantly to the conclusion of the Vietnam War. And it basically revealed the depth of the lying and deception of Congress that went on, on the part of the National Security State and the Central Intelligence Agency specifically, you know, lying to Congress and lying to government officials about the facts as to why we sent 50,000 originally U.S. military troops in to allegedly respond to the Bay of Tonkin incident. you

know, which never happened. Uh, you know, that kind of thing. They, they view that I would assume is catastrophic of losing that ground war. Uh, I don't think the vast majority of the American citizens viewed that as catastrophic, uh, as sad as it was, uh, the loss of life on all sides of that case. So, so the, the view of the national security state people as to what is catastrophic and what isn't is not really to be given the authority to make that decision. That's a decision that needs to be

made by Congress. It's a decision that needs to be made by the intelligence committees of Congress. That is why the Schumer-Rounds bill is designed to put the information into the hands of our intelligence committees so that they can make these decisions independent of the defense department and independent of the intelligence communities. decision-making, because their tasks are different. Their mission assignments are different. And the Congress is responsible for making much broader policy, f

or example, about what our relationship should be. with the extraterrestrial civilization that is represented by these crafts and by these entities that are coming and going from our planet. This decision-making needs to be put into the hands of our elected representatives. And these elected representatives will in turn decide what information needs to be, ought to be revealed to the American voting public to enable us to weigh in on what the policy decisions are that should be made by our elect

ed representatives. That's what is so fundamentally unconstitutional about it, which gets to the second part of your question. What's the constitutional problem here? And that is, is that the elected representatives of our citizenry are being lied to and are being deprived of the information that they need to have to make some of the most profoundly important decisions that affect not only our citizens, but the citizens of the entire world. pertaining to this all important issue of our relations

hip with an entire extraterrestrial civilization. That is the most profoundly unconstitutional act on the part of the national security state that one can imagine. Now, moreover, we have seen, for example, the Central Intelligence Agency's operations directorate take on to themselves the authority to believe that they can engage in criminal covert operations, you know, assassinating people around the world, ousting elected governments in power, for example, in Australia and other places that the

y've unseated people. The overthrowing of the elected government in Iran, of Mosaddegh back in 1954, the assassination of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. They've done this, the assassination of Patricia Lumumba in Africa. They've done this repeatedly. And the fact is that the Congress has not yet taken the kind of aggressive stand that it needs to take to stop them from doing this. So this is all part of this Schumer bill, is to try to establish a fact-finding body. that can determine to wha

t lengths this deep national security state infrastructure has gone to, to preserve the present elite power structures in our country and on our planet, and what type of adjustment might need to be made in that structure, in order to integrate ourselves into the galactic civilization that's here, that we have a system of injustices. The Jesuit order refers to these as the structural sources of injustice. And when I When I was recruited to go to the Jesuit headquarters and become their general co

unsel in their social ministry office and help co-direct the policies of the Jesuit order, the largest single order in the largest single denomination, religious denomination, Western civilization, you know, I found myself to be in a situation where I had to get access to important pieces of information that other people didn't have. And I had the benefit of having access to not only hundreds and hundreds of Jesuit priests throughout the world that were in diplomatic positions and others, but I

had access to the intelligence community people that I had encountered when I was one of the three trial attorneys in F. Lee Bailey's office. We had an independent private investigation firm of 40 class A licensed private professional investigators, many of whom had direct criminal investigative history in the military, in that these people themselves have become completely disenchanted with some of the things that they saw the national security state engaged in. And they saw our office as an op

portunity to to come forward and provide information to us that would help us attempt to amend some of these unjust structures in governance and in covert operations around the world. And that is the mission that I continue to be on. Even though after 10 years of serving in that position at Washington headquarters, you know, that Sarah Nelson and I met each other during the Karen Silkwood case and decided to marry and have children, and the Catholic Church wasn't willing to have priests that wer

e married. and had children. So we've set up the Christic Institute, a separate 501c3 public interest organization that represented, in a sense, all 54 of the major religious denominations in the United States. And we conducted the kind of cases that you all heard about. of the Karen Silkwood case and the Iran-Contra case and the prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi party down in Greensboro, North Carolina, that gunned down labor organizers that were trying to organize a chapter of th

e amalgamated clothing and textile workers and the textile unions. We've done this over a 50 year period. This is the, the ultimate case that we are working on now. And we've established the New Paradigm Institute to focus exclusively on this issue of the UFO secrecy and our relationship with this extraterrestrial civilization, and that we intend to do everything in our power to help inform the American people, to educate the American people, and to mobilize the American people to exercise our c

onstitutional responsibility to take charge of our government. and to prevent our government from generating and deploying this absolutely horrendous weapons system using the UFO technology to attempt to totally destabilize the entire global order. We can't allow this to happen. And so I think that the exercise of eminent domain on the part of our government through the exercise of power by our Congress to take control of this technology, to prohibit the use of this technology, period. And to in

itiate the process of establishing a global treaty, which prohibits the use of any of the UFO technology to develop any weapons system whatsoever. And to begin to open a dialogue with an extraterrestrial civilization where we can have a peaceful, prosperous, and mutually beneficial relationship. That's what we're doing at the New Paradigm Institute. And we're asking everybody to join with us and come to the newparadigminstitute.org. Get the names and the addresses, the email addresses of all of

your congressional representatives and senators and get them to demand in a flurry of citizen action here to, to stop them from gutting the Schumer bill and to get the Schumer bill put as written into the National Defense Authorization Act of 2024. That's what we're here for. That's why we've come together this afternoon to discuss this. Danny, it's so appreciated. Do you have time to maybe hit just a couple more? I know you've gone way over, but I've got someone queued up and then I have a ques

tion and I, you know, I don't want to make you a horse for the next several days, but if we could get to maybe a couple more. Sure, let's do it. Oh, I love it. Thank you, man. Unfortunately, human, you've been really patient. Pikachu, go for it. You're on. Awesome. Thanks so much for having me on. Thanks, everybody, for putting this on. So I just have a question. And maybe it's my civics that's a little rusty, but I guess I find it very difficult to understand how kind of a smaller group of hous

e members have such power to push back on the UAP Disclosure Act. I know that they like, you know, Mike Turner and such is on committee, but I guess I struggle to see, since we have so much bipartisan support on this bill, that they've managed to you know, have such power on pushing it back. So maybe you can go in and explain how that is. And if in the chance this happens to not get included in the NDAA, since we do have bipartisan support largely for this bill, is there a chance that it just ge

ts brought to the floor and voted on by everybody to hopefully get it passed? If it does, you know, since the you know, the, the numbers are so slim now in terms of majority. And if we do have bipartisan support, could, could it just be passed on its own? Thank you. Okay. That's a great question. You know, the, the reality is that the, uh, over the years, uh, as has developed in the Congress, uh, you know, it wasn't, it wasn't contemplated by the founders of our constitution, the 1789. that poli

tical parties would arise. There was some discussion of it on the part of the people in the Federalist Papers, and they were hoping that political parties or factions as they referred to them would not arise, but they have. And in the Congress, they have organized themselves as kind of a self-organizing body that was created by Article One of the Constitution of 1789. They organized themselves into establishing certain procedural rules to increase the efficiency of their functioning. And what th

ey've done over the years is they have, in addition to authorizing whichever of the political parties has the majority of seats in the House and, or in the Senate, to be able to unilaterally determine who the chairs are of the different committees that they've put together. The reigning political party, has the authority to designate who those chairs are. And the caucuses of the two major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, they have caucuses in each of the House an

d the Senate. And what they do is they, they have agreed to delegate to the chairpersons of each of these committees, the authority to assert discipline over the members of their political party who have been given a seat by the chair and selected by the chair to serve on that committee. And the, the chair of the committee has been delegated power from the caucuses of those two political parties to exercise discipline and to, for example, choose in the next term of the Congress, who's going to b

e on the committee. So they can oust people in effect, from those committees. The chair can make that decision in the next term of Congress. And that they can also determine the size of the staff that they're going to have in the kind of budget that they're going to be given. And that they exercise these kind of more prosaic instruments of power. uh, to assert discipline over their members. So it's, it's quite rare to see a, uh, an individual person, uh, in one of those committees or go against

the wishes of the chair, uh, of the committee, uh, that you might guess is, is your question implies that, you know, if you have on a committee, uh, say for example, in the, in the Senate intelligence committee in the house or in the Senate, whether you have 17 members, You know, and I think you have like, I think it's like nine members that are Democrats and like eight that are Republicans. They try to establish a comparative balance between the two political parties in those committees. But th

e chair is the one who basically instructs his or her party members on that committee as to how to vote. And if in fact any one of them doesn't want to vote the way the chair does, they then have long discussions about how to come up with some sort of a compromise if necessary. But ultimately the chair will exercise authority over that. And so what we've got is we've got the two chairs, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Turner, and the chair of the House Armed Services Committe

e, the Republican, you know, Mike Rogers, you know, who are dependent upon the aerospace industry in their districts to provide the financial support for their campaigns, ordering the people in their community to vote against this bill. And so what we're trying to do is we're trying to figure out how to muscle up those clear majorities inside both the House Armed Services Committee and inside the House Intelligence Committee to fend off the exercise of power on the part of Mike Turner in the Int

elligence Committee and on the part of Mike Rogers in the Armed Services Committee to fend off their exercise of power to basically have a bit of a mutiny, if you will, inside those committees and say, no, we believe that this bill is so important and the service that it provides to this important area of public policy to be so important. that we as a group are going to refuse to accept your command that we vote against the bill or that we gut the bill by taking out its eminent domain power and

its subpoena power and substitute for the independent, presidentially appointed board, the Arrow Office, which the whistleblowers don't trust because it's under the control of the defense department and the intelligence agencies who are the ones keeping secret this information. so that we're trying to instigate this constitutionally supported insurrection. uh, inside, uh, these, these committees in the house, uh, the, on the Senate side, we have a virtually uniform support except for, uh, for Mi

tch McConnell. Uh, and he's recruited this one other guy, uh, this Roger Wicker, uh, from the state of Mississippi, you know, both the Republicans and the minority over there, uh, who are opposing it inside the Senate. and that we're trying to mobilize both the Republicans and Democrats in a completely bipartisan manner to stand up against the minority leader in the Senate and to protect the Republicans against any retaliation on the part of Mitch McConnell, who as the minority leader, of the Re

publican party in the Senate has, again, these institutional powers in which he can enforce discipline on the Republican members of the Senate. And what we have to do is try to garner such support that Mitch McConnell can't pick off individual senators and punish them individually. and that Mike Turner and Mike Rogers over on the House side can't pick off individual members of their committees and punish them for not accepting the order of their chair. And so if there's enough of them inside eac

h of those committees, enough of them inside the Senate, in the Republican party to push back against the assertion of arbitrary and capricious power on the part of those leaders, we can get this bill through. We definitely have the overwhelming majority of votes to get the bill passed. And the effort on the part of the aerospace industry, in conjunction with the deep state, national security state people inside, for example, the operations directorate of the Central Intelligence Agency, you kno

w, in this global access program that they have going, if we can, if we can protect those elected representatives, not only against the threats of having someone come to their home and drag their wife out of bed and put a gun in their mouth, I can tell you, you know, but also to protect them, you know, of having the aerospace industry withdraw any funding from them in the future and undermine their chances of winning. But this is what we need to do. We need to provide affirmative support for all

of these members of the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, to give them the courage to stave off the attempt to assert power on the part of these two chairmen over on the House side and Mitch McConnell. And they've now recruited this fellow, Mike Johnson, this newborn member who was the, the, the temporary, at least speaker of the house, you know, who basically does nothing but just take instructions, you know, from, from the Republican caucus. You know, he's, he's, we, we've go

t to go around these people and, and get them to vote for this bill. Now, the second part of your question is what if they don't? What if they can't get them to do that? Can't they put the bill up on the floor as a separate piece of legislation and get it passed? The answer would probably be no, because you'd run into the exact same assertion of power on the part of these chairpersons in Mitch McConnell. So we've got to, this is the single test of whether they're going to be able to get this bil

l passed or not and get it put into the National Defense Authorization Act. So all of the dye has been cast on this bill right now. And we have just about 10 days left within which to mobilize the citizenry of our country. So everybody should reach out to every single outlet that you have at your disposal to mobilize the people. to go to the website at newparadigminstitute.org, find the email address there in the identity of your congressional representatives and your senators, and get the commu

nication to them that you demand that the Schumer rounds bill be put into the National Defense Authorization Act as written. Because if we don't get it now, you know, we're not going to be able to get it through some alternative plan B. Danny, I want you to have some energy left for this fight, but I want to see if we can maybe get to just a few more folks who have been really patient before we let you go and really emphasize on lightning round. And Nick, I actually have to interject here becaus

e I have other obligations that I have to address within the next half an hour. And Danny is interfacing through the space on my MacBook through my phone. Do you think we can get to one more quick one then? Yeah, we have enough time for one more, and then, unfortunately, we'll have to wrap up the space. And then let's do this again sometime, Danny, because people are really enthusiastic to be able to speak with you like this. And again, it's so appreciated. Sometimes these spaces do go for 24 ho

urs. We don't want to do that today, but I think if you can come back for another time, we'll have plenty of more questions for you. Darcy, you've been very patient along with so many other folks. I think we're going to make this the last one, if you can be quick, and then we will hopefully revisit this. Absolutely, yeah. Thanks, Nick, Joe, Lester, amazing space. I think everybody needed to hear this. And, you know, really quick, I just wanted to say, Danny, I've spoken to you in the past. I int

erviewed you a while back about sort of the infighting that was going on in the UFO community with some of the thought leaders out there. My question for you, though, just like on this topic, Where do you see major obstacles that could arise? We're very hopeful that the UAPDA could go through as is, but in terms of disclosure, where do you think things could hinder that progress. We've got conflicts going on in the world, two wars actively right now. We've got economic issues in the United State

s with the debt ceiling constantly being hit. Do you see any of these macroeconomic situations hindering disclosure and stopping any of this progress in its tracks. And if you could list sort of like one, two, three, what you think real obstacles are and, you know, how you might overcome them. Thank you so much. Okay. No, I appreciate the question. There's no doubt at all that the exigencies of the moment are constantly directly in the face of members of Congress. And of course, the executive br

anch and the president's office having to deal with these you know, they're, they're struggling mightily right now to get the budget approved. And, you know, they're the threats to, you know, close the government down. Still, they postponed it until January 19th. They've at least got it past the holidays. Uh, uh, and I think that the, the, uh, the efforts to get this bill passed might be extended beyond December 21st of where we thought the, the, uh, vote was going to be held on this because it'

s part and parcel of the budget. As you know, the national defense budget, you know, constitutes like, you know, 60% or more of the national budget. So this effort to get the debt ceiling lifted and to get the budget approved, the National Defense Authorization Act hinges completely upon getting the budget approved. so that we have a little bit more time. But there's not much doubt in anybody's mind that has a political IQ above room temperature that they're going to approve the budget, you know

, in that the group of people who have ousted McCarthy from the speakership and have put in Johnson temporarily, you know, are going to end up yielding. You know, just like Tommy Tupperville, you know, was given in finally on agreeing to allow the promotions to go through, which he was holding up. You know, the fact is they're going to yield and they're not going to get these kind of massive cuts to the social spending. in the budget that they want are threatening to close down the government. T

he leadership of the political parties are not going to allow that to happen. They're going to do whatever it is they have to do to get the budget approved. And therefore, that's going to be a temporary problem. Most of the implications would be that it might extend the period within which we have to mobilize the citizenry that would move from just December 21st up to January 19th, giving us an additional month almost to work with. But we can't depend upon that. Now, the issues, as you can tell,

the issues of the funding of not only the war in the Ukraine, but now the war in the Middle East, you'll see that the two things are being hinged together that you've seen in that some of the reactionary Republicans are opposing any unbridled continued funding of the Ukraine war. And they're going to be exercising their power. They're going to lose, they're going to lose the ability to shut down the government. And they're going to lose the ability to prohibit the funding of the Ukraine as well

. And so that, that's a temporary problem. The war itself is a significant problem, but you know, everybody's pretty well resolved now, at least on the part of NATO. that if Putin will step back and agree to take charge of just those handful of provinces that are along the westernmost border of Russia, the Russian speaking provinces that have already held an actual legitimate plebiscite and have voted to stay in relationship with Russia, that that's what's going to happen. There's going to be a

settlement in which Russia can continue to exercise its authority with regard to those, I think, five provinces. And then the United States is going to refuse to supply military equipment to Western Ukraine. to get them to accept the relinquishment of those Russian speaking provinces there, which of course include the protection of the Russian submarine base, you know, that they have to protect. It's got the only warm water port there in those provinces. That's how that's going to get resolved.

That's going to take some time to have that And then we have to deal, they're going to have to deal with the issue of the Israeli conflict now with Gaza, with the Palestinian people. That's going to take some time, but all of those are going to get resolved. But in the meantime, people may be using the excuse of saying, oh, we have to get these other things thoroughly finished and resolved before we can possibly turn our attention to something as important as this. That's not true at all. Again,

that's the purpose of the Schumer bill is to set up a standing committee, you know, a panel, a board of people for seven years to be able to construct a controlled disclosure campaign to roll this information out. And then what we're going to have to do is put up onto the agenda of that board, their recommendation of having President Biden go forward to propose a treaty. to prohibit the use of any of these technologies garnered from the UFOs for weapons purposes. Now, he's going to probably be

reluctant to try to reach out to try to bring Putin on board such a treaty while we're in active hot warfare with him through the proxies that are going on now in the Ukraine. So that's going to delay that process, but we have to get at that fairly quickly, because the longer that these aerospace industries have to finalize the testing of this new super weapon, the prompt global strike weapon system that they're working on, that we've got to stand that down as soon as possible and put that on th

e negotiating table saying, look, we're willing to lay down this weapon and to refuse to go any further in its deployment or development, but we want to have a treaty with Russia and China, whom we know have also recovered Kraft. and are also working diligently at trying to figure out how to back engineer them. We need to have a treaty to do this, and we need to include the other hypersonic missiles like China has. We've got to get this all brought under a new treaty. I believe that we're going

to be able to do that, but it's going to take a little bit of time. I don't think that the argument about the Ukraine war or the Middle Eastern war is a legitimate grounds for not passing this bill and putting it into operation. In fact, it's a strong argument on behalf of putting this board in place that can be doing this. while the rest of the executive branch is distracted with having to deal with these other major global issues. Because this is going to take some time. There's an entire one-

year period during which the gathering of this information is going to be put together, the development of the the disclosure, controlled disclosure campaign plan. All of this is going to take a year or more. And so they need to delegate this to this particular board and therefore get it off the table of the executive branch having to deal with this daily. by putting an adequate board together to deal with it. So I don't think they're going to be successful in making those arguments that these o

ther major issues, such as getting the budget approved, getting the Ukraine war resolved, and getting the Middle Eastern war resolved, even though that Palestinian-Arab-Israeli issue has been going on for decades now, I think we can get into at least a state of quiescence to the point where this issue is going to be coming forward in 2005, is going to be not completely overshadowed by those other problems. And that's going to be the last question for the evening. And I would like to thank all of

you for being with us tonight on our LiveX space with Daniel Sheehan, the president of the New Paradigm Institute. And we encourage all of you to participate in our Call to Action campaign. by visiting our website, newparadigminstitute.org. And on that site, you can access our Take Action form, where you can provide some basic information and directly send a well-crafted message to your representatives advocating for the UAP Disclosure Act. Tyler, Danny, thank you so much for letting us hose yo

ur evening. It's so appreciated. We hope we can get you guys back and do this again. I'm going to actually keep the space going for a little bit. Maybe we can, we have some continued discussion, but guys, feel free to break off. And again, let's follow up. Thank you so much. And Danny, it's just been such a pleasure to be able to follow you over all these years. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, gang. It's all been just building up to this moment. All of these previous cases have just

been dress rehearsal, actually, for this one. This is the big one that we all have to mobilize around. I totally get you. And I think a lot of us feel that passion towards this. So thank you so much for joining us. We'll talk soon. Bye-bye. And also, Nick, thank you so much for hosting The Space. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Lester. Thank you, everybody who tuned in. It's been an incredible conversation, and we will definitely have Danny on again when he's available. Thanks, guys. So appreciated.

Well, folks, I know that I need to go downstairs and get myself a beer at this point, because it's definitely that time of the evening, Joe. I might have to take off soon. That's that's cool. Thank you so much. You know, guys that we could have gone 24 hours and put some of these Twitter spaces to shame that try to do that. You know, sorry that we weren't able to get to everyone. Some folks had their hands up from like minute one and just it was just too many people. And there was also some oth

er folks that just definitely wanted to bring in. So thank you for bearing with me. I did the best I could. Obviously, having a succinct back and forth with Daniel Sheehan is not something most people have demonstrated the ability to pull off. I tried my best. Yeah, it's really hard because Twitter sucks as far as telling you who put their hand up first So it's like you don't keep ridiculous. You need one person just to keep track of that for you. So yeah, sorry We didn't get to people just have

been ridiculous that they just haven't invested in spaces people obviously love using it as a platform it's cool, but It just needs, you know, tell Elon to like actually spend a few dollars instead of just yanking dollars out of every one of his departments. There's some great folks who have been on the call. Richard, I see you there. Richard Dolan is with us. I saw Matt Pines on. He's still on. If any of you folks want to jump in, you know, have some conversation around that interaction we jus

t had for three hours with Danny. My beer is almost at the ready. You're more than welcome to request and I'll get you up here. By the way, can you still hear me? Yep. Yep. Yep. Mike Rogers is not the congressman for Huntsville. It's Dale. Strong, so that was one correction there. And as far as I know, and I'll pull this up later, Danny did say that. Radiance got a $4 billion contract. He doesn't remember it, but I believe he said it. I'll put something out on that later. That was it. He has bee

n very skeptical about Schumer rounds in the past. But I think at this point, you get to a point where, all right, they're about to vote. I need to change gears here and do what I can to help get a pass. He probably still has the same issues. But at this point, it's kind of irrelevant to be bringing up your issues when they're about to vote. I would think that's how we would answer. You know, the other thing I'll bring up, just one of the, I have so many things we can probably get into and speak

about, but one of the things, you know, prompt a global strike is essentially a capability that's been a goal, I think for many, many years now, as far as our arsenal, both on the conventional and nuclear side. It's not a phrase that's specific to UAP reverse engineering programs necessarily. It's the kind of program one could imagine all sorts of IRAD money, et cetera, et cetera, is available in. Um, you know, you could see how it would maybe be the type of structure in which a clandestine, yo

u know, not necessarily properly budgeted UAP exploitation program was kind of buried in. Maybe, you know, it's interesting. We're talking about a company called Radiance and not companies called Lockheed Martin, et cetera, et cetera. And it would be, you know, it's interesting. Radiance is a hundred percent employee owned, right? That's like a weird thing. Aren't we talking about these mega villainous corporations of hundreds of thousands of employees and we've got this relatively small defense

contractor is the place where this is? Their website seems to indicate more fairly conventional hypersonic programs. Again, could you imagine that that's where some stuff would be hiding? Yeah. There's a lot of companies working on actual hypersonics using, you know, various scramjet approaches, etc. There's tons going into that. It really seems, based on the more publicly available data, that one of Lockheed's more advanced programs around that is this quote-unquote SR-72, which seems to be po

tentially operational in a limited capacity at this point. It's certainly not capable of right angles. That's antithetical to how most hypersonic platforms function, but you go to Radiance's website and it's speaking about I wouldn't call them conventional hypersonic platforms because it's it's very cutting edge stuff, but it's not UFOs. And so, you know, they would have to be kind of misrepresenting what their actual focus is or at least a focus. Right. You know, why would they end up with this

stuff? Just because Stratton and some other connected folks were once in the UAP task force. Like, how would that necessarily give them access to materials? There's a lot of questions to go into there. You know, I think it's all interesting. No, good questions. Then there's one more thing. He did bring up, and I was happy he brought it up, he said, Republicans can stand up and help stop this if they want. And Democrats can speak up too, because a week ago, Adam Smith, who's the top Democrat on

the House Armed Services Committee, as reported by NewsNation, he was asked about this. And he's like, it's not his main priority. So I don't think it's their main priority for the most part. vote for it, but I don't think they're voting for the NDAA because Schumer rounds is in there. And those people really need to speak up. I've talked about it on Twitter a lot. He's spoken about the Republicans, but the Democrats could speak up too, especially in the house. They could make waves. They could

say, listen, I am not voting for this unless Schumer rounds is in there in full or or without imminent domain if that's a big holds up for some folks but so far we haven't seen that so it'll I'm very curious to see if that does happen and if they do extend the deadline I know Dean Johnson says once it gets into the the Conference report it's basically over even if the vote hasn't happened yet. They don't change that conference report very often So yeah I don't know what's gonna happen shutting d

own the NDAA when you're in the Democrats position does not seem all that likely to me if the Republicans are going to be on board and you're already at a minority and you know, you would need so many of the Democrats to support something like that. No, you're right. It's gotta be Republicans. But you're right that just the political airing of it more publicly like Schumer did do yesterday. We saw a couple other tweets from folks. I think Garcia in the house, you know, he's, he's like the one ho

use Democrat, you know, tweeting about this shit. Even even well, Moskowitz, I guess too. Moskowitz too. Yeah. But it's like, it's the two of them. It's not enough. It's ironic that it's two of them and then a bunch of like, just to put a name on it, like the kind of ultra magas or, you know, some of those types of influences or at least the more destabilizing influences in terms of like the Republican control of the house structure itself. You know, you've got Birchett, Mace, Luna, Gates, like

these are four of the eight Republicans who kind of put Mike Johnson in charge. Also kind of indicates that those guys you know, despite being 50% of what got Mike Johnson, his current job aren't necessarily as influential with him as, you know, say Birch had implied at one point, or you would think that they would have a decent amount to pull if they wanted to just from the Republican side of things. That's the key word right there. If they wanted to, they, as far as I can tell, they don't care

about this. You know it would be nice if they all supported this they don't support this maybe one day they will maybe if they get briefed and you're like you know what. This is potentially the most important story in our history we need to hold up the NDA. Do you think it's just they don't think it's real they're having their own logical shock and they think that's part of it pushing it away they don't want to know what the fuck is going on with the UFOs like. It's either they don't want to kn

ow or they don't believe it. And I think that's the same with everybody, my family and friends. They don't even comment on it anymore. Once it got into craft and bodies, I spoke with somebody like a month ago, two months ago in the summer, an older couple who was visiting my complex in the pool. And I was talking about UFOs and the guy was like, yeah, I've always believed that his wife, in their mid sixties, they were cool with it. And then when I said, and now there's David Grush, who's talking

about non-human intact craft, and non-human bodies. And she said, now you're starting to scare me. It's like we crossed that line and it's like, I don't want to hear this anymore. I don't know if it's subconscious or on a conscious level, but yeah. I mean, haven't we been talking about this shit for 80 years? We have, but most people have not. And they still want to talk about sports and I love sports, but they'd rather talk about this, that, than this. Because I think at some level they realiz

e this is going to change a lot of how our lives are eventually. I don't know when that point will come. Maybe it's a hundred years from now? I don't know. But eventually it's going to, especially if the proof is there and then all of a sudden they show up and like, yeah, we're here. What are you going to do about it? I don't know if that's going to happen, but yeah, I don't know. As far as Congress, I don't know. It's like, you know, you see all this briefings are going on and you got the top R

epublican, you got the top Democrat and it's like, everybody else is like, eh, eh, who cares? What the heck non-human intelligence 22 times. So what? It's so weird because, you know, the idea in the American public just broadly that there's a real possibility that beings from somewhere else, we may have thought they were on Mars or Venus or whatever, but that idea was much more mainstream in many ways in like the 1950s and 60s than it is today. Like, I wonder if that's just because of so many de

cades of like the science fiction occasion of this topic and UFOs for so many are like just an area within fiction. And so to break it back out to like a possible thing in their real world, quote unquote, is just much harder now than when we still didn't even know if there were whole like cities on Mars potentially. And so like when that was in your possibility space as a public, I mean, people were ready to welcome the Martians, practically. And there was a lot of public talk of beings visiting

Earth from somewhere else. And now it's like, no one wants to hear it. And I think that's partially why keeping it to UAP is sometimes useful and not getting into all the other stuff, especially when you're trying to read people in and get them even a little interested. I don't know. Mack and Hines, what do you think about this whole conversation that we just had for three plus hours with Danny and everything that was said, everything that wasn't said, everything we didn't get to your thoughts?

What's what's top of mind for you, man? Yeah, and it was a great space and really got he got a lot of Danny, you know, sometimes it's hard to it's hard to it's hard to stop him once you get him going. But that was great. Great discussion covered a lot. I definitely wanted to drill down on the Radiance prompt global strike piece of this, because I think that explicates kind of almost like an implicit, maybe increasingly explicit division in the policy objectives behind folks pushing for disclosu

re, because he referenced a specific capability parameter, two minutes from launch to strike, which is vastly different than I think even what folks in the military would describe as being the performance envelope for the envisioned hypersonic systems, which is maybe an hour-ish. He's really making the very specific claim that they have applied really next-generation or beyond next-generation physics knowledge into developing these weapon system delivery capabilities. there might be folks inside

the US government, inside the Senate, that might view the disclosure or the undermining of that national capability to be, you know, a major negative, even if they're pro-disclosure on the non-human intelligence piece. And so I think potentially, you know, conjoining those two things, and as well as conjoining the specific sort of global policy proposal around a arms treaty restricting global access and development of weapons based on these technologies. It's an ambitious, perhaps laudable poli

cy objective, but that to the ear of the Senate Armed Services Committee or the House Armed Services Committee might be seen, especially in the current geopolitical context, as tying America's hands behind its back while our adversaries continue to develop at pace. And this, of course, you know, if you look at the Senate's own language when they wrote the FY 23 and now the FY 24 bill, like there was an explicit reference to the possibility of strategic technology surprise by foreign adversaries,

sort of motivating some of this. So I know there is this risk of a sort of an arms race dynamic, sort of chasing, chasing this. Can I throw like a monkey wrench into this? Just from, just from like a, let's, let's put the possibility out there. I'm a believer in that. This topic is so easy, if you wanted to. And again, I'll constantly joke that Susan Goff is like the easiest job at the Pentagon to fuck with the UFO people. Like, did I even pay her for that? Like, does it even have to involve an

yone doing anything at this point? Is it completely just a feedback loop that developed decades ago? But is it a possibility that someone is feeding ideas about recovered alien technology and radiance as a red herring? Could that be PSYOP to cover more conventional hypersonic programs? Like, you know, could that be? I mean, there's so many reasons someone could expose that scenario for other reasons, right? And you were right to push on that specific sourcing, because I think that that that's th

e nub of that question, because it's such a specific allegation. And he brought it up and he explicitly described how he is using it as a as a essentially a point of leverage in the in the overall negotiation that this public threat that I will disclose more information about these programs unless you compromise or capitulate in this bargaining. It makes the source of that and the credence we ascribe to it could have essential to what we think is the coherence of that bargaining strategy. If it'

s actually just disinformation or a slap, then that bargaining strategy is going to be, that bluff is going to be called. It matters a lot to the extent that we ascribe credence to that particular claim, as to whether the leverage is there or it isn't there. And of course, Danny, in his long history, has had the goods before. But in these claims, right, like this is, you know, these claims, I think, are extremely important to try to drill into. It's weird. It's like, you know, when if you take f

or granted, like I do, that UAP are perfectly real and just as fucking weird as everyone says they are. You know, and I have my own reasons for feeling that way. You know, the possibilities of what's being done and what could have gotten into someone's hands. It's like, yeah, it's totally possible. Like, I do get it. It's just it seems so right for for disinfo. And the other thing, you know, I was wondering while he was talking about delivering a nuke with UFO tech. is like, aren't you a little

beyond the nukes when you're delivering them with something that makes nukes itself look like a total joke? Are you worried that the thing that delivered the nuke that makes nukes look like a joke, when you set it off with a nuke and whatever, maybe could lead to some bad things happening? It just seems like a strange kind of way you might use UAP tech. I get it. I could see how someone would like to be in the position of saying, we actually can own you. And MAD is busted, and it's because we ow

n it now. And sorry, folks. And that seems very destabilizing, like Danny said. MAD's at least not nuked to the world for a lot of decades. It might be crazy, we might want to get rid of our nuclear weapons or whatever, but I don't know. It just seems like a weird thing. You would almost want to say you could take out other people's missiles, not even necessarily as a delivery system, but as a defense system and say, you can't nuke us anymore. That's how I would flex that technology if I was try

ing to build a capability around it. you know, not necessarily to create a totally, utterly destabilizing situation by being like, we can just kill anyone at any time. I don't know. I mean, the current, the current sort of development of like nuclear force posture and strategic doctrine is actually quite, it's undergoing, you know, quite a radical shift with China's, you know, rapid advance and development of both the number as well as the capabilities of their nuclear arsenal, as well as sort o

f a shift in their doctrine that envisages potentially using ICBMs as a conventional strike, right? So if they want to interrupt our mobilization domestically, they might decide to just conventionally tip one of their ICBMs. Of course, we wouldn't know that it's conventionally tipped until it hits. So that's introducing a lot of uncertainty into the sort of traditional mutually shared destruction kind of launch on sort of counter-strike doctrine. Um, as well as the fact that just the overall num

bers between Russia and China are starting to like reach parity with the U S. So there's a, there's quite a big, like, you know, talk in the strategic deterrence sort of world about sort of instability emerging in that framework, which has held for, for many decades. So they did have like cavalierly deploying a capability like this where adversary, you know, recognizes that they potentially are vulnerable to, um, a first strike that would be fundamentally destabilizing for the past, you know, 60

plus years of strategic doctrine. And I think that's, that's well recognized and understood as being a potential issue. Um, you know, whether it's a two minute or, or, or, or one hour, I mean, ICBMs are very hard to stop regardless. Um, so I don't think that's a capability of fundamentally changes the strategic, um, dynamics, which are already unstable. Um, so yeah, I know that that's a little bit of a sidebar, but like, I don't know, it's important because he's sort of holding it out as this,

you know, point of leverage in the, in the overall kind of high stakes, you know, negotiation that's currently underway over, over there, over the, um, over the bill. So I think it matters, like, well, what else does he have up his sleeve that he's sort of dangling this global strike revelation as sort of the tip of the iceberg for? So I don't know. Those are my thoughts. Happy to pass the baton to, I'm sure others have have conversation on this. Yeah, I'm going to bring some other folks in. Aga

in, if anyone else would like to speak who's on, but who's just listening, you're more than welcome to request. Again, they just make it impossible to really, really pay attention. So I'm having to sort of like, just use this gestalt looking at all of the icons and try to figure out which one has changed a little bit. But Ulrich, I wanted to bring you in, man. What's your thoughts on that conversation, everything that was brought up, things that we didn't get to, et cetera? Yeah, and thanks for

hosting these spaces, Nick and Joe. It's awesome. Matthew, I'd love also to hear your thoughts on this. And I also wanted to say, Nick, The last time I asked the question, the next day I heard you in a space and you were on fire. I thought they had like put LSD in my sour patch kids. And then I realized that would just be too good of a world. I really appreciate you embodying the passion of the UFO community. Thank you, man. I appreciate that very much. Yeah, for real. I don't know if other peop

le feel this way, but for me, when Danny said the president might not even know, I'm starting to have like a dude, where's my government feeling. And my understanding is, regarding the allegations that Grush makes directly, indirectly, and entailed through the UAPD, the UAP Schumer Amendment, aren't there only two possibilities? Isn't this whole thing either it's legal, but feckless leadership, and, you know, bureaucratic oversight, that presidential oversight got lost between, you know, feckles

s leadership and an over classification, you know, somewhere lost in the couch cushions of bureaucracy. I find it so hard to believe, man, right? It sounds crazy on its face. Right. Well, I just want to because I'm not, I'm not a lawyer, but just deductively speaking, aren't there only two options that this somehow is legal, but we don't understand the own bullshit laws we wrote. And it's somewhere between DOE and CIA. Or this is the greatest intergovernmental crime in US history. Is there anoth

er possibility? It's a great question. I'm so glad I brought you up to say that because it was getting at something that I had just been thinking of, but then forgot and blanked. This notion that, you know, and I think Danny is kind of asserting this, and this is what I've even said this, you know, publicly in the last week on Twitter, like, I think the eminent domain clause is like, it's a way of putting the bow at the end of the tank cannon. There's no way that the U.S. frickin' government and

the military can't just go in and grab whatever they want from any private contractor if they think it's this nuclear weapons grade stuff. It's just crazy to me that like it even needs to be codified legally when it seems all the existing nuclear regulation would give them all the authority they need to like grab the dangerous UFO stuff from space the moment they wanted to. It's also absurd to me. that when like Biden and all of these guys know that there's stuff flying around and I'm pretty su

re this is my gut, this is totally my own personal belief, but I think they've gotten some kind of a briefing maybe that says we think a possibility for this is extraterrestrial activity. Let's say they've only been given that, which I think they've gotten a lot more than that, the presidents, frankly. But I mean, what, so they're just not curious all of a sudden about the decades and decades and decades that they're well aware of, of notions of a government cover-up and that it's in the contrac

tors. I just find it hard to believe that the president on something like this would just be completely out of it. When I can go to Radiance and there are these people, I mean, if Biden showed up, are they going to be like, you can't come here, Mr. President? Like, he's the commander-in-chief. These are defense contractors. They're under contract. They're currently under all sorts of obligations to be following the FAR, the Federal Acquisition Regulation. And it's like, I just find it kind of ab

surd that, see, this is what I think the possibility could be. I guess my answer to your question is how I would look at it. I think the executive branch, we really do have to look at it constitutionally. The IC, the DOD, and the guy that the IC and DOD are very typically wired around thinking of is the customer, is the President of the United States. He's either running them militarily, technically, or he's the customer of all of the intelligence product at the end of the day. And I don't know.

It's just so hard to imagine that he'd be so out of the loop. So what I think has happened is that the executive branch itself might, because they can do this all themselves. They don't need any other branch of government to do this. So if the executive branch itself decided, hey, we're going to call this legal. And we're going to do all of this shady shit around it, but to us it's perfectly legal. Oh, and it's also totally legal that we haven't really run that by the other two branches of the

government. So it's like, they're going to say it's legal. It's probably just fundamentally not constitutionally legal. They're going to argue that national security in the presidential position, in the unique position that the president has in our constitutional system, is that he has ultimate reign over national security issues and that it was deemed through some secret executive order that the president thought that this all just needs to be completely under the thumb of the executive branch.

There's no way we can read the legislative in on this. And that's just how we're going to operate, damn it. And we're going to really do a lot of shit to make sure that we don't get called out on that. and now they're getting called out on it a little bit. But to think that the president hasn't been to some degree in the loop on that, I find just so hard to believe. I would refer folks to section 9002 of the UAPDA and then the findings specifically, number six, where it says legislation is nece

ssary to restore proper oversight over unidentified anomalous phenomena records by elected officials in both the executive and legislative branch of the federal government that has otherwise been lacking as of the enactment of this act, which implies elected officials in the executive branch. There are only two elected officials in the executive branch, the president and vice president. So the drafters of that bill believe that the president and vice president did not have proper oversight of al

l the relevant UAP records. Matthew, are you saying that according to your understanding, this whole thing couldn't be legal if the CIA and the DOE are just running this thing without presidential oversight? So the degree of like what's legal and what's being properly overseen is a little bit more of a, it's a more of a subtle distinction, right? Things can be, things can be legal in the sense that those, those agencies could interpret the statute. They could have their own, you know, legal coun

sel, you know, draft up opinions that say, yes, like within our title 50 authorities, you know, yada, yada, yada. Um, but if the president himself feels like he doesn't have oversight, then that's a problem, irrespective of whether it's legal or, or, or illegal. Um, he wants to know, or she wants to know that, uh, it's that the things that need to be briefed to them need to be briefed to them. They also make allegations in those same findings that, you know, certain records were improperly class

ified under trans trans classified for nuclear information, TF and I under atomic energy act, provisions, meaning there was an overbroad interpretation of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act as applying to special nuclear material as a sort of a loophole to classify UAP-related materials. That was sort of an improper application of that statute. Now, some might call that illegal, depending on how strict you want to apply those definitions, but it's certainly in the view of the drafters of th

is bill and in proper application of existing statutes. So yeah, this is where kind of you start to, yeah, I try to be a little more literal in terms of how I assess these things. I guess the broader narrative though, as David Grush alleges, is that these were sort of rogue programs using legit, conventional, potentially special access programs that had been properly, you know, waived by order and verbally briefed to Gang of Eight, but using those, you know, official, valid, conventional SAPs, a

s illegitimate cover for unreported illicit quote unquote rogue saps to do these UAP related activities. That's like the core of the allegation that was sort of, I think the substance of his inspector general complaint is that these things were being done improperly, not going through the proper oversight briefings to Gang of Eight or the president. And that along the way, you know, things related to financial improprieties, you know, and things related to say, off book funding of these programs

, IRAD stuff, all that stuff starts to kick in. That's where you might get to the more explicit illegal behavior. Can I can I ask a question and it's going to be really blunt and people are going to be insulted by it. And once again, I'll just be the asshole in UFO world, but it's fine. I'm going to because I frame it this way because I think it's really important for us to think through these issues in a very nuanced fashion. And I appreciate the folks who bring that to the conversation. Is Dan

ny asking us to believe he has more intelligence on these programs than the president of the United States? Is that how we read what we heard from him? Because again, I just get to the like, is that possible? Is that realistic? Like, like not to say that Danny is, you know, making things up or whatever. I think he's representing clearly. I think we can all say to what he believes to be truth. He believes strongly and is going to represent that in a strong way, and I respect that. But in some way

s it seems like he's asserting he has more goods on this UFO program that's being improperly run. than Biden. And I just, you know, again, I wonder, is that realistic? And the reason I say this is because, like, I'm really of the mind, instead of acting, because for decades, there's been these ideas that the president isn't read in, the president isn't read in. Talk about fucking PSYOP. Like, how do we know that whole line just isn't PSYOP? Like, that would be the perfect PSYOP, is to make up th

is meme in the UFO world that the president isn't read in. Suddenly it absolves the president of any responsibility for actually running the executive branch of the government, including his singular position, head of the DoD, and the customer of all of the IC products, presumably, at the end of the day. It's the daily briefing that gets summarized. Of course they understand things in a highly summarized way. And I think the other thing we all need to take very strongly into account is when you'

re the president of the United States and you kind of like know about that stuff and tacitly understand, maybe that's been a thing to some degree for a while, like just being okay with it and knowing it exists even, You don't want to know the dirt. It's not politically useful to suddenly be the guy who knows all the dirty shit. So, you know, you might be in a position of almost wanting to remove yourself from certain dirty details that you just learned you inherited. You know, I think absolving

the president of responsibility for this situation is a grave mistake because he clearly has more intelligence than most of us on this topic. He's clearly gotten the intelligence assessments on what the hell these UAP thing probably are. I think probably to his satisfaction and like, oh shit, really. It may depend on how you define intelligence, but I think we have to hold him responsible. He's still an elected official and he's in the singular position. Again, the president does not need the UA

PDA at any moment. completely change the framework on our thinking about UAP if indeed there's something interesting to reveal. The president could unilaterally change the UAP classification guidelines by decree, by decree. I mean, the precedent that's now been set for, you know, your leeway with intelligence information as a president is pretty broad. So, we know he can declassify, you know, maybe not verbally. Yes, maybe there is a process you're technically supposed to go through. But no one

really pushed back ever, looking at some of the Trump stuff and the materials, the fundamental idea that the president could kind of unilaterally declassify information, whatever it is, really at their sole discretion. And so, I think we've got to hold POTUS way more to the fire on this shit, frankly. you know, the fact that he squirms away from press conferences when we're shooting down three UAP in three days, you know, for the first time NORAD's ever engaged anything and the head of NORAD who

ran the shoot down operation couldn't take extraterrestrials off the table, quote unquote, like we deserve more. And POTUS doesn't want to share. He didn't want to have that press conference. Schumer and others were very much like, you need to talk to the American people, Joe Biden. the time he was asked about Obama's statement and he just squirms out of it and says, you should ask him again, you know, and then literally walked away. I mean, you know, I just, I hope people are really aiming at

POTUS in their communications with our elected officials and keeping it in mind because I think this idea that the president isn't sort of at least tacitly aware of this, it's just absurd to me. It's, it's silly on its face that all of us here on this Twitter space know more about this situation than the president of the United States. I just, I don't know. I try to stay humble, right? Hey, Lester, I saw that you're here. I'd love to have you jump in. I'm curious what your thoughts are. Thank yo

u so much for the summaries you were providing. It was really useful, even to me. So I really appreciate that as we were going there in the channel. But what's going on? What were your thoughts, man? I'm sure you have a lot to process there. Yeah, no, it was a it was really fantastic space. And I think just on your most recent point, related to the President's role in all of this, the upcoming debate, presidential debate tomorrow on News Nation will be interesting to see if the moderators choose

to address the UAP topic or not. I think part of, you know, what you're saying is valid in that regardless of anything else as we move forward, that role will have a very outsized opinion in what happens, just given its ability to, again, like you said, have you have a lot of controls to do certain things. So like, I think there's going to be a very interesting, it'll be very interesting to see if the UAP topic becomes a presidential topic next year. But there was just so much coming back to th

e space, there was so much that was said, I don't, I don't really know where to really start or engage. I think that the it's hard to really pin down a coherent narrative because there was just so much ground covered. Um, but, but I do think there are a lot of good questions being asked. One of the things I really wanted to, uh, see though is, uh, Matthew Pines, I would love to get a, if you are so gracious, a pulse check, just like, I love the way your perspective is on this topic. Like given a

ll the things that have happened, SALT conference, all the UAPDA stuff, things coming from Danny Sheehan, the allegations about the CIA global access programs. Where is your perspective at in terms of where the issue stands, given the other geopolitical environment and elements that are coinciding with this process that's unfolding currently? Oh man, well, that's a long, long complicated question. I would just say the bottom line is, I think you see folks like Carl Nell and Christopher Mellon re

cognizing that they have to kind of calibrate this process, you know, push it along, but know that there are sort of a lot of unknown unknowns and a lot of variables that could come in from the left field. and quickly consume policymaker attention while they need to sort of drive this behind the scenes. So I think there was a lot of behind the scenes momentum to try to get this bill passed. That's why I think there's a lot of attention on getting it passed. And then assuming that it does pass or

something like it gets passed, that's like reasonably strong, has some of the core provisions in it, then I think they would like to sort of have it go slightly back behind the scenes a little bit further while the board gets constituted. Because I think ultimately, you know, disclosure or confirmation or whatever, you know, you know, postulated kind of official actions or statements come down the line, they're going to come with massive ramifications that would need to be, you know, planned fo

r across all sectors of society and the sort of geopolitical balance of, of, of sort of strategic interest. And so I think nobody has the master plan. I think nobody has like sitting with like, you know, the, the game of risk and being like, okay, well, what happens if we, if we disclose, you know, June of 2024 or something, right? I think nobody has anything like that crystal ball or even kind of a strategic sense. I mean, I looked at the, um, I think there was a, a presentation that Carl and A

lec gave at Seoul that had the, I think someone took a picture of it, maybe, um, uh, impermissible, uh, but it basically had like a typical kind of DoD, um, kind of flow chart or kind of timeline. And that's, in fact, even the name that's in the disclosure act is, uh, uh, controlled disclosure campaign plan. And like the national security, the national security strategy of the defense department, there's like a whole doctrine for doing like strategic campaign planning. Like this is like a whole

kind of like a technical jargon in the military. And of course, Colonel is very, very familiar with that. Um, kind of Cole kind of concept of, you have different sort of threads, you sort of delegate, you know, a responsibility for assessing say social impact, theological impact, political impact, geopolitical impact, economic impact. And these are different lanes. You have working groups or task forces, you get a bunch of subject matter experts, you sort of put them into the room and you have t

hem develop, you know, different plans. And this is sort of a very sort of military way of approaching problems. It's somewhat of a linear way of approaching problems. And if we just like have this, this campaign plan, we meet these milestones, we develop these documents, you write these policy papers, we convene these working group meetings. you know, dot, dot, dot, then like, quote, unquote, disclosure happens. And then we move on to sort of post disclosure, you know, implementation. It's a ve

ry sort of, you know, I find it to be a bit anachronistic. Of course, it's kind of the best we've got, you know, given the state of the state of things in this topic. But this is highly going to be a very nonlinear, inherently unpredictable process if it continues in the trajectory that the disclosure, the pro disclosure folks are trying to push it in. So I think it's sort of one need to be like a bit intellectually humble that there's just no way to predict how this would evolve past whatever s

ort of stipulated point you reach when you get, say, presidential confirmation or when the board discloses information that is, you know, like reasonably dispositive for the mass public that this is real. So I think you can do the best you can to prepare and plan, but I'm not sure that that preparation and planning is being done. It's kind of a catch-22 that's until you get the bill passed, until you get sufficient kind of social and political and sort of official institutional recognition of th

is codified in law, and now with this sort of board, it's kind of hard then to sort of bring in the rest of the sort of the broader policy wonk space to sort of, you know, shake off the stigma. And I'll just give like one good example of this is like, on the financial stability side. So I focus a lot on cybersecurity risk, geopolitical risk, as well as sort of financial stability risk. And to my knowledge, like this is not a risk that's been seriously, you know, analyzed a lot of the geopolitica

l stuff and theological stuff. But, you know, we've seen how, you know, in very prosaic circumstances, the financial system is very vulnerable. You know, payment systems are pretty brittle, you know, a handful of people in central banks and banks kind of keep the lights on for global payments and clearing systems. if those things get interrupted, if people stop showing up to work, or there's a run on certain banks, or there's a certain collapse of trust in certain institutions, that could be a v

ery destabilizing kind of systemic risk. We've seen examples of that in just sort of entirely normal financial risks. And I haven't seen kind of serious planning for how those institutions would manage such an event. And I think those things need to be properly considered before you just sort of YOLO everything out into public. People want their credit cards to work tomorrow, right? But here's the problem though, right? Isn't the basic truth, at least if you hold open the hypothesis that UAP, so

me of them represent something pretty quote unquote outlier based on a lot of current frameworks, at the end of the day, Isn't it really just the acknowledgement itself of what reality is, potentially the thing that's the hardest to break? Because we can go into all of these details about, you know, all of the ramifications of this way or that way or the other, like how you dole it out. I mean, all of it. But like, Isn't it really, at the end of the day, simply a question of, like, are we alone?

Is there something else with us here that's potentially vastly, you know, more capable on some levels, at least? I mean, we can break it down, but I just, I think we're, I don't know. Are we, are we working away from just what the actual question is that it really all comes down to? Are people ready to deal with that and still go to work? all the details, the bodies, this many aliens and what they're up to. It's like a lot of those questions would arise, but they all arise from the most basic a

cknowledgement of the topic that's even possible. So it just strikes me that like you're just going to keep bullshitting to keep delaying what you ultimately know is the big thing no one wants to cross, which is acknowledging what the fuck the UAP are. And so I don't know. How do you get around that? You know, it's it's funny you say that because Lou Elizondo said, you know, imagine everything you've been taught on Sunday school by by your school system, by your parents at the dinner table is no

t really the way things are. And there's something above us in the food chain. He's like, Do you even need a government anymore? I mean, this is Lou talking about this. And you can imagine governments thinking through all of this. They're like, do we really need to do this? And like you said, they'll delay it. I would think pass the buck and delay it as much as possible. One thing, Nick, you talked about, do they know? Do we know more than certain people? A perfect example of that is in 1997 whe

n Stephen Greer Admiral, not Admiral, Commander, Naval Commander Will Miller, Edgar Mitchell, they went to the Pentagon and they briefed Admiral Wilson, who was the Vice Director of Intelligence for the Joint Staff. He didn't know anything. He wasn't briefed on anything. And then January of 98, they briefed the director, the DIA director, Lieutenant General Patrick Hughes. Once again, the guy was frustrated. He goes, I don't have anything. You see that doll over there, that ET doll? That's what

I know. So they're purposely kept out of the loop, as Miller would say, for plausible Did I get lost? Oh, sorry, Joe. I was muted myself. I'm fucking everything up here. I'm sorry, guys. Did I get cut off at all? I don't know. I got a call. Sorry. You did a little bit and then I accidentally muted myself or something. So we'll just consider that a fuck up of the last few moments. But what my point I just wanted to quickly make is if you have requested status and that's a kind of legacy status fr

om when Danny was on, do me a favor. You know, if you still want to join into the conversation, that's fine. a bunch of people with that status right now. And we'll try to get to you, especially if you had been waiting very patiently to speak with Danny directly. But if you no longer really feel a need to speak, if you could take yourself out of that status, it just keeps things a little bit easier from an organizational standpoint. Thank you. Joe, I'm sorry, can you finish your thought, please,

man? What got cut off? I don't know where it ended. I was just saying that I get to the part where they were briefing Admiral Wilson, the vice director of intelligence in 97, and then the director of the DIA in 98. And both of them basically said, yeah, we're not, we don't have access. We're not read in to any of these programs. We don't have the information that you guys have. That's why they requested a briefing. And Will Miller is like, yeah, because they want to keep them, you know, give th

em the option of plausible, not the option. They want to give them plausible deniability if they're ever asked about the topic. I don't know if Biden has been read into crash retrievals. I don't know. I know Trump said he was given a briefing. I don't know if Trump was given the briefing. plausible deniability for Biden. This way he can answer a question. Oh, ask Obama. I mean, he didn't deny it. He just said, ask Obama. So. Everyone says, ask somebody else. Someone asked the big defense contrac

tor, do you have like alien bodies? And they were like, ask the feds. No, ask Arrow. They said, ask Arrow. I think it was Lockheed. Kirkpatrick knows that information. I'll get back to you. Yeah, as if. I'm going to bring in some other folks who were patient. Potato of Reason, you've been waiting a real long while. I'm going to add you as a speaker. If you have a point you'd like to make or just something to bring into the conversation or a perspective from when Danny was on or what you were goi

ng to ask and whether that got addressed in any way, feel free to just pipe in. How's it going? And you don't have to say anything now. Again, maybe that was a legacy status. Again, please do take yourself out of requested status. I see some folks, they're waving at me. I'm going to try to acknowledge that a little bit. Another person who was very patient waiting for Danny, and I'm sorry we weren't able to get to you. Dog BB. Hathor truth. Did you have something you wanted to say? Hey guys? Yeah

, I just I've always been quite interested in the in the phenomena in the UFO phenomena and and I wanted to share an experience that I had because I just I just love to hear people's thoughts on it because I just think the consciousness side of of it all is is I You know, the high strangeness side of it is fascinating. And I've had a very strange experience about a year ago, and I was just wondering if I could spend a minute to tell everyone about it and just to hear what people think it may be.

Yeah, listen, man, I've had many strange experiences myself just in the strange lifetime of Nick Gold, so. Hit us with it if you think that this is the right context to share that. Maybe we can get it in. I don't know who will want to respond to it. I'm sure I'll have a thought, but please do. All right. Well, basically what happened was I was going to sleep, and my fiancée, she was laying next to me in bed reading a book. As I was falling to sleep, I was in a lucid, half-awake, half-asleep kin

d of state. And I felt that sensation as I was putting my head to the pillow, that sensation of falling with my eyes closed kind of kept going in my mind's eye. And as I kind of had that feeling of falling further down in my mind's eye, I started to see a little green figure of light way in the distance. And, and I felt the sensation of falling kind of continue, but I was still awake. I was, I was like, you know, in a waking, waking sleep. And as I was having this experience, I was, I was actual

ly talking with my fiance. She was laying next to me. And I was saying then this is so weird I'm having this experience like I'm falling forward and I can see this little figure of light and and the figure of light It was a green light. I remember and the figure was was speaking behind a podium And the podium had a very like specific shape to it But I couldn't make out the details of the figure or the podium and and I as I was describing it to my fiance I was saying this is so strange. I'm kind

of floating Kind of above the figure in front of it. It may be a politician giving a speech. I'm not sure But it was just so vivid. It was it was just such a vivid kind of experience and And it was so vivid I told other friends of ours the next day that we're just kind of coming over for drinks at our place and Then didn't think much of it anyway about two weeks later I get a couple of missed calls from my mum on a Sunday afternoon and so And I call her back and she tells me, oh look, my grandmo

ther, she just all of a sudden fell ill and they took her to the hospital. So we raced over with my fiancé. And you know, my grandma was 96 and very, you know, like very independent and healthy but just basically she got a pneumonia. And I got to spend about a few minutes with her. And then my mom said, okay, well, I think it's okay now, maybe come back tomorrow. So my fiance and I have go to have dinner. And while we're away, just down the road from the hospital, I get a missed call from the ho

spital and my grandma passed away right in that moment. And so I came back to the hospital and when I saw my mom, I mean, she was, you know, she was beside herself and, you know, just, yeah, in shock. And so, I just saw it as this moment of just, you know, an opportunity to be there for her. And so, I said, okay, look, I'll organize a funeral. Don't worry. I got it all. And so, over the next few days, my grandma was a pretty like religious Catholic, Polish Catholic lady. So like I organized like

a Polish priest and a Polish funeral director and all this sort of stuff to try and make it as traditional as possible and and then a few days later it comes to the to the point of the of the the funeral and the priest does his does his spiel at the start and Then he goes to the part where he goes and now the grandson is is gonna say say the eulogy And I told my mom, don't worry, I'll say the eulogy, like, you know, don't worry about it. And so I go up and I look at where I'm about to say the e

ulogy and I look up at the podium. And I just have this like remembering in my mind, like, and I just get connected. I was like, holy shit, that's the podium that I saw just two weeks earlier in this dream thing. So anyway, I walk up. And I kind of look in the direction of where, you know, I would have had this floating vision, whatever it was. And then I start saying the eulogy. Anyway, about a couple of weeks after that, the funeral director sends me an email. And this was all during COVID, yo

u know, like it was during this time where like you could have like only five people at a funeral kind of thing. And so the funeral director said, look, if anyone in Poland or anywhere else wanted to see the service, there was a link to it. There was a streaming camera streaming the whole thing. Here's a recording. I click on the link, and I fast forward to where I did the eulogy. And the position of the camera and its perspective was pretty much the perspective of where I had that dream like tw

o or three weeks before. And I just, it just, I don't know, it blew my mind, that experience. Since then, I had another quite a vivid dream of seeing my grandmother again. Maybe like a week after that, like a very vivid, like lifelike dream. And then after that, it kind of quieted it down. But yeah, that was just my high strangeness kind of experience. And I know this UAP thing is a consciousness thing, as much as it is a physical craft thing, whatever you guys want to think. But yeah, I just th

ought those kinds of experiences, I just like to hear what people think that could be. No, thank you for sharing that with us. I'm sorry to hear about your grandmother. Grandmother or great-grandmother? That was my grandmother on my mother's side. So my mom's mom, my grandmother, yeah. Sorry about that loss, of course. Thank you for sharing that. It was very heartfelt and very interesting. And it's interesting you said that because this theme of being visited by people who have recently passed h

as popped up a lot for me recently, not on a personal basis, but with people I know. I heard a very interesting story from someone I know about something that was associated with, unfortunately, her brother's untimely passing. And there was some very interesting things that happened in kind of interesting moments in the aftermath of that. And these things happen, man. I mean, it really does happen to people. I know my view on it. I mean, my view on it is, you know, everything other than the abso

lute is basically a software program, and it's all happening at once in a state of superposition. And, you know, it's just is what it is. And, you know, we can connect to it at times and why it happens for certain people at certain times, whatever is maybe a little bit out of our current frame of reference, usually. But these things happen, and they're part of our experience. I'm a non-dualist, so these perspectives are just sort of inherent to my worldview and have been for a really, really lon

g time. I seem to have come out this way. But I've always, in ancient Hinduism say, they have this concept of Maya, or the kind of illusion of relative reality. And of course, it's not like the fundamental reality. The fundamental reality is either Brahman or Shiva, It really goes across many belief systems, frankly. It goes well beyond Hinduism, this notion that the fundamental thing is consciousness. It's why God told Moses, I am, is its nature, right? tell the Israelites, I am sent you. To me

, I am is kind of like this positing of the unified subject-object. It's kind of like what we call the semantic triple in semantic-linked data systems. And the observer is the observed, and it only observes itself, but it creates this interesting kind of thing that maybe computes reality or something. I've been just fascinated with thinking about weird shit like this since I was a strange little elementary school in the 80s, elementary schooler. So, you know, I just kind of inherently saw like r

eality is the phrase that popped into my head as an elementary schooler for some weird reason one day was like, this is all one unfolding equation. That was just how I kind of conceptualized it. And it was kind of prominent because I don't have much of an internal monologue usually. I didn't realize that was a thing, actually, until like seven or eight years ago, maybe. And I learned about the internal monologue that most people have. And I was like, Wait, you think in words? What the fuck is th

at all about? Like, I can conjure that. But so you know, anyway, like, I got into cyberpunk science fiction at a pretty young age, too, in the early 90s, and I always saw cyberspace as this conceptualization of the astral realm, because I was also reading weird books by Robert Monroe, or the people associated with the Monroe Institute. It's funny you say that, because about a month before it happened, I started listening to the Monroe tapes. Interesting hemisync. It's probably not a coincidence.

I don't think it is and and to be honest I before I I kind of discovered the hemisync process About two years before I had my first psychedelic experience with DMT and then and then I proceeded to do maybe 30 to 40 ayahuasca ceremonies And and a few of them were actually with with Dennis McKenna Terrence McKenna's brother. Oh, that's right. I And yeah, like, I mean, to meet him and know that I was in a safe space with, you know, a shaman that I could trust, that could guide the experience was p

retty special. But, you know, like, leading up to that experience, maybe the two years before, I had a friend who he opened up a float tank, you know, a sensory deprivation float tank business here in Australia. It was one of the early ones. And so he would let me just go in and float almost every day. And I didn't know anything about Hemisync or anything like that, but I just had this inkling of going in for hours at a time in the float tank and I would have these waterproof earphones playing d

ifferent binaural beats. And then I would listen to these beats and then I would do like breath work essentially or different Wim Hof methods. And, and it was all, I was, I was trying to see if I could basically induce a natural DMT experience through, through sound and through breathing. And, you know, I was doing it for about six months and I, and I, I definitely did have in, in that float tank, I did have very, very, very vivid experiences that, that that were very similar to that sleeping ex

perience where I saw my grandmother. It's all cyberspace, right? I think so. If you haven't read Bob Monroe's books, I would really just start with his original book, Journeys Out of the Body. Is it like Journeys Outside of the Body, something like that? Journeys Out of the Body is his first one of the trilogy. And I really recommend reading it because it takes people through Monroe's own experience of experimenting with binaural beats. He was an executive in, I think, the early cable industry,

actually. He was a television guy. He and a few others, like Tom Kimball, I think it is, who wrote My Big Toe. He was one of the originals of the Monroe Institute as well, and they developed the hemi-sync binaural beat approach to triggering these you know, fairly radical and fairly replicable kind of out of body slash astral projection type experiences. And, you know, as many people know, the Intel community is kind of known of the Monroe Institute and kind of had some relations, I think is the

best way of putting it. You know, it's I don't see Monroe is like a CIA program or anything. It's it's like very chill. I went for the gateway program a number of years ago and it was like I had known about it since I was a teenager and it was like going there. It was the best version of it that I could have probably imagined. I had a really good time. You know, I didn't I'm not really prone to as many of these types of experiences. I've had some I've had a lot of lucid dreams, including as a c

hild when I had a lot of lucid dreams. And that was a weird thing. And kind of made me wonder about like, what is this consciousness thing? Because that was another thing I was really strangely aware of, I guess, as a little kid, I was like, why isn't anyone talking about the fact that we're consciousness? Like, like, I didn't maybe even have the word consciousness at the time. But I was like, it was very obvious that I was this thing riding around in this body. And everyone kept acting like the

y were their bodies. And I was like, very, I thought, like, whatever you think about afterlife or whatever, I was like, just ontologically, we're clearly not that thing. You know, this is kind of, again, at the heart of a lot of kind of... you know, whether it's Hindu or other, you know, processes when you're meditating or whatever, it's getting to the root of like, what is the thing that is you? What is it? What's asking that question? What do all the perceptions pipe into? It's like, it's almo

st like this actual existing first person experience itself, to me is sort of the definition of consciousness. And again, if you think that that's fundamental, and it essentially has this kind of weird, you know, Shiva Shakti way of generating reality through, you know, probably algorithmic processes that are actually kind of built out of this consciousness thing itself, perceiving itself and then almost creating like interference patterns of consciousness, I suppose. You know, you start to thin

k of this realm a little bit more, I don't want to say digitally, but it's more like the digital is just another layer of that onion. And, you know, maybe I think energy and information are more fundamental, if you want to look at it this way, than energy and matter. I see matter as probably being a type of information that this perceiver perceives in a certain way that we call physical matter. There seems to be a lot more there. You've touched some of it, it sounds like. The practices will brin

g this stuff out, people. If you do practices, be ready. It's not for everybody. It's not for everyone where they are at their unique place as a person, psychologically. emotionally. There's a reason why these were like mystery traditions for thousands of years, and not everyone was brought into the fold, because frankly, it's not for everybody. Also, the ways that people used to be initiated into these practices were very deliberate, drawn out. There's the role of the guru and other people who

are really guiding you through the process in a very active way. I really recommend people read Paramahansa Yogananda's autobiography of a yogi. Man, I'm just reading that now. It's such a great book, man Yeah, there's a reason there's a reason it was Steve Jobs's favorite book, right? You know the one they gave out it is his ceremony their real-life Jedi's their real life I you know, I think I think Star Wars is probably the perfect analogy to this whole thing this idea of the force and you can

either use the force in a light side or a dark side it and It doesn't really matter in terms of, it just matters how unified you are in whatever direction you want to go. I just want to say this, because people are like, oh my God, the man is controlling us through media, and they're giving this propaganda, and it's whatever, these new age kind of ideas, and there's some horrible nefarious thing behind it. It's like, no, like a lot of people in the media are just kind of into this way of thinki

ng, frankly, like, I learned about this at one point, you know, Jim Henson, for someone of my generation, you know, a little kid in the 80s, and a big kid in the 90s, I was very influenced by by his work by The Labyrinth and, you know, other other really pivotal movies, The Dark Crystal, crazy metaphysical batshit shit for kids that was really weird and kind of uncomfortable, but like put you in that almost initiatory state when you were watching it as a little kid. Most definitely. I think ther

e's, there's a crazy amount of synchro mysticism when it comes to films. I think, I think it's because there's such a, a massive and creative energy, different consciousnesses that need to come together to focus on one message. Absolutely. And I just, I went to, I just want to say, I went to a Maryland exhibit here in Baltimore on Jim Henson, and he had a Maryland connection. He was from here and went to school in Maryland and, you know, and they had stuff from all of his stuff. And I was like,

I can't believe I'm seeing like, the outfits from the ballroom scene in The Labyrinth. Holy shit. Like, what the fuck? Cool shit. Like, again, stuff that really influenced me and even my thinking as a kid. And people don't realize this. Jim Henson would give out, like, the Jane Roberts set books to people. because he was into that shit. It's not a coincidence and it's not this government conspiracy. These people are open-minded people who have more mystical views of things and they work it into

their creative output at points. Spielberg, I think he was just into UFOs and aliens and so he tells stories about them and he actually talked to the people who knew what the fuck they were talking about and yes, it informed the movies. So anyway, just thank you so much for sharing. I want to bring some other people up. Nick, real quick, basically just to reiterate, reiterate what you said, the three books, Journeys Out of the Body, Far Journeys, Ultimate Journey, must reads if you're interested

in consciousness at all. it's late 1800s or early 1900s, just case after case with multiple witnesses where they saw this person in their house, they're like, what the heck? And it was a full-bodied apparition. And it turned out it was right before or right at the moment of death, almost as if there's some psychic energy that a person puts out right as they're dying. And there are some really good cases like that. What exactly it means, I don't know. I don't know, but it's definitely happened t

o other people. He's not alone. It's pretty, and like you said, and what I said, journeys out of the body, especially far journeys, Dimension, the whole chapter on Loosh, that one always stuck with me. I don't know if you remember that one, Nick, but it's interesting. Oh, I know all about the Loosh show. Yeah. I'm the Loosh motherfucking master, man. Anyway, thanks for doing this. I realize my take on Loosh is Loosh is novelty. Loosh is novelty. And like the thing you want to mine is novelty. Wh

en when you're at a certain point, you want to generate novelty. That's the that's the name of the game. So is it our attention? Is it? Yeah, exactly. Consciousness is the is the focus of everything. If consciousness is at the center of everything, It's our attention where we put our, you know, where attention goes, energy flows. And, you know, if we're, if our human nature is the very fact that we can just be programmed, we're not evil, we're not good. It's just we can be programmed where it de

pends on our environment. And, you know, it's just knowing that if you can be aware of where your attention is, you can take your own power back. Well, because the attention is the programmer at the end of the day, is the way I look at it. Because the attention, that thing that attends, that's what the fundamental reality is if you're a non-dualist. And so it is the programmer and everything around you is the program. That's sort of a matter of your own programming. And the thing that I think a

lot of people wouldn't necessarily get about the non-dualist view is that fundamentally, you're really just thinking that there's only one thing behind all of those points of view. It's only one thing that's having all of those points of view. Like there's just the point of view itself. It's like this field that exists. And so, um, you know, it's like, there's a lot of these symbols in ancient traditions of like snakes, of course, and then multi headed snakes. And the way I interpret that is lik

e, It's just layers and streams of consciousness. Snakes obviously shed their skin, so it's this multi-layered onion type thing. It's also all of these different streams, but at the end, they connect up to the same fundamental field that's really having all those frames of reference. It feels like- It spirals up. It spirals up into higher vibrations from the base up into the crown. Well, you know- It spirals up. We've taken this conversation probably far-field enough of UAP at this point. I want

to get to a few of the other speakers. Thank you so much, man, for speaking and sharing your story with us. It is an interesting connection because one would imagine the UAP people, if there's any truth to this kind of shit, would probably be in on it and would probably take advantage of it. It would be maybe what technology was based on, etc. you know, we talk about zero point energy and, you know, it's funny because we throw these little abbreviations on things and it's like, what are we real

ly talking about? We're really talking about the fundamental energy of reality that itself gives birth to what we think of as the universe. Like, you know, this vacuum that we call it again, another little convenient label we can throw on something that we really just don't fundamentally understand. We know it has like limitless energy. It can do all this crazy shit. It can manifest in all of these ways. And, create all of these quantum fields and everything. But, you know, we don't like to talk

about that fundamental thing as much. I'm going to bring in John next and then we're going to have Potato speak after that. John, why don't you jump in, man? You've been very patient. I appreciate it. Wow. Talk about down the rabbit hole. I was like full on holding my Danny Sheehan stuff in my brain. And then all of a sudden we like scourged off into the And I've had experiences exactly what you guys are. And so I was like, oh, all of a sudden I started having like a little panic attack. I'm li

ke, oh, I don't want to be thinking about that. I got to like, so I want to, I want to do a 180. Do it. Go for it, man. Bring us back down to at least the mundanity of UFO reality. Let's go back to nuts and bolts just for a few minutes. But speaking of nuts and bolts, let me give you a I've been in radio 30 years. So let me give you a little bit of hosting advice, especially for these spaces. I've been in a million of them. Always have two co-hosts, because then you as the host can focus on the

guests, who's talking, whatever, and they can be vetting people coming in, seeing if anyone cool comes in, trying to invite them up. having people have someone whose job is to kind of, oh, someone's talking too long, maybe mute them and come in and say, hey, can we keep it on topic or, you know, and so you have a little more control over the space, a little more, you know, you could just do a lot more. So if you just plan a little in advance, have a couple people you trust to be your co-hosts, a

nd everyone has kind of a specific job, and you lay that out in the space, you could really dive deep without taking too many one eight No, I appreciate that. I totally get that. The question is, what do you do when the guest is the one that, you know, tends to be the one that needs to be muted sometimes? Well, you know, that as a host is your prerogative. You decide how you deal with the person. But when you're, you know, this was one of the biggest, craziest, wildest spaces in a long time. I m

ean, everyone was in here, dude. So, I mean, you know, to be able to have someone who could communicate with Dolan and other people and send them requests, so maybe they'd want to pop up or, you know, and have a place where you can kind of vet what people are going to say before you actually put them on there. But then you can also have a lot more people who are speakers. When you have co-hosts, you can have more speakers. So after that, you know, Sheehan's leaves, you can have more of a panel d

iscussion and And so it helps you, the host, focus more on the content. And you have people who are helping you wrangle the chaotic nature of what I look at it like. It's like a radio call-in show. You've got to have a call screener. You've got to have someone who's communicating directly with you, fielding the questions. And that way, you can really just kick ass. And same thing for you, Joe. I've listened to a lot of your spaces. And you have a different little system. You just invite one pers

on up at a time. That's a question you drop them down. But if you have a couple people in your you know in your you know background They're helping you out. It's just in general will make the space flow and is better Hey, listen, I appreciate the feedback very much. And you know, first of all this thing with Danny came together fairly last moment just I really appreciate Joe being willing to co-host it all and I appreciate what you're saying. Part of me is a little anarchistic, and I just want t

o kind of throw it to the crowd in some ways at certain points and just be like, yo, hit them. I don't know. You can't purely pick people based off of just the order, especially when it doesn't give you a very sensible way. As you're right, you need note takers who are keeping track of this stuff potentially, and I very much will bear that in mind. Probably not for the one with Garrett, which I hope everyone joins. Garrett Graff, you know, not necessarily everybody's hero in UFO world right now,

but I really, I've liked this book so far. And we're going to be speaking on Thursday at 8.30 p.m. Eastern. I hope everyone can join us. All things have a co-host or someone to just help you. That's all. So let me, let me ask my, I want to pose my question that I was so desperately wanting to ask Danny, but I'm going to pose it to you, Joe and Matthew up there and anyone else, of course. But so OK, I'm going to predict in the future, I'm going to be. positive for a second. Let's just say that t

he Schumer amendment fully passes intact and we all get it happens and we're all lucky and they're going to they're going to put this panel together. But when I think about this panel I think this panel of people has a lot of power and there's gonna be a lot of people jockeying for positions on this panel and what is this panel exactly doing and it's kind of laid out but but you know one of my questions is like you know now they're kind of the tip of the spear So they personally are going to be

getting a lot of pushback from the IC community coming after them, because they are now the ones who are like right there coming after them making the decisions to like, pull the covers off of the secret shit. And you know, we know, obviously what they have been willing to do to keep the secret. So how do we, is there provisions and how do we keep them safe? And, and, but also in a situation where the position itself isn't like, you know, like a lifetime thing, like the Supreme Court where it's,

you're in there for life or, or it's too sure it becomes a political position where every president puts in his whole new group that fucks everything up. Sure, sure, sure. No, I think those are really important questions. Like, you know, one thing I think about is like, again, you have to have many vectors of kind of how you feel you're affecting this issue with what you, you know, we have to ask what we want to get to, really, what's the thing most people want to get to? To me, it's a very cle

ar, it's a fundamental acknowledgement by the US government of what their best estimate based on all available information, these fucking UAP are all about, period. Like, you could probably say it in a few sentences. Like, that's the main thing I want to get is an acknowledgement of whatever they deem that reality to be for real. For real, based on what they really know. I want specifics. I think that becomes very necessary. But as I was saying earlier, the moment you've crossed the threshold of

acknowledging the most basic engagement point around the topic, The floodgates are open because suddenly people are like, what the fuck? The aliens are real and they're here. What? What? Like, we want to know this. We want to know that. That's the real reason they haven't. It's never been protect the country or keep the money or the technology. That's all part of it. But to me, it's it's always been. Once you make that acknowledgement, that's when the the fucking questions start. And it just ne

ver stops because every answer leads to 100 more questions. And and none of those questions They want in the light of day, but I don't even think it's gonna come out questions I don't even think it's just the questions. I think it's that number one I do wonder if certain people think the phenomenon might change in some way when you've acknowledged it publicly do they know for sure that that isn't some signal that some like Prime fucking directive has suddenly been that applied that they've impli

ed that they've implied. Well, how will they react? Well, Lou has said that. He said there are people who want to keep the secret whose excuse for not letting out this information is they're afraid that once they know, that we know in mass, en masse, that they're here, that they're going to possibly speed up their timeline. He's like, I don't agree with that, but there are people in the inside who believe that and that's their national security trying to protect us. Yeah, um, you know, again, I

just I'm a very basic biatch in some ways, like I'm pretty stupid, I think. And so like, I really just look at the most basic aspects of things usually, and it tends to be terribly annoying to people, you know, people want to go down a lot of rabbit holes, but I'm always about bringing it back to the basics. Because like, maybe I just don't even fully understand them myself. Can answer like, I posed a question to you guys, and we didn't answer it. So I want to get your thoughts on that panel. We

ll, so the thing about the panel is that, first of all, there are some requirements around it that are framed out in the law. And I recommend everyone read it if they haven't. It talks about conflicts of interest. It represents the different areas that they come from. I mean, the oversight, listen, people have to be really real about it. The oversight of the UAPDA does not suddenly, instantly, totally democratize access to information on UAP in any way, shape or form. The president has absolute

carte blanche over everything. Again, as I'll remind, like they do today, essentially. And so, you know, I think we have to have these multiple vectors I was starting to get into before we went off a little bit. Like, you know, the public can listen, what I'm up to is trying to, you know, rally people to be louder, more cohesive, more organized. Like I went to the halls of Congress, you know, on Thursday last week, I went into a bunch of offices randomly, you know, you knock on the door, you wal

k right in. Anyone has access to it. It's easy to get into the buildings like it was kind of a good, you know I hope this doesn't set off any keyword detectors It was a good dry run for actually doing a hill day hill day guys. Whoever's listening to this call, right? Dude, it was awesome. It was awesome. And that you were so close to their little impromptu Press meeting, but you were there 300 amazing. Yeah, I mean it was amazing that you were there and you you know I'm all for it. You're kickin

g ass on this. No, but that's like, it's not about me. Like that should be 300 people filling the hallway and several representatives of the crowd go into the office. And they say, hey, I'm a constituent. I'm a constituent. I'm Nick, a few other people. We are really ready for you guys to give us more information. We're going around the hill today. We've got a crowd of 300 people. We're completely following all regulations. You can totally do this. The thing about it is you can't create a protes

t environment by sitting down. They don't want you to sit down in the halls, but if you're behaving yourself and according yourself to whatever guidance they're giving you about hug the walls, whatever, do what you can to allow business to occur. This happened on July 26th. There were hundreds of people who went into the Rayburn building. That's not a normal occurrence in the Rayburn building. when hundreds of people are lined up around hallways to get into this hearing and they had overflow roo

ms, but only, I think it was like 15 to 20 of us maybe from the public made it in. Danny and Steve Bassett were right in front of me in the room there. And there's nothing stopping any of us from doing that, having a hill day, as they call it, getting quasi-organized, maybe trying to plan some meetings out in advance. But it makes a much louder noise, literally, and it's seen, I think, much more clearly by these power centers that we're trying to influence, if we keep showing up louder and loude

r and making it—I mean, it was a little uncomfortable for them to have one guy pop in out of the blue. They all have signs that are like, please come in. Any one of us can get to within feet of the key staff of any one of our elected officials. We should be thankful, by the way, as fucked up as our system can often be, be at least thankful we have that as American citizens. And we can use that. So I think regardless of the UAPDA, the pressure from the public and actually making things is uncomfo

rtable. This does not require a majority of Americans. You can do this with relatively small, well-organized groups. This gets done for all sorts of issues all the time, like shit that most Americans don't give a shit about, and small groups of organized people absolutely turn it into big issues that become issues of our day. So we can do that, and we need to keep that pressure going. Yeah, we're going into the election year, Nick. I mean, this is it. This is the time. It's happening right now.

This is the first time ever that this topic is going to be a factor in a presidential election? Well, I'm going to I'll I would back that off a little bit. I mean, do you think Biden, who absolutely knows? I remember you were talking about it earlier. Like, does he know? Does he not know? He has been around longer than most of us have been alive. Oh, yeah. He knows all about this. He knows. So do you think he is going to if he knows this is coming out, if it's this catastrophic disclosure is com

ing out, you think he wants to risk leaving that up to Trump? I don't know. You have to remember, though, the catastrophic disclosure, as defined by Carl Nell, was really referring to foreign adversaries more than leaks. And, you know, I think a lot of us kind of like turned it into like a superhero thing where catastrophic disclosure was like, oh, yeah, these rebels are going to come out and share it with the world and it's going to change everything. And like, sorry, powers that be. Like, that

's not what they're talking about. Like, The people talking about catastrophic disclosure at the end of the day are the insiders who are concerned about maintaining the credence of these systems that they've spent their careers in. And they are genuinely worried that someone I think like China or Russia or whatever would maybe make a leap or at least even speak to this topic publicly in a way that wasn't the US controlling the scenario. So, you know, I don't think catastrophic disclosure is some

thing that they know to be this thing that's coming because these insiders are about to do it. I, I really think they're looking more externally when they talk about it. Um, but we have to keep the pressure applied and we have to use more vehicles than just the purely governmental, you know, it's tough because science research, which could be a vector in kind of exposing this in a broader way, this kind of nascent science research has to be funded by the feds in a large way to be meaningful unle

ss, unless we can all do better at convincing some ultra rich guide of suddenly be interested in the UAP issue to the issue of like, you know, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of research dollars like SETI just got from a private person. And, you know, let's be blunt. The SETI people have been very kind of anti-UAP for a while. That sucked. I was pissed about that. I think it's mostly because they're worried about, um, the money. I mean, listen, follow the money. You make money, pe

ople will follow it. People will get into UAP and science if there's money to study it. They'll instantly all be interested in studying UAP. To me, that's what the whole soul conference was about. Everyone's positioning themselves at the trough because they all know what is leaking out to us. That for whatever reason, we all seem to think they're gonna tell us. There's gonna be a disclosure. I feel it's coming. All the signs are pointing. And I feel like they're all lining themselves up and posi

tioning themselves to line up at the trough to be the first ones for those lucrative contracts and all that, and to finally get access, which they've been wanting for so long, and for the people who haven't had access to finally be able to, phew, okay, at least I can come a little bit clean. We still protect the technology, we do all of that, but we don't have to like spend so much effort on the basic secret anymore. Sure. And you know, it's funny, you know, the word foreign, I think is used in

many ways over many years in some ways to sort of blithely refer to the UAP topic, right? It's the foreign technology group. We are the exploitation group. And, you know, maybe some of the UAP stuff slips into that. Oh, I've kind of lost track of my point. Sorry about that. I'm kind of blanking at this moment. I forgot what I was going to say about that. Well, I just will tell you, I used your UAP, Declassified UAP website to send messages through. And I also did the same thing on Danny Sheehan'

s site, even though I do it myself through Twitter and whatever, just because I want, like, and I posted, I'm trying to, you know, because it's, we're still there. It's like, we're at the one yard line. You know, they got a big defense up. They got some big guys blocking. We can still squeak it past. And it's like, you know, I mean, Nick, I know you've been in this for a fucking long time. Like myself, Joe, like many of us who've been here and many who have come and gone, and we've never been th

is close. And it's like, You know, we got to keep the pressure on. And I feel like Danny, that's why he just uncorked so much shit tonight. Like, I feel like this space is going to be like reviewed and clipped and talked about and tweeted. Because I mean, a God, I hope not. It's still going on, Nick. But oh, no, there was so much that Danny draw. I mean, it was just great. Well, thanks, john. I appreciate it, man. I'm gonna bring in some other folks. I really later, man. you jogged my memory of

what I wanted to say, which is that, you know, foreign has been used as this sort of placeholder that we wonder if sometimes that means like a little more than what the word typically implies. And you wonder if maybe the catastrophic disclosure they worry about isn't China or Russia, right? There is, there's this other party that sort of seems like it's in play, maybe, and it's often not granted any agency in any of our conversations around it, strangely, even though it seems to often exhibit ma

ximal agency, at least compared to us. I think it's funny. And you know, I wanted to get into this with Danny too. I wanted to talk to him about his thought on sovereignty issues, and whether he thinks maybe like the national security concern, less about the technology and implementing it or whatever. Because I have real doubts about that, to be blunt. Just personally, like there's some operational stuff ready to go anytime soon. But there are maybe national security concerns when you're suddenl

y asking questions like, is there a galactic government? Because then suddenly you're like, where does earth government fit into that? Do people buy into earth government anymore? Do people want earth government anymore? Are they ready to be like, What the fuck are these assholes doing for me? I could have some kind of like, you know, nano compiler in my living room or whatever. Like, I, you know, let's just at least try to go for that. I'm not saying that's the right way of looking at the UAP i

ssue, but I wonder if they see that as a national security concern and people losing faith and just kind of are typical governance structures if we even have the possibility that there's this much bigger, broader, more sophisticated, and more capable structure that's kind of been here all along. Anyway, let me bring Potato in. I gotta go. Thank you so much for doing this. We'll do it again. Thanks so much, Joe. You've been awesome. We'll talk soon, man. Okay, see ya. Take it easy, man. Bye. Pota

to, Reason, why don't you jump in, man? You've been so patient this evening. Hopefully you can bring up something that maybe had been on your mind. Sorry we weren't able to get to you, but I think we can bring Danny back at some point. He seems amenable. Sure, yeah, no problem. I guess, yeah, I had a few questions that are closely related for Danny, but I think I can, you know, make them applicable here. I guess first, just a tiny bit about myself. I was very interested in this topic as a young

boy, and it frightened me terribly. And then I spent the next probably two or three decades as an extreme atheist and skeptic. You might call me the McWest of Minnesota. And then in the past couple of years, I kind of came to the realization that this phenomenon is most likely, quote, something real and not visionary or fictitious. And so in any case, I'm 41. And I'm sort of wondering, you know, how confident this panel is that they'll that will receive some sort of actual meaningful disclosure

in my lifetime, whether or not the UAPDA passes unmolested or whether or not it has sufficient teeth. And then also If we do not receive any sort of meaningful disclosure in the next few years, are there people in the community that are interested in shepherding any sort of so-called catastrophic disclosure? And if so, what might that actually entail? We've obviously seen the testimony by David Grush, and I think that's made a big splash, but it still doesn't seem like that is sufficient for wha

t we're looking for? Will it require more public whistleblowers, revelations of secret patents, revelations of biologics, technology, et cetera? And yeah, I think that's my question. Thank you. I so appreciate it, man. My quick answer is that I think the public, again, needs to realize how it can completely legally make things less and less comfortable for people who prevent us from getting at just the core that we're looking for, at the very least, if not the gory details, just acknowledging wh

atever the hell is going on, officially, whatever that ends up being, based on the best available knowledge. And the public can apply all sorts of levers in making our media less comfortable not covering this. It's all about reward systems, right? And if you really, I mean, I think people should acknowledge that Chuck Todd, even though it was on the streamed app first, I mean, they all kind of put together knowing it was just going to be on YouTube and available to everybody. The 30 minute piece

that they did that had Robert Powell of SCU and a number of really credible people speaking about UAP, And Chuck Todd taking it really seriously. Like there wasn't disparagement of UAP in that segment. And, you know, they're putting that out on their mobile, you know, stream first kind of branding thing, because they know that that's where the audience is. you know, it's not that that's the loser medium necessarily anymore. It's like they know that certain streaming videos get way more hits in

a 24 hour period than, you know, an episode of the evening news. And so I think we should embrace the media and reward them when they do a serious piece by watching it, you know, allow them to monetize that coverage, you know, watch the Chuck Todd, you know, what is it? The NBC, whatever, whatever. Um, meet the press reports, meet the press reports. It's like not even the normal meet the press. But I'd be really interested to hear from you, Lester, if you want to jump in, or Matthew, if you want

to jump in on those dynamics. Yeah, I think I think what's interesting is, you know, let's take the hypothetical, you know, scenario, you know, proposed where we don't necessarily see a UAPDA passed with any kind of teeth. And What are the other pathways to discovery around this topic? As we've seen sort of post 2017 post hearings with David Grush, I think just even in my own network within the tech community, there is, I think that we've broken through the veil of curiosity with enough people

that can look at the sort of detection, characterization and evaluation challenges with UAP outside of the government, not necessarily that they have the same level of tooling, but I think they're, they're, they're going to naturally begin to be more and more pop up projects around creating and discovering the whole sky isn't classified issue. Like people really defining, like, how do we actually either consistently, you know, you know, identify the location, the patterns, you know, the morpholo

gies, etc. How can we, you know, consistently find ways to interact with these things, like, all of that stuff, you know, there is already a movement happening where that is starting. So that's going to accelerate over time. And I think the AI analogy here is really apt, where like, you can think of where we are in like the UAP kind of timeline is where like GPT-1, GPT-2 was in terms of OpenAI's trajectory, where it's like, you have a couple of crumbs, there's not really information that you can

really get out of it that's functional. But there is something fundamentally undergirding this that you can build on. So that flywheel, I think, has started. I think the paradigm that, you know, Nick, we've talked about before is like, there's a disclosure path and there's a discovery path. And both are important and both have to be happening in tandem and in unison in terms of the momentum that we push forward in terms of the public demanding that funding goes into these discovery programs and

that the government, particularly Congress, does something about pushing forth disclosure. And it's like a yes and strategy as opposed to an either or strategy. So just in everything that we've been talking about throughout the evening, it's just like, it's like, yes, we need to do that. And we also need to do this and it's nuts and bolts and it's consciousness. You know, you require IQ and EQ like it's, it's yes. And, and I think that's what makes the topic so complex to address because it's w

here do you start? Right. And I think what we're doing now is finding those places to start. I was just going to try to, you know, like, again, be pure analyst here. And if the question is, what's the probability of there being some something like what we would say would constitute disclosure, although people might have different definitions of that. And if you look that, you know, you know, current financial markets. If you looked at, say, the forward curve of the US Treasury market, if you loo

ked at, you know, any sort of highly liquid traded asset, I don't think you would see the, you know, the world's sort of financial markets pricing in, you know, anything, you know, above, you know, what might be like in the noise floor for that for that probability. So I think that's something that we, you know, folks that maybe are really close to this have to sort of reconcile, right? So like, on the one hand, I have conversations with people that are, you know, 100% convinced that this is on

a train, this can't be stopped. And it's just a matter of kind of the political, institutional, bureaucratic, yada, yada, yada, path dependency to eventually get to that point. And people throw out all sorts of different timeframes, but they're all relatively soon, you know, essentially this decade. And so I have to reconcile, you know, those people that are professionally very competent have, you know, bona fides in, you know, non-UAP related domains that are, you know, making these claims, you

know, with some degree of of confidence. And then I have to look at the rest of the world in terms of pricing, you know, expectations about the future. And I don't see any of those claims or beliefs priced in to the to the world market. So I think you have to reconcile like I'm I try to be hyper busy, and I haven't physically touched these things. And I'm not a first hand party to all these negotiations. I'm just sort of an observer trying to track these things sort of outside the box. And I ha

ve to kind of calibrate between those two very divergent perspectives. It's the ultimate black swan, right, Matt? Yeah, and that's kind of what I did professionally for a while, was sort of doing low probability, high consequence events analysis. Mostly bad things for the government. And yeah, these are things that are very hard to, to ascribe a probability to, they're sort of inherently sort of like, you know, in the fourth quadrant of Tel Aviv and uncertainty or 19 uncertainty, we can look at,

you know, the current political moves, and we can sort of draw reasoned extrapolations about where the political incentives, the institutional momentum, the political momentum, sort of the civic discourse reaches that sort of tipping point threshold, and make estimates about how close you are to that quote, unquote, tipping point. But the nature of tipping points is, you really don't know where they are until you hit them. It could be a long time before you get to that, what you think is the ti

pping point, even if it feels like you're on the upward sloping part of the curve. So anyway, that's a little bit more of an analytical take on that question. So you have to draw inferences from a low information zone. This is very helpful because you get relatively high-quality signal from someone like Dana Sheehan who's closer to those, that part of the onion inside the box and you can maybe draw higher quality inferences on how close you are to that kink in the curve, so to speak. I think you

have to treat it as data and put it into this probabilistic model. I think it's definitely closer than it was six months ago or 12 months ago, at least the stipulated trajectory is certainly is increasing. But yeah, making predictions is probably impossible. Speaking of increasing, hasn't Arrow, have they officially, am I misremembering this, kind of implied a little bit that UAP sightings are on the increase, and they're not 100% sure if it's sensor bias or not, but it's as present as ever? Is

that the vibe you're getting? The most recent report noted an increase from the past report, but I don't know if they established a sufficient baseline to use their parlance to draw the statistical inference that it's increasing objectively as opposed to just it's increasing in terms of their pipeline. It was very confusing to try to count all their numbers up because some of it was historical reports, they were counting to the latest batch as well as new reports that came in. But again, the wa

y that their pipeline for reporting is designed, it's just basically military censors. which are concentrated in, you know, it's a heterogeneous distribution around the world. But if you talk anecdotally to sort of the aviators in that community, and the folks like Ryan Graves, and the folks that he's talked to as commercial pilots, you know, he's reported, I guess you might call it like, like anecdata, because I think he's starting to compile, like a more rigorous process for kind of a civilian

equivalent to Arrow. And, you know, he's made statements that just, you know, in that early phase of him standing up that intake process, you know, they've seen, you know, more people coming forward. Now, again, whether that's just a reporting bias, people now feel more comfortable, or whether it's an objective fact, very hard to distinguish. I'm sure, you know, there's a lot of people other than me that are probably closer to those data sets that could, you know, assess like, what's a true tre

nd? What's a selection bias? It's so hard because, you know, when you look at the data, the bias issue is just so predominant. I mean, most U.S. UAP reports follow population centers. It makes it very hard to tease out nuance, except in a few very particular circumstances. It's really tough. But, you know, it would be interesting, like it's again, it's just purely hypothetical. But if they had any reason to believe that the underlying thing we're all here talking about might be in the process of

asserting itself more, it makes you maybe wonder a little bit about what all of those catastrophic disclosure scenarios could entail. Because at a certain point, when everyone or every other person has seen one of these things, something will shift. I was into this topic for a really long time. It's not saying anything statistically, it's 100% anecdotal, but I'll just say it took me a while to see the thing that I had maybe been waiting for a little bit, at least as far as how I perceived my ex

perience. Someone else I know saw one more recently or something that to them just fit this category we call UAP. Who knows? I'd like to get to a few more people and then I'm going to have to burn out soon because We're coming up on the five-hour mark, and actually we're pretty much at the five-hour mark. So I've only got a couple of more folks I have energy for to bring in. But Kent, you've been very patient. I would love to have you share any thoughts that are top of mind. Kent, go for it when

ever you would like to speak. You ready? Yeah, mate. I mean, it was a great discussion. I wanted to ask Danny a few questions, but it was in two areas. One is national defence, national safety. They use this term so liberally, but I wondered if anything was included in the legislation about having to justify that. And the second part I really wanted to talk to him about was the private contractor element. I think that's always, I've always said that that's the weakness, that's the area where we'

re going to get access, because, you know, having been a due diligence investigator and, you know, corporate diligence investigator, One thing I've found is contractor relationships are very, especially in sort of programs that aren't open to public scrutiny, in corporations and in private contractors, the level of buddieship and misadventure that goes on is usually quite high when you investigate these things. And I think that's one of the areas Danny and people on that side can really get an a

venue to getting onto the contractors. Just wanted to mention that. Yeah. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. I'm going to try to get to a few other folks before we shut this down. Again, if anyone wants to interact with other speakers or anything, just respond to each other's points. You're more than welcome to jump in. Give me just a moment while I do some fiddling here, because I don't have a co-host. I've just brought in One Faith Love. You've also been quite patient for a while. Thank you so much

. Any thoughts that you wanted to bring into the conversation before we wrap it up this evening? You know, I'm a little late. I did want to comment on something Joe said. It might be something for another conversation, particularly with regard to intent and instances of hostility. I guess my curiosity for Joe was whether or not he knew that hostility, whether he was aware that it was related to particularly crash retrieval, you know, whether it could be interpreted as, you know, self-defense. It

's an interesting question, but part of the overall space, and certainly Mac contributed to this, is that a lot of average people report these outlier experiences that, at least to our frame of reference, we might consider a little hostile. We wouldn't do it to other people without considering it being hostile. And these are just experiences that happen with average people. that, you know, a lot of people do connect with the UAP phenomenon. That's a little more explicit in some cases and situati

ons than others. But, you know, I don't know. I think we're talking about maybe a wide spectrum. And also, just my own view, because I know you weren't interested in that, but I'll say it anyway, is that like, you know, hostility is very subjective, right? I'm a lifelong experiencer, and I obviously don't think that we can, you know, necessarily ever comprehend, you know, intentions with the limited information, especially that we have now. My question was really with regard to on record like mu

rders, like that, I mean, I'm assuming that those are members of our military that are potentially... We're not talking about human murders. We're talking about NHI murders. That was something that came up that Joe was... So, you know, Danny disambiguated that a little bit from his own point of view. You might not have caught this portion, but to me it sounded like he said that whatever Grush asserted from Danny's perspective while he was aware of cases, and I think he was referring to the Virgi

nia case, maybe, where someone had touched a body of something and got ill and died afterwards. That's at least resonant with that case that obviously James Fox did his moment of contact movie about. He did not say he had information on more aggressive kinds of behaviors. In fact, I mean, he was asked pretty directly about that, and he made it sound like he was under the impression the aggression was really on the part of people covering up programs. But it's not to say he has knowledge, and he

was pretty, I think, good to caveat that. He was, I think, a little more willing to caveat some things, or at least I was paying attention to that more maybe than I have in some of his other interviews and stuff. trying not to say he was trying to speak unilaterally for the totality of quote-unquote UAP and experiencer phenomena. But I think that's a really good question. Thank you for raising it. And it's obviously something we would love to get declassified and learn a little bit more about. I

think we deserve to know is this thing ever aggressive in a way that we would at least define that. So thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Yeah, totally. Thank you for hosting this. And I saw so many familiar names and faces here. So, you know, congratulations. This was a really, really fruitful and productive conversation. I think Danny said a lot of kind of bombshell things. So congrats. Oh, no, thank you. I mean, listen, it was really great. Again, I've bumped into him a couple of times o

ver the years now. And, you know, I've always just gotten good vibes from him. I liked him. So it was it was really wonderful that they were able to offer coming out and speaking to everyone. And again, he seemed very like he got into the mode at, I think, a certain point. And I think he was liking the interaction from a lot of different people. And so, you know, hopefully we can get him and Tyler back to do that again at some point. I want to bring in a couple more people before I burn out here

. Just a couple more, really. Rick Barr, we're going to add you next. Give us just a moment while Rick connects. The space behaved decently tonight. I'll say that for the number of people that were on. I can't believe Brian of all people was the one who couldn't speak on a space that felt a little strange and ironic on a weird level. But I don't know what that was about because we tried to bring him up like six times. The man is after him for sure. It looks like Rick might be having some connect

ion problems too. I'm going to bring in Made in USA. We'll have you go next Maiden USA. Or is it all just breaking down at this point? Is everyone having problems connecting? That could be the case. Maybe we just maxed out whatever the bit depth of this space is, right? It could be. I don't see that Maiden USA is able to connect either. I'm going to try like one or two more folks. If it doesn't work, we know that it's time to wrap. Ben, I'm going to bring you in next. No, I think it burned out.

Can people still hear me? Give me a thumbs up or a 100 or something like that. You're good. I wonder if we've just surpassed, again, it's like the bit depth in some line of code of how many total speakers. That's like an 8-bit value and we've gone way past it or some shit. Well, guys, if it's not working, you know, I think we've shared a lot of interesting perspectives. Thanks for letting me go off on the woo front. I always like doing that, of course. Matthew, Lester, obviously I want to call o

ut Joe and again Danny and Tyler and everyone else who spoke. It was great getting Klaus and some other folks that we're all obviously familiar with up into the conversation. I can't believe this thing went a little over five hours. And catch Thursday, 8.30. This one will be maybe a little more controversial. Garrett Graff, author of the new book, UFOs, I think it's called like the search for extraterrestrial intelligence here and out there or something close to that. I've been liking it so far.

It doesn't mean I agree with all of Garrett's views. It doesn't mean I think his tone has always been perfectly well landed in certain contexts. But again, the book is a history of UAP just as a refresher even for me, who's been into it for so long. I've really been enjoying it. I like his writing style. I try to bring people into the Big Ten, even if they're not on board of a lot of what I might even take for granted, or at least assign relatively high probabilities to, or decent probabilities

to. I look forward to getting into that conversation with him on many fronts, whether it's about you know, Grush and comments on him and maybe what the credibility or even just likelihood of those claims is. I can tell you just in my email correspondence with Garrett, I think folks, you know, whether or not they want to kind of accept, you know, as being a thing of value, some of his public statements or, you know, appearances and news bites and things like that. I can tell you, be ready for ju

st a more nuanced set of views than some of you I think might have about what his actual feelings personally are about these things. They seem to be perfectly nuanced and reasonable in my interactions with him. You know, I think he is open minded. He's not sold per se. And I think he is a puller at threads. And sometimes being a puller of threads is also pulling on the ones that make the story fall apart. And it doesn't mean that that conclusion is right or again, you've assigned the correct odd

s. But I think there are a lot of people, we just have to really remember that so much of our thinking and feeling and everything about the UAP topic is through so many lenses of just decades of vacuum of real information. And mythologies, there have been faked UAP landings. There's been faked photos. Sometimes there are hoaxes. There's also the psyop element which comes into play. So I also give people kind of credence for wondering in certain cases, did it really go down that way? Did some sto

ry evolve years later? So anyway, I'm really open to having a nuanced conversation with him about that stuff. Again, some maybe probably even deeper things, because he's a really smart, deep guy. And Matthew, I hope you can join us, and Lester and everyone else, because I think we can have some fun conversations even about you know, the universe and, you know, the odds of things and really kind of fun, interesting conversations. And if people do have, you know, some tougher questions, again, kee

p it polite. Keep it succinct. You know, don't go on a rant fest. You know, any any accusations of just being a shill, being a sellout, being a government agent. Like I'll ask him those questions at the beginning of the interview. Are you any of these things? And, you know, I'll let him respond how he how he wants. He has a very public profile. He's kind of known as the person he is. I find it hard to believe he's some agent of Radiance Technologies or whoever. How funny is it we're talking abou

t a company called Radiance, by the way, and not like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon? They're getting out scot-free. Maybe Radiance is the distraction, so we're not paying attention to like... where the really the messy shit is. It's like, oh, they're on junior level messy shit. We'll let people dig around at that for a while. But anyway, I digress. I think the conversation with Garrett will be great. Just don't be insulting. Don't make accusations that are unfounded. Don't be rude. And I think we

can have a really meaningful conversation. And I really look at it as an opportunity to bring a very well-respected person who's put a lot of his energy into writing a fundamentally good UFO history book, one that I've enjoyed. It really brought new dimensions to my understanding of kind of Hynek as a public personality. I kind of maybe just didn't realize like he kind of had this pre UFO presence in the American psyche, at least if you were following certain things in astronomy and science. He

had been involved in some other interesting stuff over the years. And, you know, I find anyone who brings kind of a richness to even my own UAP understanding, you know, someone who's adding value in some way. And it's an opportunity to kind of, you know, share ideas, share perspectives, you know, maybe open them up to something and, you know, try to gain an ally. I'm always looking for allies. I'll try to convert anyone. I'm a dumbass. Anyone who's the ultimate person who's holding up UAP disclo

sure or whatever. I don't know. I'll have beers with them. Let's see if we can kind of work it out. It's probably not going to work out. It's at least where I come from, kind of ideologically. So I certainly welcome him to have a good space, a positive space, a productive space, and I hope everyone joins. Again, that's going to be 8.30 on Thursday, Eastern Time. He said he can go at least 90 minutes at the rate that these things are going. That means we'll be talking the next morning, maybe. I h

ope not. I hope Garrett can get some sleep that night. But anyway, folks, join us on 8.30 p.m. Eastern on Thursday for Garrett Graff. And I will see you all online like tomorrow, but I'll probably sleep in a little late tonight. So everyone have a wonderful evening. And thank you, everyone, once again. A lot of fun this evening. And it's really meaningful to me to get so many people together around their passion for this and for making change happen. I really think that that's like the ingredien

t at the end of the day is people just deciding that we're ready for the change to fucking happen already. Thank you for being part of that. Please keep making the calls, as Danny said, and as I would say, and as Lester would say, and as anyone would say. It's not over till it's over. Make the calls. Lester, we got a name. I'm totally out of it at this point. So I think you have this guy. I think it was a senator. Was it from Louisiana as a good target point? It was one of the guys Danny called

out. It might have been. We should have everyone covered on the Republican leadership. that is allegedly pushing back as well as Schumer rounds. UAPDA co-authors and the existing Democratic leadership. So all of the co-cohorts that are sort of the most important in this conversation are currently added on the call tool. It was Wicker, I think. I think it was Wicker in Mississippi, not Louisiana. He said Wicker might be a sticking point. I don't know if I called Wicker's office today. So call you

r own reps, call Wicker, call the mics, call all the people on UAP caucus. All the mics. you know, go to uapcaucus.com slash call, go to declassifyuap.org slash action. Declassify UAP is really for you to engage with your own reps. As Danny said, you can also use New Paradigm Institute to do that. They have sort of a similar tool. Please send both letters. Go to declassify. If you haven't, send our kind of form letter. It's great to just have numbers behind that message. It's also great for numb

ers to be behind the message that Danny's org sends out. Stamp your name on all of it. That's fine. It's okay. We want to create a flood of volume of people really voicing support for this. I was really glad to see Schumer, his tweet, get so much response. I have to think his social media team, his comms team is like, Senator Schumer, that UAP thing was actually the biggest response from America you've ever received on anything online. That's a good message to get into these guys' heads. That's

the work that we're all doing here. And again, I want to thank Lester and everyone who's been part of that and everyone who's called out to their reps, the U.S. citizens, of course. If you're not a U.S. citizen, fuck it. Call your local U.S. embassy and tell them what you want to see and that this is a global issue and everyone's looking to the U.S. for leadership. You can look at your embassy number at usembassy.gov. Just go to usembassy.gov and you get a lookup form for your country. They all

have phone numbers, contact info. You can totally call and lodge a comment. That's really your appropriate diplomatic touchpoint if you're a foreign citizen who's trying to interact about issues that the US is involved with. So call your US embassy for hell's sake, just go for it. Keep making the calls this week, people. Keep making the calls until we know exactly what the status of the NDAA is. Just don't treat it like it's over. And then when it is over, even if it's not ideal, like, get angri

er and more revved up and more ready to make more noise and try to bring more people into it. Let's make the next Hill Day not just me walking around Congress, because that's dipshit. That was called the dry run. Like, we got to get a lot of people involved and like, you know, go through the Hart Senate building, you know, go through Rayburn, go through the, you know, Cannon, go through these other buildings, have it all lined up, try to get some people who are actual constituents to show up. As

best we can, prearrange a few meetings. It'll be pretty hard for these offices to ignore if there's several hundred people in the hallway, you know, and they take them up on the please come in on the door. And again, you don't flood the office with 300 people. You don't really know what you're walking into. You want to be respectful, but you can send in a few reps and they've certainly heard the crowd in the hallway. So I think that gets noticed, and you can do it in a way that isn't a protest

and is completely legal and within your bounds. And again, we should appreciate we have these levers. They don't have them in a lot of places. You can't do that. I mean, there's lots of democratic nations you also can, but we should just be thankful for that. It's easy to bitch and moan about how fucked up it all is, and it kind of is. It doesn't mean it's all fucked up and the more fucked up it gets is because people don't realize we have these levers. So I hope even if the UAPDA goes down or g

ets gutted or whatever the hell happens with UAP legislation in the next few weeks, because something will happen, something will be in the NDAA. It's not the trend line now for nothing to happen. There was multiple batches of things in the NDAA that are even relevant to UAP. So some of them don't even refer to UAP directly, but are still relevant to the topic. I think there was some new whistleblower regulations, et cetera. You know, we'll see what we get and then just get louder, get more invo

lved, you know, keep pushing it forward. We'll get there eventually. I think more people are just coming to realize it anyway and aren't so bent out of shape about the government validating it. It's just about what's right and making the right change. So everyone have a wonderful evening. We'll talk tomorrow. I'll see you all and have a great night. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Lester. Everyone's been awesome. Ciao.