Secret UFO Whistleblower - Anthony Williams Hard Truths Podcast

Video Transcript

Hey everybody, welcome to another Hard Truths podcast. Today my guest is Anthony Williams, intelligence community insider. You've probably seen him on Stephen Diner's podcast. He's been asked about Gorgon Stair. He's been asked about the technology that the government is potentially allegedly hiding. And so, thank you very much for joining me, Anthony Williams. How are you doing today, sir? >> Hey, Aston. Thanks for having me. I'm doing well and uh it's a pleasure to be here. >> I'm super excited to talk to you. um because I think that you can shed a lot of light or fill in some of the gaps that we're seeing or that we have from the public perspective uh around the UFO topic and the UFO uh disclosure efforts that are happening. So, I guess the first question though that I have for you is why is it that you're doing this? What is your background? You know, as much as you can tell us and what is your motivation for coming out and revealing the information that you're revealing? >> Yeah. No, that's a that's a great question. you know, um, first of all, let's even get, you know, a little bit closer. Why Why am I Why did I agree to do your podcast? Um, [clears throat] >> first of all, uh, I think you've done excellent work on some of the stuff that I've followed. Um, and I I can lend more insight into that later, but, um, been really impressed with the approach you've taken. And so, um, you know, for me, if if there's any sort of insight I can help lend, happy to do it. Uh my background um you know May I just wrapped up uh just under 30 years of of service in the military 24 that being in special operations uh my wife um also military about 11 years ago what really started me down this road 11 years ago um in our backyard adjacent to the military installation where we worked um we had uh a sighting and Um it was extremely anomalous. Our kids were there. We were trying to downplay it um cuz they were younger. Um didn't want to freak him out. And my wife uh being a military aviator uh was able to contract contact air traffic control quickly confirm that it was uh not a scheduled flight. Um they weren't tracking anything. So that really sent me down a personal rabbit hole. Um, and then professionally my my paths crossed with this topic again. And so, um, you know, that's that's how we got here. Um, I've met with, uh, you know, Congressman Burlson, uh, multiple times, uh, on the phone, in person. um you know and and me not going out any further than than uh under a pseudonym is really because um you know I've gotten all the information I need to get to who I need to get it to. Um but for my friends and family or anyone that that is interested in the topic, I've always been uh willing to shed a light of reality. um whether they send me photos or videos or ask me about a topic. Um I'll I'll lend whatever insight I can to help sort that out. And [snorts] you know, with a topic like this, this isn't the only topic that that's like this, but there there are so many, you know, when when it involves secrecy, it's hard to make heads or tails. Um and to have someone that can um you know, at least lend a perspective. Um I found that that's helped people um you know, sort through it. So happy to do that. Sorry. And that's exactly what I want. And so I guess what I was really getting at there is then what's your motivation? Like do you believe that there is aliens being covered up? Do you believe that there is advanced technology being covered up? Are you saying that there is something that is mysterious is being covered up and that we the public deserves to know the truth about it? Like why why would you come out and lend your voice? What is it that you're so concerned about that you think we need to be aware of? >> That That's a That's a really good question. Um so what I believe versus what I know um are two different things. >> Um do I believe everything you just said is true? Yes. Based on what I know um but I don't know all those things to be true. What I what I can tell you um is that when you have a lot of evidence that leads factually that we have anomalous activity in our airspace in our environment on our planet that cannot be explained by the people who dedicate their lives to explain what they're looking at. Um, you know, that's a problem. And, uh, you know, do I believe it's off-world, uh, nonhuman, alien, whatever you want to call it. Uh, absolutely. Um, and we can get into, you know, why and what what, uh, what I've seen that that lends that, but um, I 100% believe uh, this is. I don't think it's new. I think it's been going on for a while. And um you know the motivation is uh I think it's a a false I think it's a false reality to say that the general public not just in America but globally can't handle the the truth and the reality of certain things. Um and even if we can't I would rather live in a world uh that we understand as much of the environment as we can. Whether that's understanding consciousness, whether that's understanding, you know, the UAP thing fully, what whatever that is, I think we should seek first to understand and then to be understood. And >> understanding our environment should be our first imperative. It's actually the first soft imperative is, you know, understanding your operational environment. And that's a that's a big thing. And um I think people have the right to know. And I think scholars, religious leaders, I I don't know a major religion that doesn't believe in a spiritual realm and other beings outside this planet. Um, so I, you know, I think, >> you know, we're in a we're in a real uh, you know, Stephen and I, I think it was off air. Stephen Diner and I got into a real deep conversation on what a conundrum disclosure actually is. Um, and so yeah, so anyway, >> throw a wrench in there. If I throw a wrench into that, which is we say, okay, you know, aliens deserve to be known if that's something the government is hiding. >> But let's say hypothetically that that comes along with some baggage that is super advanced technology, maybe free energy technology, maybe warp drives or wormhole technology. The question then becomes to you is where's the line between national security and then what's justified for the public to know exactly like how do you personally draw the line as somebody who's you know talking to me on a podcast about this that's you know at least you know skirting that line a little bit where how where do you draw it personally? So, I draw the line at, you know, at at clear levels of classification. Um, first of all, and second of all, that's just me personally. Um, I'm not going to I'm not going to violate, you know, um, >> anything that, you know, that I've set my life defending, you know, I'm not going to violate that. But, um, how do you release that? You know, where does where does our government draw the line? Well, I think nuclear technology is a great example. So we advance all this nuclear technology. We have released a ton of it. The fact that we have it. What we don't release is weaponization of it. So those are very very highly regarded secrets. But the fact that we have nuclear power plants, the fact that we have naval ships ran by nuclear power, you know, we have um we've not kept that a secret. People are aware that we have it. Um and so I you know, I think there's probably something similar to this. Well, so here's a followup to that. Two-part. Number one, are aliens classified? >> Yeah, that's a good question, right? Obviously, um if we if we do if we are communicating with them, if we do know about them, we sure as heck haven't let that cat out of the bag. So, um I'd go ahead and and mark that. Yes. Well, then if that's the case, not not to, you know, call you out, but doesn't that make you kind of a hypocrite because you said you draw the line where things are classified. Well, if aliens are classified, there you go. And the point I'm bringing up here is not to do a gotcha, but because my next part of the question is you mentioned, okay, well, you bring up nuclear weapons as an example. Well, what if I say the advancement of nuclear weapons leads to fusion and then that can be used either for an energy source or as a weapon. And now you make the justification that if something can be used as a weapon that needs to be classified. Well, what if free energy, what if zero point energy, this is also one of the discoveries from nuclear weapons. What if now we found both an energy source and a weapon? How do you now draw the line between whether or not that should be something that's notable for the that the public should know about or not? >> No. Another another great question. Um, you know, first first of all, just because something's classified doesn't mean I think it should be. Okay. So, um you know, we overclassify a lot of things. Some things are very deliberate, some things are laziness um sec certain security classification guides um that I have read on this topic uh tell us how when we discover something along the UAP topic, how we classify it, whether it's secret or top secret, secret no foreign can't share with other governments. So that is that is our manual that we follow within the government when we classify these topics at different levels. That doesn't mean I agree with that. That doesn't mean I think aliens should be classified. Um that just is a reality, right? Um when it comes to weaponization, um we've done that exact thing and there's a line you have to skirt, right? So Elon Musk's Starlink satellite and his Falcon 9 rocket, there is a reason why NASA and any private rocketeer has to get their home country's approval before a launch. And that's for every country, whether that's Chinese satellites, Russian satellites, and we have to pass that to all the other countries because there is zero delineation between a Falcon 9 rocket and an intercontinental ballistic missile. they absolutely can do the exact same thing. So, there's an example of something that was classified that the private industry uh worked on their own and some of that was massaged back and forth through military-industrial complex, but it's a line that we skirt that we don't just let anybody dabble in that space, but um we do use it for civilian purposes. We do let that out. Um, but there's no difference uh between a Falcon 9 rocket or something that Russia or China uses to launch satellites and an ICBM. Um, and it's why we have to be overt with that so that Russia doesn't think we're starting a nuclear war. >> Yeah. But then I guess the problem is you can use that justification and basically classify anything you want that because almost every piece of technology can be either used to make a weapon or it can be used to uh do something useful. Even the electromagnetic waves we use for cell phones can be used to make a discombobulator that makes people bleed out of their ears and out of their eyes, you know? So, >> yeah, >> I guess this is the problem is that >> how do you control or how do you allow the truth to come out? I mean, I guess what I'm getting at is this is I keep thinking back to Tom Delange talking about General McCasslin and General McCasslin being weirdly obsessed with what's necessary for a free republic. is that at what point are is the government, military and intelligence agencies at what point are they taking agency away from normal Americans by determining where that line is drawn? I guess that's my >> I agree. I agree. And don't don't get me wrong, I don't think the classification starts at weaponization. I I absolutely don't believe that. And I don't think anything that can be weaponized because you could use a car or a knife as a weapon like that. Just weaponizing something isn't what deems it classified. So, here's the problem I see with disclosure right now today, right? And um I think a lot of work if if if you if you go full open Komodo and you just you just spill the beans on everything. Hey, Roswell was real, Aztec was real, all these things, you know, and and you go open with it all. Yes, we've talked to extraterrestrial beings, you know, that disclosure alone will not be enough. People are going to want to know what happened to this, what have we developed? And there's going to be a massive level of disbelief just based on the validation. There's been, you know, over half a century worth of misleading and lying, straight up, you know, deceit. Um, so how do you get some of the truth out without having to spill the goods of every tech you've reverse engineered and what you've done? Well, we're doing it now with new studies and new programs that are looking at this. It would be very easy for this president or the next president to come out and say, "Hey, since 2017, we've been looking into this and we can determine that these things are not human and we figured out how to take some of them down and we're working with other countries." You could really get a rally cry around this from the other countries politically in your own country saying, "Hey, we're working with China, Russia, all of our all of our near peers. we're working on this. And then at the same time, you don't have to reveal all the other things. And the third thing you get is now the American people will support an overt f uh line of funding to actually fund research and fund development along this line that they were told is fake for all these years without having to go back in history. It can be a new discovery today. and and so I don't know a whole lot of other ways we're going to get disclosure without it being catastrophic. And to your point, revealing tech, revealing where we're at with things. Um, you know, really going back 70 years, um, my guess, I I don't know this for any official way, but my guess is all the recent things we're seeing give ground to use today's activities, the recent activities as a point to say, "Hey, we've looked into this. This is anomalous. We believe it to be nonhuman, and here's why." They could even pull out a downed orb that they that they downed and show it and say, "Hey, we're working with everybody else. You know, we're we're aligning resources to it." And now all these programs that have operated in the shadows, uh, you know, they can have a frontline uh line of accounting now rather than uh dark money. >> Man, you kind of freak me out when you say all that stuff because it rings absolutely true to me. So part of it just off the bat I'm thinking here's one contradiction that I have that I need reconciliation on which is you say we are potentially working with China Russia our adversaries on this UFO topic probably to keep it secret maybe to you know down them if they're aliens or what have you but how do you reconcile that with what seems to be the major motiv motivation between hiding it from the public which is so that our adversaries don't know how far we've advanced the technology because whoever has this technology the most or the best version of this technology is going to control the planet which is presumably us. So how do you say okay well we're working with them but we're also in a shadow war over the technology like how does that work? Well, so first of all, if America disclosed first based on recent activity, not going into the past, not even addressing that, hey, we don't have any evidence what, you know, saying the same song and dance that they have been for, you know, 70 years. Um, but they have disclosure based on what they found now. Um, what better way to win uh political favor than say you're going to work with globally with all your adversaries and allies to really crash on this. But remember that disclosure doesn't acknowledge anything else. That tech that tech race that's been going on for 70 years, that's going to continue. That's not going to be any different. um the number of times in our recent history that we've labeled a country an ally and then they become an adversary in two decades, that that's not a short list. And so um it would be very easy to win public opinion by having the facade of collaboration while not collaborating at all. >> Okay. Wow. >> And that is not this is not the only topic that we do that with. >> Oh yeah. No, enemies become allies very quickly and I I could see that happening suddenly and it does seem like there's something going on. So before I get into the disclosure questions, I guess my last my question to prime all this is, is there a legacy program? That's what people are calling it. And then if so, what do you think the legacy program consists of exactly? You know, just to give you some context, I think it was UAP GERB that said the legacy program is controlled by the National Security Council and it comprises of the CIA, uh the uh defense contractors, the Department of Energy, and the Air Force presumably also Space Force. Do you jive with that or do you have a different >> You UAP Gerb gets more right than he gets wrong. um he does and and I I listen to all of his stuff and every now and then I laugh, but most of the time he's pretty close. Um with with where with what the assumptions he's drawing based on his research, um I believe based on what I have seen and read on in in classified environments that the legacy program quote unquote is more than one thing. Um, so I think we have overt uh parts of the government at a classified level actively trying to figure out what these things are, what's going on, while back behind another layer of secrecy, there are people that actually know what's going on. And here's here's here's why I lean towards my disclosure opinion. um within the government, it would be so easy for um for the government to shut this down. So if the Department of War, Department of Defense, if they wanted to investigate this, like we have like we have had programs in the last 15 years that are actively investigating this, they're aligning resources, they're aligning funding. If they didn't want that to get out, any four-star general in command could have walked into that room and said, "Hey, shut it down." And if anyone would have asked why, they would have said, "That's none of your business. Shut it down." >> You mean the UFO files? Is that what you're talking about? >> The UAP task force, Arrow, all the different, you know, all uh OAP, all these different things that that have come out. There's a reason why this is being allowed to happen. There's a reason why some of these files are being released, some of these videos are being released. There's a reason why that's happening. And and it's it's going to lead, I believe, it's going to lead to a certain level of disclosure, whether overt um or just through getting it in the zeitgeist. But um but there's a level that will not be released. And this could have been shut down real quick by quote unquote the legacy program. Um especially at the NSC level. They could have stepped in at any point and told everyone working it uh from the intelligence community to the war department, hey, shut this down. This is done. And that wouldn't have been a second thought been like, got it. Okay. >> Yeah. And so I think my interpretation I'll just put throw my interpretation out there and this is my brand new take on this um is that this is basically like sandbagging because I don't see anything productive coming out of a the UFO files so far and I don't see anything happening from this UFO council learning council as I call it. I don't remember what the real name is. >> Great great point. Why do you think that is? >> Yeah because I think the idea is stall as long as possible. If I look at the behavior of what's happening here, I say they can't make this thing go away entirely. Next best bet is throw as many sandbag roadblocks in the way, stall as long as possible, presumably because they know that this is the type of thing you can't keep hidden forever and that there's some thing coming on the horizon that's unavoidable. So in the process, like you said, acclimate people to it and then definitely just suddenly discover the technology. I mean, you I think you laid out the plan. is like, "Oh, we suddenly figured out anti-gravity. We suddenly figured out fusion." How crazy is that? Everybody clap. Everyone clap, please. >> Like, yeah, you know, that's what I think is Go ahead. >> You know, what's being shown and being disclosed, first of all, is not anywhere near the top level uh things that we have. That's that's a little that that was red flag number one for me. Red flag number two was there's no context. If I take a video of a teenager in the street and I don't give you any context, no audio, nothing. It's just a video of a kid and then I ask you, "What do you make of that kid?" You're like, "I I don't know. Is he walking somewhere? Is he hanging out with a friend?" You You have no ability to glean anything. The reality is every video, every photo, and every file that they've released, there is a high level of analytical work that went into that that could explain to you why it's anomalous. Some of these videos that that they have released are not anomalous. We've already discredited those and some of them you look at, you're like, well, that looks like a balloon. Yeah, cuz it is. But the other ones that are highly anomalous might not look like anything that anomalous, but the analytical work that went behind it, the context behind it, none of that's being released. So, here's a bunch of videos. Make of it what you will. Well, you're not the expert on satellite imagery, on video imagery or im uh image imagery. It takes people with years of experience to look through these things and determine why it's anomalous. So, so the fact that they're putting out lowhanging fruit, some of it very real and they're not giving any context, it's 100% what you just said. 100% because they have the context. They've done the analysis. I've been in the rooms where the analysts are discussing these things and the ones we write off, we put in one area and the ones that we can't remain anomalous and we've proven that they're anomalous. So yeah, it's absolutely a delay tactic and I think it allows us to say if this doesn't go away, hey, you know, now we can have a disclosure based on today's things rather than 1947 things. >> And you just brought up something which is really a topic I want to dig into related to the whistleblowers that are out there talking about the UFO phenomenon. I want to get your take on what you think is going on. What is their agenda? What is their motivations? Does it align with you? But before I do that, I want you to assess my interpretation of who they are and what their jobs were because I think that what these people's jobs were was essentially what you just mentioned was that to analyze surveillance, analyze footage, and that they were trained to analyze types of surveillance, types of weapons, types of capabilities, and to look at those capabilities and judge them and to determine who made them, whether they're risks to us, if we have to follow up on them, and things like that. and then they're watching their footage and they're going, "Well, that's weird. That's not something that's on the on the list of uh the training guide and what I was told exists." And then they bring that up and then this is how they come out as whistleblowers because they've confirmed seen stuff that they know and they think in some cases have said this that's not our capability. I know what our capabilities are and I know that's not something we have. >> Is that you're you're 100% accurate. >> Now, here's my reason why I bring this up. I have one big concern about this is that just like we've been talking about with these special access programs, these people aren't going to be read and they're not going to have a need to know if the government has developed these technologies and is using them in covert situations or in any situations whatsoever. I mean, if we're hiding this from ourselves and the problem is what if you all in the intelligence community that are seeing this, what if you what if they're letting you see that because they want you to think it's aliens? you know, that would be my very first thought. Presumably, that's something that goes through the back of your mind as well. >> Um, in some cases, yes. Um, so with, you know, with any classified capability that we develop and we validate, there's either a conceal or a reveal, right? So, um I've talked about this before, but you know, during the early days of the Iran Israel conflict, um Iran launched 150 some odd uh weapon systems at Israel. The US aided in shooting down them all and two of them were shot with a Navy shipborne laser system. It was the first time that had been used. That was a reveal. They didn't need to shoot him down with that, but that let our adversaries know, hey, we also have this thing. Um, you know, that was on purpose. The uh the weapon systems you mentioned, the discombobulator used in uh the Venezuela raid, um that was a reveal that did not need to be used, but it was used and uh then talked about publicly. That was a reveal of capability. So when we when we conceal or reveal different things when we test those capabilities and I have been pervy to some very exquisite technologies that we are testing from the developmental level I've seen where they've been developed I've seen you know from soup to nuts the whole thing and where we test it where I draw contrast to your point some of these things that we are seeing are not the way we best exquisite, highly sensitive, highly classified equipment. And some of them have put our own people at risk and we absolutely would never do that with some of the most intense things that we've developed over the years. We would not do that. Um, and so that doesn't pass the sniff test. And quite honestly, some of the things that we're seeing would require a support tail so large to get off the ground that it there would be other there would be other aspects involved that would that we'd be able to point to and say, "Here's why I think that might be ours. Here's something fishy going on here." And so some of what we've seen, do I believe it could be very recently developed tech? Sure. But the stuff that our military is encountering, 1,000% not. One of the encounters actually derailed premission training for a unit that was deploying to combat that almost jeopardized their readiness level to go to war. We're not going to do that. That's not going to be something the US government is ever going to do. And that wasn't recently. That was over 20 years ago. And so, um, that's where I draw the line. Um, we have not, would not, even even if you look at the most highly classified thing that we overtly know about today would probably be the Manhattan project and we look at how that was compartmented and how that was classified. >> We absolutely did not put anyone uh, you know, we didn't test that thing. We tested subsequently other nuclear weapons that put people at risk. um you know, erroneously, accidentally, or on purpose, however you want to look at it. But as we're developing that tech, that capability, we would not do that. We wouldn't we wouldn't put an entire aircraft carrier, naval fleet at risk going to combat to test out something that might be ours. Well, so here's let me I'll take that at face value and say, okay, there's stuff that's really old that we've seen on footage that even if we've got space-time manipulation technology, whatever, which I'm sure we do, then it's too old to be explained by us having figured that out. Like maybe we must have figured that out recently. But here's the problem now is that you've said we have all the we do all this deep assessment on these UFO videos, which of course we do and they don't they didn't reveal any of that. They just give us no context. How can you then claim that we don't know what these things are? What I hear is that, oh, we don't know what these are. We've we put our best minds on it. We can't figure it out. But you're telling me we're doing all this deep assessment and all this stuff. You got access to the smartest people on the planet. You've got people building secret technologies apparently that you were just mentioning that I think you know is related CIA DS&T and various other stuff like how how can you present the idea that we don't know what these things are if if they really are stuff flying around and we got smart people like you and the other whistleblowers looking at them. You got to have some rationale for like pretty good idea where they're coming from. >> No, I I I don't think we the whole of we I don't think we don't know. Uh, I think someone knows. I think some people in the program have known for a while. Um, I'm telling you that the run-of-the-mill top secret SAP red-on analyst that's looking at these things, they are concluding that this is not like I'll tell you right now, some of the videos and the things I've seen, they're not they're not made by any country here on this planet. They're not. >> So, I know that. Do I think some people in our government might know exactly where they're coming from? Yes. That's the thing that's not getting out. That's the thing I would like validated. I think I think you and the rest of the people need to hear. Yes, we've spotted these. This is why they're anomalous and based on emerging technology of the period. This is why this is not made on Earth, not made by humans. That's fair game regardless of the tech and how we're developing it, if we've downed them or recovered them or any of that. So, I'm not saying we, the whole of government, don't know. We have a really solid, firm grasp on the fact that they weren't made by by man. Um, but me personally, do I know where they're from? Nope. Do I know what's inside of them? Nope. But I can tell you some of the videos I've seen, that's that's not made by human hands. Um, >> what capability tells you it's not made by human hands? >> What's that? >> What capability and or feature tells you that it's not made by human hands? >> So, a lot of the five um >> observable >> the five Yeah, the five uh you know um uh >> uh you know things that we see >> um and we're getting real close today, right? Like there's a lot of really good emerging tech with drones and drone capability and all that stuff. But to say that that was the case in 1979, that's not the case in 1979. In 2005, in 2004, at the time of the Nimmits, we didn't even have the iPhone figured out. And that is with people with billions and ultimately trillions of dollars on the line to develop. Uh, you know, so we we tend to have historical amnesia where we think about, well, 2001 wasn't that long ago. Well, you're right. For those of us that were, you know, young adults at the time, it's not that long ago, but uh we also forget how limited we were back then with technology. Go into the 80s, go into the 70s. >> You know, the further back you go, the further limited we were. >> Well, let me present a counterargument. you steel man the opposite side which is yes we didn't have commercial iPhones in 2000 but could they have made a private a single commercial our or private iPhone in 2000 100% they could have and what this always reminds me of is it reminds me of Ben Rich and Loheed Martin skunk skunk works is the story that I keep reading and some of these guys were black project engineers I don't know exactly which ones but probably a lot of them they keep telling us a story about you wouldn't believe what we have behind the scenes means whatever you've seen in the public that's already 30 20 30 years old right and this kind of is the best counterargument to this idea that if it's old we couldn't have done it you know and I specifically to spoke to Salvador Pais about this and the argument that he essentially says is well Tesla was before 1900 Einstein came out with relativity theory of relativity in the early 1900s the science and the basis for the science for this technology and anti-gravity has been around for a long enough period of time The real question and the hard enough thing to believe is like did they really have some secret program that was building this stuff and have they been able to keep it secret from even people in the intelligence community like you all you know that's to me the bigger thing not necessarily we couldn't have had it because the science didn't exist to me the bigger thing that's holding it back is maybe the material science but I don't know what kind of stuff that works some people have you know >> you no you're you're right it is the material science that holds us back the theory of it proving that that is a valid capability. Absolutely. Um but translating that into a physical thing that works, that's not quick. And the some of the emerging tech that we are investing an obscene amount of money in right now. Um it looks like science fiction. It really does. Um and you can see the development on where this came from over a natural course. So, do I believe that we are not reverse engineering and none of this came from alien tech? No, I'm not saying that. But I'm saying um our abilities 20, 30 years ago are not what they are today. Even our ability to understand material science today is happening. Literally, information can move at the speed of thought by the little device that everyone carries in their pocket. And you don't have no one has to wonder anymore. I I remember as a kid thinking to myself and wondering, I wonder how old Michael Jordan is. I don't have to wonder that anymore. I can just ask the device in my pocket. There's no wondering. information moves at such a lightning pace that the we're we're in a very dangerous time right now because our ability to advance technology is happening faster than our social ability to understand it and wrap our our our arms around it and safely employ it. We're seeing that with AI. We're seeing it, you know, the whole social media buzz, uh, you know, Facebook launched, uh, you know, and and kids that were born that same year grew up with it before we realized that, hey, letting your kids on these devices on social media at a young age actually rewires part of their brain. It's not a good idea, but we didn't know that then. So, technology and things are progressing today faster than they ever have. the things that we're developing and coming out with that discombobulator that you and I talked about earlier, that's science fiction. What are you talking about? Like that's insane. And but that's that's where we're at. And to your point, I'm I I 1,000% agree. Our secret developments are 20 30 years ahead of where we're at today. that is going to accelerate way faster in today's environment and has been since the dawn of you know uh so much information being uploaded on the worldwide web. You know early internet didn't have access to all the information it does today. And now with AI's ability to scrape it all in seconds and return to you the information you're looking for, things are going to develop at a much faster pace. And it it's quite honestly it is a little dangerous because we could end up developing things before we figure out how to safely you know unveil it. I mean I think that already happened. I mean I think it could present a pretty compelling maybe not uh I can't prove it but a compelling argument that I mean [clears throat] we developed some of the first computers during building the nuclear bomb the atomic bomb and that we would have definitely built AI in a covert manner way before we had it from the public perspective. And just like you said, then what happens is you start feeding it all the secret information, all the stuff that's classified and good and it's gonna you're going to hit the singularity very very quickly. And this is why I think it is possible even in like the 70s or the 80s that we could have had plasma balls flying around because I think they could have hit that singularity and already gotten to a level where it's basically indistinguishable from magic or aliens to us. Doesn't necessarily have to be the case, but I think that's plausible and it doesn't rule out aliens. still think aliens are certainly real and that maybe we engineered them. Just saying that's that's the strong case for why, you know, even a long time ago we could have had this tech. >> Sure. But you also have to remember that the monetization of industry is what propels a lot of military uh technology forward. And so, you know, our computer advancement in the 80s, that's where we saw the first real explosion of computer tech. that happened on the military side because of the money pumped through on on the civilian side. So I don't believe that in 1971 we had a computer capable of doing what a computer could do in 1997 and we're waiting for civilian industry to catch up. That's not that's not a thing. Um, and be being in the classified environment 30 years ago, uh, when I came into the military and looking at what we have today, um, you know, there's there are decisions that were made, uh, you know, a long time ago to get where we are today and a lot of hard work that went into that. So, um, yes, I think things are developed in secrecy. Yes, I think we are way farther ahead than we will let people know and there's a real national security reason for that. Um but no, when you look at what we've been seeing since the ' 40s, uh till today, that's not explainable in 1947 and 1957 and 67 and 77, um you know, it just doesn't pass the sniff test. Now, today, could we have things in recent history that we've reverse engineered that we figured out how to fly? Um, I even had this talk with Stephen Diner, you know, about some of the craft that were flying. You know, on Bob Lazar's story, I think is is a good point to this. Um, you know, that's humans, according to his story, if everything he said was real. That's humans flying alien tech. That could be real. Um, that could account for some of it, but again, the military wouldn't be testing that on its own military. Uh, that's trying to prepare for a war. That that's that's not a thing. Um but um as far as where we're at today, um all that aside, you know, we are we are in very very new and very scary times to some degree. >> Okay, so let me ask about the tech a little bit more. How and why is their involvement with the intelligence community and technology? It seems like there's a much deeper involvement than the public was fully aware of beforehand. I mean, when we watch James Bond, we see Q on James Bond, but I never really thought there was a real Q in real life really sequestering and building technology. So, yeah. >> How does that all work and what's the impact of that on on physics and on on science and technology in general? >> Yeah. No, great question. you know, we in in the um sensitive activities world and the uh clandestine uh and covert services world um we're constantly battling technology, right? And now the emergence of uh you know cameras everywhere, biometric sensors everywhere, ad tech software on every device um and AI being able to sort through all that real quick. um being able to do covert things and clandestine things becomes harder and harder and harder. So, we do align a lot of resources to technical options that still allow us capabilities. You know, back 30 years ago, you could get an operative into a foreign country on a, you know, on a on a fake passport and they're in. Um that's never going to fly today. and and with social media, kids growing up on social media with public emails and and just publicly available information that gets bought and sold every day. Um that's almost impossible to do today. So what are the other things that we need to develop to ensure that we can maintain uh vigilance globally to safeguard America's interests? And that that is a huge part of what those organizations do with science and technology are developing those emerging capabilities that honestly change week by week. Some of the techniques we use in the cyber and space world, they they change in real time. And if you went on vacation for a month, you might come back and everything you knew about your job just changed because of a new patch or a new piece of technology. Um so it is really the bleeding edge of science. I'm sure that the Elgen El Elgen Air Force base guys were really happy when the AI took over their trolling jobs from the social media boards [laughter] or whatever when that AI changed. It's all I can think about is how like when you have to move away from the killing people is like what what did we move into after the wet works? Oh, now we have to like discredit and troll people online downgrade. >> There have been a couple things that have come out where I'm like oh my god I bet the Pentagon's a dumpster fire today. like, oh man, like [laughter] there there there really have been a few, you know, moments like that I've had in the last 5 years where I'm like, well, wow. You know, >> let me ask because you know, everything seemingly can do you think that the intelligence community andor military can control social media like Reddit for example, like there's been reports of people's accounts being deleted that were supposedly whistleblowers like the one I think it was ebo scientist, the guy that posted the alien b uh autopsy or whatever. Like I think that guy was answering questions in the comments and his account gets deleted while he's still replying to people. You think the government is that one of the capabilities the government could delete your account? >> Yeah, there there are college kids at MIT that can do that for sure. >> Wow. So let me ask then because this is kind of >> I was going to ask about you know do you think we use these technology and coverups but I think it's better angle just in general is like what is the legality of that? Like how does that get justified from the government's perspective when they have to do disinformation ops like that? Like because in theory it seems like this is a slippery slope where you could just say like well we got caught doing something illegal now we have to be justified doing something even more illegal to cover it up. >> Yeah. So let me let me think about how to answer that without getting myself in trouble because that is [laughter] you are asking the right question. So, um, the Patriot Act after 9/11 opened up a lot of doors for what the intelligence community and the military can do within our own borders that we couldn't do before. >> Um, I'm trying to think about how to answer this. >> That's pretty good. >> Yeah. Um, so there are things and I used to ask when I would teach within the military, I would ask my audiences if you can do this one particular thing and they would say no because it's illegal. And I said you can't do it until you can do it. Once you have permission, you can do it. Um, so there >> that's how the world works, right? And this is what concerns me though is that >> you know there's always these grayers. Every job I've been into and I've worked for a lot of big companies >> and you have so many restrictions. But what you find is that like people find ways to slip through the cracks and this is what concerns me is having all these >> you can make the case. Yeah. If you can make the case that what you are wanting to do is in the best interest and that is the only way to achieve a objective capability or desired end state for national security it can be approved and there are other ways we can do it. So for instance, if we need a department of work asset or capability to do a thing and they can't get the legal authorities to do it, they can get the legal authorities through other means. And so um yes, everything you've talked about, accounts being deleted, different things like that that would be deemed illegal, they absolutely could have been done under certain legal authorities granted by certain levels within our government. Dude, that is crazy to me. That's so crazy. Okay, I love this conversation. >> And that all that all started, you should know the history of it. That all started after 911. Um, one of the big, if you remember, cuz you you're old enough, if you remember real quickly after 9/11, one of the biggest intelligence failures noted is that the intelligence community under the State Department and the and the Department of Defense, DIA, were unable to overtly coordinate with the FBI. There was stovepipe intelligence, right? So the Patriot Act, you know, at face value went into effect to make sure that we could share global and local intelligence in real time and collect with our assets that we had overseas when the battleground is now at home. That changes, right? And we've had within our legal framework, the US military can operate within the United States if the United States is the war ground. if we're at war here. So, knowing that that's existed for over a hundred years, knowing that the Patriot Patriot Act after 911 authorized other intelligence activities within the continental United States, you see that the framework is laid for at certain levels just about anything to be approved if you can tie it to those things. >> That's how they control the internet. And I think a lot of people suspected that but didn't really hear it laid out. so cleanly is that a lot of people they talk about the Patriot Act, but they don't realize this actually gives the government justification where previously there was strong restrictions on acting within America's borders when it comes to intelligence collection activities. >> That's that's exactly it. the whole idea the the whole FISA warrant you know if you look at you know FISA the whole FISA court that whole system that didn't exist prior to the Patriot Act and that you know prior to the Patriot Act that would have violated you know uh citizens rights but um and I'm not saying that the FISA act and a lot of what's gleaned from that is bad there's good from that but that opens a door that anyone can walk through that's where the problem is um you know and and uh you know not supporting for or against Wikileaks, but that Julian Assange really exposed that you know in a way that I think a lot of people didn't understand it. Um you know I'm patriotic so I support the Patriot Act you know um >> you know I I like steak. I support Kyle's you know like people just naturally heard one and went to the other. Um but there's a lot with that that [snorts] opens a lot of doors and it's not just the internet. you know the deal. Um every major media source it is you know there is influence uh operations everywhere um you know to hide stories to push other stories other narratives whether it's politically or around this topic um you know that that's happening in real time right in front of us and I think some of uh what's happened in the last three to five years has really exposed that and I think people are smarter to it today than they were 10 years ago. Yeah. And it's funny because I agree with the Patriot Act, too, even though, you know, in this case, it works pretty harshly against me and us. And I have some personal experience and stories that the me the media won't cover. [clears throat] >> So, I understand that for sure. Um, in terms of it not just being the internet and, uh, Wikileaks exposed Vault 7, exposed the capabilities of the CIA and the intelligence community, and it shows they have back doors into everything. And then now you've given this justification that almost like you know can do whatever you want assuming you've got the right people who've given you permission. And you can see how this could kind of go out of control. You know I could very easily imagine a situation in which everybody is kind of being tracked without being tracked. And the loophole is essentially that I'm not Ashton Forbes. I'm just ID one two three four five six. And then once I have to be deanonymized because I've suspected of a crime now you just boom and now you know everything about me. even got my whole profile up there, all the social media I've ever done, you know, everything because of all that sharing. So, y >> and that's just the reality of the situation. >> It is. You're exactly right. That's just the reality we live in today. And I agree with you. Like I I I don't support Julia Assange put, you know, hundreds of people's lives at risk with with that disclosure that he did. Um I agree with you about the Patriot Patriot Act, but it's a slippery slope, right? Like today's today's Patriot Act discussion is flock cameras, right? like how much how much are we willing to allow the government into our privacy and and it's a I'm not you know I'm not a pos you know I'm a citizen so I guess I'm qualified to speak on it but um that's you know to answer your question there is legal framework that allows for that. Yeah. And I figured because there's been a bunch of leaks that have kind of informed us of this, including the uh I think it was the drone papers where and we saw the justifications the United States government was using for drone striking people and we knew about I think Averil Hines was the one who was doing the justification under Obama for drone striking. We started to see an inside to this and we realized like oh that's right the the hit rate is like one out of every 10 people is all we need. like 90% innocence as we're justified. Which leads to my next question, which is if the operation is not in the continental United States, then it seems like from my perspective looking at the law and what have you that basically anything goes, you can justify practically anything. Is that how does is that your perspective from operations that are conducted outside the United States? you need for okonus operations within every single country there are wildly different levels of legal authorities and when anything goes overseas it has to get legal authorities and and it's not it's not real quick. It it can be relatively quick um especially depending on the level of intelligence that supports the target. But um >> it's not instant approval unless it is let's go back to Osama bin Laden. >> Yeah, >> we we accidentally have eyes on he's crossber border in Pakistan. It is violating a number of international laws for a a sniper on the Afghan border on the Afghan side to shoot across that sovereign nation's border and kill the number one HVT in the world. Right. um that approval, mission approval, knowing that the president wants him dead right now and would approve it, greenlight it immediately, take the shot, that's still going to take some time. It's still it's not going to be immediate within the next 5 minutes. If they knew that they would come across that target and they knew they were looking for him, that might be a little bit different. But um to say anything can go, anything can go but not anything will go and there's not it's not the wild west outside the US. You and not everyone is going to get the same authorities to do the certain things. A CIA operative in one country is going to be underneath different legal authorities than a team of Navy Seals or Green Beretss operating in the same country. that those authorities can be shared if the mission dictates but that has to come from the ambassador or the president or the or the sect with presidential approval. So it's not like once you're outside the US it's you know wild west free gun in it that that is that is uh also a misnomer. >> So does every what level of operations have to go up to the president's level? Do all operations I don't how does that work? No, the the the the the president when he authorizes an operation um he will delegate a level of authority down to the combatant commander or whatever agency within our government is going to run lead that commander will delegate different things down to different levels. So for instance in Afghanistan if a captain on the ground wanted to control an aircraft and drop bombs in self-defense he had the ability to do that. if it was in an offensive nature. Um there were certain years where it required general officer approval before they would drop munitions. Um so those authorities can be pushed down um those permissions. You can have the legal authority when you go when you're operating outside the US. You may have legal authority to do a thousand things, but you only have permission to do six. that framework is there and it's broad so that if I have that opportunity, >> I can radio up and try and get permission to do that thing. >> So, you have protocols that allow you to do a whole set of things. That makes total sense. What about special operations? Are do those all require presidential authority? >> Yeah, everything I said covers every unit underneath the Department of War. Now on the special operations side, we enjoy uh a higher level of um trust uh because of the people that we assess, select, recruit, train um and because our missions even at the tactical level have strategic impact globally. So, we have a little bit quicker flash to bang on getting permission and we have a lot wider legal authorities than, for instance, uh, Brigade of the 82nd is going to go park over in Iraq and train the Iraqi army. They're going to have a real short list of legal authorities that they can do. It's probably going to be around self-defense, a company advise and assist, a partner force. That's about it. Um, so they can ask permission for other things, but they won't necessarily have the legal authorities to do it. run the special operations side. There'll be a much longer list of things that we are authorized underneath this legal uh program to do. That doesn't mean we'll have permission to do it. And there have been a lot of countries that we've gone into where the ambassador has simply looked at our guys and said, "Hey, that's cute. You're not doing any of that here." You know, so pardon my language, but uh you know, so we run into that dynamic, too. >> What are the authorities or CL or protocols for uh civilian targets presumably like >> trying to take out let's just take hypothetically like taking out nuclear scientists or something like that. >> Yeah. So the president so if if we identified that hey there's this there's this nuclear scientist that's uh you know let's take Iran since that that's the top topic of the day today. um you know, he's he's this guy. He's pushing them really close. Uh we take him out. We're going to drop them back about a decade and a half, two decades in their capability. We determine we want to take him out. Um everyone that has an ability I I personally like to call it the president's tackle box. Everyone that's he's going to open his tackle box and it's going to have every uh exquisite military and intelligence community capability. They're all going to make their case. his adviserss are going to say, "Sir, in this case, I recommend you go with XYZ." Um, and then he'll authorize it or not authorize it for that to happen. Um, it also depends on what level of deniability we want. Um, do we do we want this to look like he died of natural causes, an accident? Do we want to look like another country took this guy out? You know, it it depends what sort of attribution management we want to employ. But um the president has a lot of options. The the military and the intelligence community work themselves. I I will just tell you give they give decades very solid American patriots give decades of their life away from their family, away from their country to give the president those options when they're needed. And I think 99.999% of all that is righteous with the right intent. Um that doesn't mean that the guys were right or wrong. You know, they're they're we're no one's perfect. Our country is not perfect. But um yeah, the way that works is if there were a target like that, the National Security Council would give the president his options. The units that may be called upon will give their current readiness status, what their ability is to do that. president will make a choice or he'll determine not to do it or wave off or conduct another intelligence operation to, you know, get a a better glimpse and reduce the risk a little bit. Let's find out a little bit more about this guy, where he is, his pattern of life. Let's reduce the risk a little bit. Let's reduce the attribution. Uh let's manage that a little bit better. Um so, you know, there's a lot of options. um flash to bang, you know, um from the time we have intelligence on a target like Bin Laden to the time we execute. That can be a long time, you know, to to really soak the pattern of life and make sure we have the highest probability of success and the least risk to force and um you know, there's a lot that goes into that. >> Do we ever target American uh targets and civilians? for that type of situation. Too close to nuclear weapons or something like that. >> We've absolutely targeted Americans that have sworn their loyalty to ISIS and our adversaries. >> Yeah, >> sure. >> So, so theoretically >> that we target that in different ways like they can be held underneath US law, right? Like they fall underneath a whole different thing. Um, you know, when we look at find, capt, find, fix, capture, kill, >> you know, those people we want to capture and bring back and bring to the full arm of of justice. Does that mean that other options haven't been uh taken? No, I'm not saying that. Um, but yeah, those those are the most obvious cases. >> So, when you brought up that list of examples and how everybody says here's all the capabilities, I have to say that sounds psychopathic to me. I mean, that is just a normal civilian like that. Only people that think like that and do that are literal serial killers who are like plotting out how they're gonna do all this stuff. So, a little bit of that concerns me because like, you know, I'm sure from your perspective, seeing it all the time just seems totally normal. But you hear that from the outside and a it's scary, super scary. You imagine what if I'm the target? What what makes me a threat versus someone else? And that's why I'm asking you all those questions. And it really comes down to are you an American or are you not? really honestly we're boiling it down. >> You know, I it's like what I what I told my teenage son, you know, the the the best way to uh to not have a runin uh you know, with uh with the law is to not break a crime, you know, um and not put yourself in a situation that way, you know. um the people that fall into that uh that list of people that the president would pull out the tackle box. Um it's a very very short list and you have to be a very known bad actor to fall on that. Um yeah. >> Well, the context then though really is some of those capabilities could theoretically be at least let's say UFO adjacent technologies, right? And this is now the problem with disclosure is hey we're trying to reveal the aliens and the alien technologies but we're using those technologies to wipe out really really bad guys you know right and if we reveal those now we let the bad guys know about those technologies they can do it they can make counter measures for it and uh you know that's that's kind of the concern there >> and this is the part where like I don't even know if I'm doing the right thing revealing some of this stuff because I go this technology is definitely being used to keep us of that I'm absolutely sure about. >> And like you said too is that the people that are using any technology in these covert operations, >> they're at least doing it from a place of good heart. You know, maybe the outcome didn't go correctly like they wanted. Maybe it'll be judged differently in history, but they weren't doing it because they were super villain evil, right? >> No. and and and even if the people that were giving the orders uh you know got it wrong um you know or maybe they they actioned on bad intel I I'll tell you that there have been presidents that I've served under that opened up the tackle box didn't like the options and closed it you know and so it goes both ways um I will say you're you're you're going down a road that that I like um and that's where I get my idea of how I think disclosure is going to go and what I think the government is doing right now falls right in line with that. And that's what I've been working uh with Burlson and his office and his team on with some of this is hey they're they're revealing things without revealing anything. And it makes the case, it makes the option in his tackle box to disclose non-human intelligence interacting on this planet based on what we've learned since 2017 >> without saying, "Yes, Roswell was real and we've been studying this craft since 1947." Because if you go down that road, >> Mhm. >> you will have to show everything that you will not want to show or the American people will never believe anything that comes out of our government again. You break down trust. You break down uh civility within our nation. But if you say, "Hey, since 2017, we've been showing you these videos. We've been showing you these things. What we haven't told you is we've really dug into them and it turns out we have high level of confidence if not 100% guaranteed these are not made by human hands. They are not from Earth. And we are working with all of our other countries. We've developed some capability that we won't get into that can take down some of the craft but not all of them. And we're collaborating with the best scientists in the world to solve this problem. At that point, you're going to be like, "All right, aliens are real, UFOs are real, and our government's all over it." and everyone's getting along. That's the only clean dis disclosure you've got. What about Roswell? We told you about Roswell for the last 50 years. It was a weather balloon. Well, at least we got disclosure, right? And so, if you go the other way and you want to just say, "Hey, honestly guys, Roswell was real and that shocked us and we've been working it ever since." That goes down a level of questioning. You held out that long. you kept that secret that long. What else have you been keeping? It just raises distrust rather than builds confidence. So, what they're doing right now goes down a road of disclosing and also building confidence and keeping our civil system. It's not honest, but it's it's it's what I'm seeing they're doing. >> That was a really good point and this is something people notice during COVID is that you have the most important thing the government is is that the people trust the government. That's what the government cares about the most. >> Right. Right. You see that in co too is that the mo the thing they cared about the most was that no matter what the outcome is, they want people to still trust them in the end of the day, right? So it's like, okay, we're going to throw a bone here. Here's some five different UFO files. Here you go. We we did the thing that we said we're going to do, but doesn't actually do anything, you know? So >> even the even the president said, "We're going to release a bunch of files. You decide for yourself." >> Uh how can I do that? I'm not qualified. >> How how can the average citizen decide for themselves? you just show me a video of something that I don't know what it is. Like you what what do you want me to decide? Um you know that that right there that's not really revealing anything. That's just showing you captured footage. And quite honestly um you know it it is a uh it's a it's a tongue and cheek ploy to occupy a lot of people's brain power and energy doing the work that the government's already done to get them to decipher whether this is real or not. Um, you know, and there's a lot there's a lot that could be released that isn't it's, you know, to me when I saw that and I've gone through every video, every file, every photo. Um, >> yeah, it's there there's no real there's no real drive here to unveil everything. I'll tell you that. >> Well, you know, I would tell you what I would do. I personally I'm just going to go a different direction. I'm going to say, you know, it would be nice if we could get Aliens without all the other follow-ups, but yeah, you're right. That's not going to happen. I mean, I'm going to be the very first person when they say aliens are real that's asking what the power source of the UFOs is and how which physics it's using to get here. I'm the very first person. >> I would actually go in a different direction. I would just say those MH370 file videos you see on the internet are real and I would ask answer no more questions related to it. That's it. And then why? Because people are going to a freak out. They're going to go they're not going to go to the government for the questions. are going to go to me because I'm the guy that's been promoting those videos and go, Ashton, what does the government mean when they say the videos are real? What are these orbs flying around the plane? What is all this stuff going on? But the reason why that's the way way to go about it is A, they're already caught dead rights in whatever that operation is they're going to do anyway. B, it doesn't actually admit to anything in particular. So, from a legal perspective, yes, it kind of implies it did a whole bunch of sketchy but it lets people fill in the gaps themselves unless them and yes, everybody's some people are going to say, "Oh, Israel, that's Israel did it." Oh, other people say that's aliens tending the plane back to its homeland, right? And they're going to come with all these different stories out there. And you may say, "Yeah, they're going to keep asking questions, but they're going to keep asking questions no matter what." >> And so, honestly, that's what I would do. Then, that's probably catastrophic disclosure because you look at it and you go, "That leads you to aliens, too. If those videos of the orbs spinning around the plane, teleporting it away are real, then we're dealing with aliens that have got teleportation technology, probably free energy technology, you know, and we don't even need to be told then that aliens are real. I don't need the government to tell me aliens are real. If you show me something getting teleported, it's like, oh, okay, teleportation's real, then you know what? Aliens can be real, too. That's not even That's easy to believe, then. >> Right. Right. Well, and and and when you know that it's not human, when when we've already concluded that, you know, and quite honestly, you know, I' I've said it before to other people, but you know, I feel like I feel like we've had a certain level of disclosure. There are enough people in our government that have publicly said, whether on film or in front of Congress, that have come out and said, you know, what I'm saying here to you today. Um, you know, this is real. the these are not some of what we're seeing is not there's no source of any of this made by human hands [snorts] that's real. And so I think the only way we don't end up with catastrophic disclosure is if we go down the road of making this look like a recent finding and we've we finally studied it with all of our best technology today and all the AI and all this and we've applied all this and we can absolutely determine these are anomalous. They are not humanmade and and we're we're getting after the problem and we're working with everybody, you know. Okay, you told us that it's not human. You told us that these things are real. These UFOs are real. These UAP are real. Um, you know, you really hide your activities for the last seven year 70 years. You get the funding publicly. Um, you know, this this keeps all the people that have been getting those fat paychecks getting those fat paychecks. Um, and now you don't have to hide in the shadows when you're doing it. And um you know I just >> the the MH370 thing. Yeah. I think that would lead to catastrophic uh disclosure. I don't think our government's going to do that. >> Um I think I think the I think what we're seeing right now is the groundwork being laid for a disclosure. Whether it happens on this president's watch or the next one. I think I think that groundwork's getting laid um so that so that it can be a recent finding that that we've seen these for for decades and we've been studying it and we can we can finally we we can finally confirm, you know, that that's that's what I think we're going to hear, you know, that this is we've just found out, you know, but the reality is we've known for a long time. >> Yeah. I mean, the big tell is Dr. Phil. I mean, they hire a psychologist, they go, "Hey, Dr. Phil, we need to get you on board, buddy. We need you to tell the people this thing's real. And he's already getting blackfilled. He's already We're only five UFO files in. He's going, "They're not telling us everything they're hiding." >> Yeah. Well, and and you know, when when I see this topic make every major major media source, knowing that we have people that can shut down any story that we don't want out. Come on. Like that means it's that means that the people want that to come out. They want that to be heard. Um, you know, that's why even like uh the UAP task force >> started by righteous people trying to really figure this thing out. That was allowed to happen. >> Um, people on the other side of the program uh that are not known allowed that to happen. Um, you know, so I I really I really think that's what we're going to see. I don't know when we're going to see it. Um, but yeah, you know, take a look at the videos and, you know, that'd be like if you put up those videos on MH370 and said, "Hey, America, here's a video. You decide for yourself." Well, unless they've done all the leg work and homework that you've done, >> you know, and have the time and space to do that, they're not going to get anywhere. They're going to be like, I don't know, might be real, might be fake. Uh, what's for dinner? You know, they're going to move on with their life. So, how did you advise Congressman Berles? I mean, what is what do you tell him to do? What is your advice to him? >> Um, I'm going to save that for him. Um, we talked about a lot of things. Um, but my advice to him and what I informed him of, uh, some of that he's actioning, um, and I'm I'm just going to let that stay with him and let him decide. Well, I'll tell you what I advised him of because I actually I've communicated with him before. We haven't had too many long conversations or anything, but we've had at least one or two, I think. And mine was pretty simple, which was that you have to really decide if you really want this to come out. Because what I told him is that with this coming out is not just about aliens or just our place in the universe. Like, this is about technology that can change our whole civilization. and that the people that hid this like were smart people and they hid it for probably a good reason. If I had to suspect, it's because it has the capability of destroying our whole planet at a minimum, right? And so you look at that and you say that's the big thing I think anybody should first come to terms with that. Yeah, there's a lot of fun and a lot of woo with this, but there's also a really serious danger and national security concern that comes along with it, too, you know. So, that was my advice to him. I I don't know where he's going with it, but I'm interested to see where that all goes. I'm with you, though. I don't think they're planning on revealing the truth. I mean, knowing that, in my perception, my opinion is that we've got free energy. We've been hiding fusion technology, um that we've got teleportation technology. I mean, these are technologies that I don't even know how you reveal these types of things. It's even harder to reveal than aliens is. So, I don't think they plan on revealing it. But I do think like you said that it's an acclamation process of getting people used to it and then in theory waiting for the right time like maybe like you said it's like when we all kind of come together and we've kind of started to accept that this technology exists or I don't know I mean is do you see I guess to to ask a question to you on this is that Peter Teal was the one that said on Joe Rogan that aliens might have to be either all altruistic or totalitarian in order to control warp drives like is that a concern for you or do you think it's a concern for the government related to this technology is the raw power of it and what it means to harness it. >> Are you there? >> Yeah, I lost you there for a minute. >> Oh, sorry. I guess the question >> I I heard most of that. I I I think you're I think you're right. And you know what I was alluding to earlier just with the information moving faster, technology developing faster, >> we've got to be careful to make sure that society's ready for, you know, can handle without a breakdown of civil order. Um, but you're right, like if you look at when we went when we went from whale blubber to to power lights to electricity and then to oil, you know, these industrial revolution breakthroughs shook up the entire way we operated as a nation. Um, they had huge ramifications. It took people off the farm, brought them into cities, established a a completely different way of life today that we experience than we did at the turn of the century in 1900. So with these technologies that you're talking about, all these things would radically destabilize currency, government, powers, power power structures within our uh with in our global economy, quite honestly. So how how do you do that? How do you maintain order and civility? um it it's not going to be anything quick and and and that's why I don't think we're ever going to get the open komodo on everything uh that we've learned and all the things that we've reverse engineered. Um but I think we're at the point where we might get some disclosure because quite honestly there's a point with a lot of things where the government lies long enough that the people don't believe it. Um, that would be like if the president came out today and said, "Hey, I think CO really came from a bat in a in a wet market, you know, like, "Hey, man, like stop." Like, there's been enough evidence, you know, like I stop right there, you know? Um, you know, the mask I can smell a fart through can can stop COVID, right? I got it. you know, um, you know, and so it's getting to the point where there's enough evidence that it's not going to matter what the government says. So, it's better that the government miraculously figures out that these are what they are, you know, and they can still maintain a level of of uh, uh, covert clandestine behind the scenes uh, classified work on reverse engineering. But then the other part is um you know at some point what do you do with that technology? Um because there are certain things certain targets where some of that exquisite technology would be good to use and we haven't used it. We haven't seen it yet. So you know what are we waiting on? Um I don't know. Or maybe it's just to the point where if we've got to figure out a way to to get free energy out without it destabilizing the entire world order. And quite honestly, you know, I don't know if you read anything um from Peter Zahan um talking about uh the his book uh the end of the world is just the beginning. He's talking about the deglobalization due to population crash that's inevitable in certain countries that have resources and don't. The US Navy's inability to secure the free trade routes that we've done since World War II. And we're going to see, you know, probably over the next 10 to 15 years, probably uh to some degree a a re-regionalization of resources. Not 100%. I think I think he's not accurate with all of it. I think that would be unpalatable. Just cut certain countries off. But that may be a scenario where hey when America's more reliant on America and on Canada, Mexico, Central and South America more regionally. um that maybe a technology like that would be miraculously discovered, you know, and um and maybe there would be a way to roll it out that kept uh a power structure in order that, you know, there's a lot of different scenarios, but to your point, just dropping any new tech to that level of extremity, um it is dangerous. >> Yeah. And I think what they're doing is they're just going to reveal free free energy microchips because it's the least dangerous form of unlimited energy is that now you have this like little trickle of energy. You might be able to convert it into a weapon, but it's be a lot harder than like giving somebody a fusion reactor, right? Like >> it's a lot harder. And so I think that's the play is you reveal like now everybody's phone runs forever, but you don't have the capability to make a fusion bomb, right? No, I I I I absolutely agree with that. Imagine you could buy a laptop for $1,000 or you could buy one for $3,000 that never needs to plug in. >> Yep. So, let me ask you I have a few more questions. Uh I want to ask about a few people. I just got a few names that I'm interested in your opinions of. Number one is Hal Pudof. >> What do I think of him? >> Yeah. You know of him? >> Yep. I I believe just about everything he says. Um I think he is uh I think he knows a lot more than he's leading on to. Um I think he's had access to a lot more than what he's led on to, but I think um I think there's a reason for that. And and I I I don't necessarily I don't think there's a conspiracy theory behind it. I think it's just the nature of his work and what he's done. >> Interesting. I mean, I think he's like MJ number one. I think uh Edward Teller handed the keys off to him. I mean, I think he's a good guy. I I think >> but you know, there's a lot of shades of gray, I think, in a lot of this as well. >> 100%. >> But he's a guy that you look at, he's like the center of everything. >> He knows a lot more. He knows a lot more than what he's saying, for sure. I I'm just gonna have to have a clip at some point of him sitting next to Avi Lo going, "And we gonna trust you, Avi, to figure out this UFO thing [laughter] because I'm just thinking in my mind when he's saying that like this guy probably knows all the answers already." That's right. Right. And to your point, he's going, they're going to suddenly discover it. They need somebody to suddenly discover it. Is the perfect guy. >> Yeah. Yeah. They put together this band of crackpots that are gonna, you know, led by the White House initiative and they're gonna all of a sudden discover this new thing and, you know, Yeah. >> And they were all against it before, like AIO was less than a year ago promoting space rock was a flying alien and now he's going, "Well, they might be using warp bubbles." I'm like, "Well, it's a bit of a difference from a warp bubble to a flying space rock." Like, oh, that's a big 180 flip he suddenly made. >> Yeah. >> Y Okay, let me ask you a few more people. Uh, John Ramirez. >> You know who that is, right? >> Yeah. >> No comment. >> No comment. Wow. >> Yeah. >> I don't This guy is John Ramirez is an interesting person. He says the weirdest, craziest things, but then he also says like the most lucid, clear explanations of how inside operations work and things like that. talks about orbs and plasma cannons and so I can't get a beat on him whatsoever, but I think it was Jason Georgiani that told me he's been following my work closely, but he won't respond to any of my to my emails or anything. So, I was just curious. >> Okay. Um, one more. Salvatore Py. >> Yeah. So, around around what you just said there. >> Yeah, Salvador Pais is what I was asking about. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, with John Ramirez, ju just to back up a little bit, like there's >> Yeah, sure. >> There's certain things that if I say I agree with someone, then I may be uh I may be um confirming a program or a classification or something. >> Yeah. >> And violating uh you know, an NDA that I'm under. So >> now we understand you don't really have to explain yourself. You've already given us so much more information that I already kind of confirmed. So you know we don't I'm not going to harp too much on that try to press you on on that side. But I think it is interesting that you you know you can't comment on him for various reasons related to NDAs and what have you. >> Yeah. >> Um what about Salvador Pais though and his patents? Um he also I don't know if you saw but he met with Congressman Berles back in February at Pax River and they had a meeting as well presumably told him about you know UFO technologies and things like that. You think Sal's legit? >> Do you think he's disinformation? Some people say, >> "No, I I don't think it's disinformation, but I think I think I think uh Congressman Burlson was deliberately uh led around and shown enough to get him to he was shown enough of what he didn't know um to wet the whistle. Um there's a lot more that he wasn't shown. >> Yeah. And so >> Yeah. What are his like Congressman Berles isn't going to have access to like crazy stuff, right? So, how is that even meant to work? Like, >> so >> yeah, that's what really surprised me. Like, he has a top secret. He has the ability to get told anything um as a sitting congressman. He does. Um but he doesn't have daily access to things like I thought he would. I was shocked. And so um and that's for compartmented reasons to safeguard information on a need to- know basis. Not every person in Congress is on the same committee or needs to know the same thing. So they they safeguard that a certain way. And um yeah, so for him uh he can be, you know, short of the president escorting him around and granting him in instant access to anything at any point >> is the only way he's going to get access to everything he really wants to see. >> Yeah. And that's my concern. So this is kind of one of my last questions is about compartmentalization. like how if they've got this, let's just call it alien technology, maybe flying saucers, maybe alien bodies, who knows? How does the compartmentalization work? Is it just word of mouth? Don't write anything down. Is it written into the I've heard the presidential emergency action documents? Like what is the actual mechanism that successfully keeps it secret? Yeah, there are multiple different networks for different levels of classification and different different levels of compartmented programs. So for instance, you may have access to a top secret network. There are multiple of them um and there's some collaboration that can happen there. But to um process intelligence or sensitive activities, you have to be on another network. And this particular program doesn't reside on that network either. it's on a different network and if you wormhole into that network from one or the other you have different access it things are very easily compartmented with with technology today still allowing for collaboration um and some systems some programs um there's an offline component you know quite honestly um where um where an internet will be used instead of an internet uh but yeah it's not hard at all and we do it all the time with a lot of different things that are that are very you know above board and quite honestly um you know I was explaining this uh you know to Stephen and his audience but we'll have programs that at the unclass level we have a code name for it and we don't talk about what that is and then at the secret level we have a different code name with an explanation of what that program is and then some people will work on that but then there is a sap on the other side that has the real purpose of what that does. So, we'll have a lot of people that think they know something about something and in reality, holy cow, like what they were actually working on, they had no idea. >> That's the Game of Thrones, as I call it, where uh >> That's right. >> You tell them three different things and you find out what comes out on the other side. That way, you know who the liar was, right? >> Yeah. Right. And and I think the beauty of that is it shows how much foresight goes into developing the protocols and the procedures and the processes for compartmentalization is that this was not this was something people thought about and they thought about like what's minimize this >> and we've gotten better right like after the Manhattan project Russia was able to get some of our technology so we tightened up and then when um uh MK Ultra came to fight and uh the different commissions that Congress took and the Senate took after that, those programs didn't stop. The trade craft just got better. Um you know, and and and mocking bird, all those things just help sharpen the knife. Um you know, anytime, you know, that's why we red team our own capabilities like, oh, uh we have we have a uh we have a liability here on this side that we didn't realize. We need to tighten that up. um you know all all of the capabilities we develop uh we have to safeguard and so yeah that's just gotten better and the way we compartment the way we hold national security secrets we've gotten better at and and every American should be thankful for that because it's you know to some degree it hides secrets that we would all like to know but at the other side of it it hides secrets that no one needs to know. >> Yeah. And we're trying to keep an asymmetrical advantage. You know, that's essentially what this is all about, right? Is that we want a weapon capabilities that other people don't have. And if we have them, that's the reason for the secrecy in general and the reason why we classify things. >> That's right. >> So, let me ask only just kind of this is the last major question, which is honestly it's about me this time. What do you think I should do in my quest? You're at least tangently aware of the topic and what I've been doing. And actually, I'll just tell you, I mean, my stated goal has been to try to get the truth about that missing plane by whatever means necessary, including, if required, to reveal this technology that we're supposedly hiding. And then, so the two-part is what do you think I should do? What would be advice for me uh in in towards that goal? And then what do you think I'm most wrong about out of all the stuff that I've been reviewing? >> Now, that's those are two really good questions. Uh the first one, you know, you've done, you're not the only one. You know, there are other UAP investigators that just do phenomenal work. And you know, even outside the UAP topic, I have watched civilians dissect other military operations. I'm like, wow, I had access to so much classified information that that you don't have and you nailed it, you know. So, um my advice would be um you know, to one, red team yourself. Um, find find those people that have the qualifi qualifications and the certifications on the systems that you're looking at and have them red team, have them look at it and no kidding. Uh, get in your camp and and harden harden your your case first of all. Um, because all the work you do, you're still, you know, you don't have to be a doctor to know how to stitch up someone's thumb. yet they're not going to let you walk into the hospital and do it, right? So, you know, you need a credentialed individual that that's going to back your case, whether they whether they come out in true name or just give you the ammo that you can confidently tell someone, hey, I've got a guy I've got one of your guys that looked at this. Now, what? You know, where you can have those closed door conversations. The other thing is um you know you need to ask yourself um is this ever going to be revealed? Is this something that is ever safe to come out? Um and and you have you have speculated a lot as to the reasons um why this might have been our government that that have that have done it. Um I I I where where I think um where I think you need to go is to harden your case by credentialed people coming to the same conclusion you did. So that's that's question one. Question two, um you speculated um some of the places where you think this plane went. Um, and I will tell you that at least one of them, your number one place, it did not go. >> Diego Garcia. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Interesting. Well, no, I actually think it crashed. They they just ditch it in the ocean. And the reason why I say that is because if you look at the debris that was found in Africa, a it was found in the wrong continent. If they thought it would crash in the South Indian Ocean, it should have washed ashore in Australia. But the thing that people messed up on, I'm going to just flex my my analysis skills here. >> Sure. >> Is that they didn't consider the debris could have washed up earlier. This debris shows up over a year, about a year, year and a half after the plane disappears by some random guy walking around in Africa. So they had assumed the debris had just washed ashore because it had to come from super far away. The search zone was over off the coast of Australia. But what if that debris had been there for a long time? What if it had been there for months and months and months? What if that plane went in the water closer to Africa and debris started washing ashore within two months? But nobody's looking for it there. Nobody's even looking for it. Nobody even knows what airplane debris looks like. In fact, I would speculate the opposite is that there was more debris and it's probably spread out even more over more area, but no one was looking at any of those places, not in any of that time period. And then some of it just straight up disappeared. >> So >> yeah, >> it's got to be over there in the water somewhere. Go ahead. >> I I think you're on to something there. >> Um >> interesting. >> But yeah, I will say the one the one thing I have heard you talk about that is not accurate is Diego Garcia. Um and I I have personal knowledge to back that up. But >> if you wanted to test a capability and also still make it look like an accident, >> Yeah. Then I think you do what you just said. >> The problem's going to be when they find that plane somewhere off the coast of Africa over there and then you're going have to answer the question, how did it get there? >> Right? Like it's too far away. The reason why they didn't search there is because it was too far away. And I will tell you that I believe the only way that would happen is by a severe accident by meaning some uncharted dude is doing a search for whales or something. >> Yeah. >> You know what I mean? There's not going to be >> there's not going to be an overt government. Okay. Yeah, you're with me. [laughter] >> Yeah. There's like someone like 50 years from now, someone's going to be like, I was mapping this area over here in the Indian Ocean and whoa, found this huge wreckage down here, right? This is going to be massive. >> Yep. >> And they're going to be like, well, how did this get over here? And honestly, that's what happens. People will >> there's going to be someone there's going to be someone looking for a World War II aircraft or a Navy ship that sunk or something or something else will crash nearby or something and it'll be an you know, they won't be able to stop a search. In other words, they'll be like, "Oh crap, we can't we can't tell them not to go down there and they're going to uncover it." Yeah. So then the last thing I wanted to say about your first comment which is you know on the advice which is good advice people had asked told me you know find experts build a team all this stuff you know I'll tell you two things that I don't know I've told a lot of people uh maybe I have I can't remember but number one there was somebody that came to me as a whistleblower and I'm going to say what their role was now I've never mentioned it but they were airache when the plane disappeared for the air force I won't say exactly where but let's just say somewhere in the region >> and they wanted me to signed an NDA and they wanted to come and whistleblow. Uh they sent me a long non-disclosure agreement. I ended up not signing it and we lost contact. But that things like that have happened and I've spoken to one of the original MH370 investigators. I think I did say this, but um they I sent them all the details with the videos and they actually sent back and they said that that smoke that's coming out of the plane in the videos is coming out of the AC exhaust units. and they show me images of the AC exhaust units on the Boeing trip 7 because they're, you know, experts on planes and all this stuff. And I go, "Yeah, that's what I figured out in October of 2023." And like I had the exact same screenshots and I I said I sent it to them. I said, "Doesn't this compelling evidence for why like this is real considering you came to the same conclusion about these videos that I did and real capabilities of a plane?" So, the reason why I haven't pushed harder on that, and that's this is just for people who are listening, is because I'm not sure I want this revealed, like you said, is like you have to think very hard about what is right about revealing this. Like, if I take my own arguments to their logical conclusion, I'm saying that this is like a doomsday weapon just waiting to happen. It's just a matter of time. And it's like, I'm not sure I even want that. I almost want to go back to being Cipher in the Matrix and just be like, you know what? Ignorance is kind of bliss. Maybe I will have another bite of this steak and forget about this alien technology. >> Yeah. And I I I don't think you're wrong for for pursuing the topic the way you have. Um but I think the conclusion you've come to um I think you know what you believe and I don't think I I don't know what's gained by you being proved right. um other than other than maybe putting other things at risk and and I you know I wish I wish [clears throat] I knew the answer uh to that question but um whether you should or shouldn't you know I I think um I think everything I think eventually uh you know at some point and it might be way beyond our lifetime when these technologies come out if there's anyone that remembers and even, you know, thinks about MH370, man. You remember like 150 years ago that plane that vanished? Like I wonder, you know, and I I just I don't know the answer to that. And and even, you know, what would be I think what would be validating for you at least is if someone did come out and say, "Hey, we did see that. It did happen. We don't know who did it, but that is real." That would at least be something you know you know because you're talking about again you're talking about attribution management you know I don't think you are ever going to get the government to come out and say hey we uh we figured out how to fly these things we figured out they can do some wazoo stuff and we tested it [laughter] you know like and and and there's a case for that right I mean look at MK Ultra that we mentioned earlier there's a huge case for them doing diabolically not good things you know um but they don't want that out, you know, and so I I just don't know that that uh that it that it'll go any other way. >> I think you brought a good point though is that what does it serve, right? This is what the government would say is what does it serve to tell the truth on this? Ultimately, it just serves my ego. That's about it, right? Is that prove that Forbes is right at the end of the day doesn't really do much else for that. And I'm not even that concerned about my ego. When I think about why I want it revealed, it's not because I want to be able to brag to people. It's because I want people to have free energy. It's because I was at the coffee store the other day and like a homeless person gets dropped off and she just gets water because she doesn't have any money for food, you know? And you go like, right, >> these problems shouldn't even exist, you know? Like that's what I think. And so that's that's the idea. >> Yeah. I I listen to a lot of different podcasts with a lot of um contrarian thinkers on these subjects and I think you're right. I think I think society survives free energy. I think uh I think I I think society with the advent of AI and potentially autonomous AI robots in our life taking over meaningless tasks, you know, um you can imagine a society that that maintains civil order has free energy and can devote their time and energy to the things that really matter in life. And I'm with you on that. you know, I I watched myself go from a teenager to a middle-aged man, and I lost decades of my life serving our country. And um you know, there are other people doing that in every single industry. And some of that could go away, you know, and we could how far could we advance as a society? How much would the increased quality of life be for just humanity overall? You know, it's really a humanity issue. I I agree with you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I guess here's the last two cool down questions for you. This is not too difficult. Number one, are y'all responsible for Tik Tok? You [laughter] see what Tik Tok is doing in people's brains. And I just got to say this screams like CIA covert intelligence operations here. We got women praising serial murderers. Like, it just feels like an intelligence op. I I'll tell you that there's there's a lot in this world right now that feels like bizarro world. Like I can't believe some of the things that we debate and talk about and bring up. Do I think the government has its hands in all social media? 100%. I know they do. >> Yeah, they do. >> Okay. Second last question then is and this is one that Salvatore Py and I were broaching and can we transfer consciousness? Do you think that's something that is feasible in or could be feasible in the future? Like this kind of freaked me out because everything S tells me I find out a little bit later on. Like I think it seems like the craziest thing ever and then I find out that there's like some element of truth to it. So >> I I think um I think there's I think that just like the fact that you can't see the radio waves communicating, you know, or the internet waves communicating with your devices, but you know they're there. Um, with my own personal experience, I I will tell you that there's so much more to the question of consciousness and communication. Um, that's outside of what uh what receptors we commonly use and and find to be normal. The only thing that I haven't wrapped my mind around yet is to be able to transfer consciousness. Um, I've definitely firsthand experienc um, with working with consciousness and it is it is uh, enlightening is not the right word. It's life-changing. Um, but to be able to transfer it, uh, it's it it's not on the side of impossible. I just don't know that I don't know that we've mastered how to do that yet. Um because if we could movies have been made about that where I can >> Yeah. Get out. That movie is crazy. >> Right. Exactly. Um you know, I think other things would be happening if we had the ability to do that that we're not seeing. We're not seeing the effects of it. >> Okay. Well, it worries me that you didn't say no, but it makes me feel a little better that you said you don't think we're seeing the effects of it. So, we're not. I just want to say this has been an amazing conversation. Uh, one of my favorites ever, and I greatly appreciate uh your bravery and coming out and telling the truth about this and your willingness to talk to me about this. A lot of people are afraid to talk to me. So, thank you very much. Any last thoughts or statements? Anything you want to say before we end? No, no. It's it's it's it's been a it's been a pleasure mine to you, uh, Ash, and I, you know, like I said at the beginning, everything you've done, you've you've really done some righteous work, you've done very quality work, and um I know that that doesn't come without uh the haters, you know, and the naysayers and and uh so to to to turn that dial down and and and just pursue um you got my respect. So, >> thank you very much, sir. And thank you everybody for watching this Hard Truths episode. Check out check us out next time.