Smearing the Brave - The WSJ’s War on UFO Truth - Guests : Robert Hastings and Marik von Rennenkampff

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to progressive and save hundreds. Because progressive offers discounts for paying in full, owning a home, and more. Plus, you can count on their great customer service to help when you need it so your dollar goes a long way. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save on car insurance. For casualty insurance company and affiliates, potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations. Bowser is back! Ha ha! Everyone calm down! The Super Mario Brothers can take care of the kingdom. Let's go! On April 1st. Code, pack our things. Woohoo! The galaxy is waiting. Who is this? Special! Cool dinosaur just shows up and he's now part of the group. Cool. The Super Mario Galaxy Movie. Only in Cinema's April 1st. Perhaps the heart of the mystery, the most important, most glaring, and most disturbing aspect of the whole UFO topic is them taking an interest in our nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. And it's happened over and over again all around the world. Anywhere there's a nuclear power plant, a nuclear lab, nuclear missile base, nuclear bombers, there's UFOs around it. They would never have, the government never would have risk deactivating canned nuclear missiles at the height of the Cold War when we were, you know, threatening Russia and Russia was threatening us. Shit, like he was baffling for me to see that continued on in one of the major newspapers in the United States when you do a little bit of digging to see that trend continuing. These absurd so-called explanations for credible UAP incidents. And I zeroed in specifically on at the bottom portion of that journal piece was a, oops, a, a, a, a, quote unquote, explanation for one, one of many, many, many incidents involving UFOs interacting with appearing around in proximity to nuclear weapons. This is Weaponized. I'm George Knapp here in Las Vegas. My colleague Jeremy Corbell somewhere on the West Coast. How you doing, Jeremy? I'm pumped, man. I'm fired up. So you'll recall last week we sort of extended all of Branch to the journalist for the Wall Street Journal who had this, released this piece. Exits and some pretty good shots at the UFO topic and, and people in the UFO world and the whole question of crash saucers. I think now then piece number two from Wall Street Journal has come out. What we're seeing is actual reverse engineering. It's reverse engineering of history and some of the things that have happened. They're rewriting history very much along the lines of the bullshit that the Department of Defense, Arrow, the CIA have been releasing for a long time. And they were what they, I feel silly now of extending all of Branch in the sense that journalists, there's a certain amount of hubris involved in this profession. We think we're smart and we can figure stuff out. And I think journalists at that level where these reporters have been working, national security, have probably been looking at the UFO topic thinking, well, geez, I cover national security. I know all these intelligence guys. I work at the Pentagon. If this stuff was true, if there had been crash saucers and reverse engineering, then damn it, I know about it and I don't know about it. So therefore it can't be true. I suspect now in looking at that second piece and what it did, I suspect that this might be the only angle that the editors of the Wall Street Journal would have approved in advance a UFO investigation. The Wall Street Journal certainly isn't known for stories that look into UFOs and say, oh, gosh, there's a legitimate mystery here. There really might be a government lies and a government cover up. Go for it, reporters. Go dig this stuff up. I think this might be the only angle that they would approve. And it seems to me it is specifically targeted at Wall Street folks, at big money investors, at the tech industry. The people who are behind the scenes, very curious about crash saucers, reverse engineering, if that technology had really has been stashed and locked or somewhere else for all these years, maybe we can get a crack at it. Now the knees have been cut off of that. And I think it was done on purpose. And I'm sorry to say that the journalists that we hoped would at least give a more balanced approach to the investigation actually went in the opposite direction to that and doubled down and attacked personalities and dug up a lot of stuff that's been around for years and just reiterated all this stuff, these themes that have been reported mostly by debunkers on social media, but which then find their way into officialdom in government agencies who seem to adopt the themes that are developed by seemingly unconnected social media personalities. And then it becomes government policy and government standard operating procedure. What's your take? Yeah, well, I got some questions. So the journalist is named Joel, right? That's the guy that wrote the Wall Street Journal article. So he verifiably put out false information about what was going on at the nuclear testing. And I just wonder if you're writing for a big publication like Wall Street Journal, I'm talking about the first article. Isn't it your duty when the person or people that were there that contradict your false narrative and it turns out the technology you said was used actually wasn't even invented by that time. Don't you have a responsibility? Doesn't Joel have a responsibility as a reporter and a news person, a journalist to correct the false information that he put in a Wall Street Journal article or no? Absolutely. It's essential. It's essential for the credibility of not only the journalist, but for the newspaper. I remember reading, learning this lesson from Bob Stodall years and years ago. And of course, as a human being, I have made mistakes. I have made mistakes on stories and you don't like to admit that it's a mistake, but Stodall always taught all of us that, look, if you make a mistake, you correct it. You correct it not only is it your duty, but in the long run, it's better for you. It enhances your credibility. If you go ahead and fess up, yeah, I messed that up. I'm correcting it now and you move on. That's a good thing for a journalist, not a bad thing. And I am astonished that of the very egregious and documentable falsities and mistakes that were made in that first story, there was no correction at all, not even a hint of one. I know that the Wall Street Journal was bombarded with responses from people who were directly involved with these incidents and they told them, look, you're wrong on this and here's why. I know that we had expected part two to be out soon after part one. There was a delay there where I think we were hoping, hey, they're reevaluating the direction of this story and they're going to make some corrections. They didn't make any. I mean, none of them, not one, not even a word about correcting what seemed to be very obvious errors. So this is about journalistic integrity. And so it's about the writer, the guy Joel, but it's also about Wall Street Journal is that if you verifiably have made egregious, maybe even intentional errors, right, that it is your duty to highlight those, listen to the people that are coming and report back on that and say, oops, I messed up. And they've yet to do that. They had a chance because after we recorded what people are about to see where you were being really nice and maybe, maybe let's just, you know, it's hard to figure this out. I've been doing it for 40 years. You said it's hard to figure it out. Then they throw that second absolute hit piece on whistleblowers and people that have come forward. And so now we're kind of, we're in the light of that because that's happened now that since we're recording. And there's been no corrections, nothing like that. And they doubled down and they went after whistleblowers like such as David Grash, which is hilarious. They didn't even mention. And I think the people we're about to have on are better suited to talk about this. And even you or me, I mean, literally one of them wrote the book on UFOs and nukes. So it's hilarious because they took one case, tried to say it was an EMP counter operation and everybody was fooled. But we've got the guy that has over 150 people that dealt with Nuku weapons and UAP. They were actually there. So this episode should smash the whole shit that you read in Wall Street Journal. So that'll be cool. But also Merrick, I remember you were like, you know, being magnanimous. And then Merrick's like, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that, George. And he made some really good points. So we're going to hear from him as well in this episode. But George, like a couple other things, like big picture things. So we obtained and released after a long time some new UAP footage that was filmed under an asset that was controlled by the U.S. Air Force. And then it was inside the intelligence community investigations on UAP. And it currently is to this day, I know, still designated UAP by our intelligence agencies. And we put it out to the world and asked detectives to go to go after it. And I've seen a few ideas and conflicting ideas. So I'm going to pause on my thoughts on what's going on with that particular footage until we kind of let the detectives do a little bit of hard work now. But I just want to bring that up that we'll come, we'll circle back to that. Sure. Circle back to it. Sure. Yeah. I get the pun. You know, again, not to beat a dead horse here. The, that Wall Street Journal second article includes attacks on all kinds of people reminding the world of stuff that is what you'd learn in UFO kindergarten that nine out of 10 UFO reports are misidentifications, could be secret projects, other kinds of technology, planes, planets, clouds, all that stuff. That's what you learn day one in UFO school is that that is the case. Yes, there is counterintelligence. Yes, there are cover stories. That has been reported for many years in this field. So it's like, they suddenly discovered, Hey, you know, the Pentagon lies about this stuff once a while. Really? No kidding. I saw what they did without really getting into OSAP, the OSAP program that we are both very familiar with is they took little shots about that, that program that was investigating werewolves and monsters and poltergeist, Artie Har Har. That, that remark, which you'd hear from the debunkers on X coming out of the Wall Street Journal, it feels like the level of saying, Hey, you've got boogers hanging out of your nose. You know, it's like, that's how sophisticated that is. We, we know anybody listening to this knows why those things came up. OSAP had a situation where they were going to follow the evidence wherever it led. And then like any other government funded UFO program, they were going to study human effects. It was important to gather all that information, not just to exclude it because someone thought, Oh, that's too weird. Let's just kick it out. That's what all the other programs have done. OSAP said, we're going to look at this. We're going to look at physical effects, medical injuries that happen when people get too close to UFOs. We're going to look at psychological effects, the kinds of phenomena that people report in addition to an association with UFOs. And it gets pretty weird. There's nobody like Colm Kelleher biochemist or Dr. Jim Likatsky, a PhD engineer who go into something like this thing and, well, I want to investigate werewolves. That would really do my career a lot of good. You know, that's really going to win me a lot of credibility in DC. And the DIA is to investigate monsters. It happens. It comes up because that's what the witnesses say. You include it because it wants to be an all inclusive kind of a program. You follow the evidence where it leads. You include it all. You don't just make a decision that you're going to kick it all out because you think it's too darn weird. So I thought that was cheap shot stuff on the part of the Wall Street Journal. I think it's below, below their standards. I mean, I still agree that it's a really great newspaper. And I'm glad they got into this. I still have a tiny sliver of hope that maybe after they, they hear a lot of input from people like us and people way smarter than us, that they'll take another look at it. But in light of how they reacted to some of the folks who were directly involved in these programs, who've told them, here's why you're wrong. And who've told them, you misquoted me. You said something completely different from what I told you. Arts parts. You know, the, the arts parts, that metal that's going around for a long time, implying that that is the material that's been tested by people like Dr. Eric Davis, they know better. They know better than that. So I'm, I'm really disappointed. I was hoping that I had a tiny sliver of hope, even when we were saying that. I didn't really believe it was going to, uh, you know, that they were going to turn it around and, but I was hopeful that they'd at least pause to consider it. And they did not. So what you're saying is WSJ, people call Wall Street Journal, I say, way shit journalism now. I'm really disappointed, you know, with the way it was handled, because we saw it like a slow train wreck. Um, the thing I want to highlight today is really before we jump into the nukes is really about whistleblowers. I made a statement on the news when I was on NBC talking about that we have three firsthand whistleblowers that are willing to testify. Now that's taken years to get to this point and to vet and get them ready to go. I mean, these are people vetted by our own government. And I actually have a statement from one of them today that kind of relates, uh, to what we're talking about you and me. Cause what you're talking about, um, like with Arrow is an example of the, just the mental gymnastics worthy of a gold medal where they, they say one thing, but they don't tell you the full truth. And I want to highlight one thing cause I was talking with a whistleblower today and you know, the whistleblowers allowing you and me to read something, George, but it was just one point. Um, Arrow has said things like we have no scientific evidence of extraterrestrial, um, technology or life. What I found so interesting when Arrow said that it is tech, technically, you know, the way they're using the words, maybe they're not lying by the way they're using the words cause they didn't use the word that was most prevalent by the organization that hired them to do their job. And the word that, that, that was put forward by, by Senate and by the house was NHI, non-human intelligence. I wonder if they could say the statement if they said the words non-human intelligence. So I was talking with a whistleblower about this, who I hope the world gets to meet and, um, at a public hearing under oath on congressional record, but we'll see how that goes. The sentence is this, it was really interesting. The scientific method requires a control. Extraterrestrial is an intelligence from another planet to acquire scientific evidence of extraterrestrials. We would have to go to a planet, acquire materials that they could, they could only be from that planet, return to earth with those materials and compare them to match to objects we have recovered here on earth. It's a long way of saying arrow is telling a truth in quotes, but not the full truth. Someone should ask them if they've recovered materials that were not made by humanity at the time they were discovered and recovered. That's an interesting last statement from a firsthand whistleblower, George. Man, somebody should ask arrow that, but these are the types of games that are being played by wall street journal, misquoting people, not correcting their errors, which is false misinformation that they put out and all the way along by arrow and specifically now by former arrow employees. So it's just interesting to me, man, whistleblowers is going to become really important. It is true that there, there's actually way more than three. Verified vetted over years, firsthand whistleblowers that have come to you and me, George, that have now confirmed and also recorded with us, by the way. But, you know, I'd like, I'd like them to be in Congress, to the American public, before you and I have to do Congress's job. So I really do believe Congress has a job to do now, but I went online. I rarely do this. And I put out a statement of what a firsthand whistleblower is. Like what are the categories? What are the levels? And I really hoping people go read that on my X, because it clarifies and should signal to you exactly the quality of the witnesses that we are going to hand deliver on a platter to the congressionally mandated task force that is literally designed to bring these people forward to tell the American public about this. So I encourage people to go to my X and to do that because these people must testify at the next congressional hearing on UAPs. If they have courage, meaning Congress, they're going to put these people and more, we could give them up there to talk to the American public. I just wanted to say that, George, before we get into UFOs and nukes. Now, you've asked me to introduce Robert Hastings. You've known Robert so much longer than me. I think you should introduce him. He literally wrote the book on UFOs and nukes. He has spent 40 years pursuing this particular angle. As I've said before, I think it is perhaps the heart of the mystery, the most important, most glaring and most disturbing aspect of the whole UFO topic is them taking an interest in our nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. And it's happened over and over again, all around the world. Anywhere there's a nuclear power plant and a nuclear lab, nuclear missile base, nuclear bombers, there's UFOs around it. And Robert has collected somewhere around 150 witnesses, firsthand witnesses who've seen this stuff, who've shared information. Some of them, their identities are not known, but most of them are. And it's a pretty compelling piece of evidence. So of course, when the Wall Street Journal raises this prospect that, oh, yeah, the Malmstrom UFO incident, that was an EMP. That was an experiment using EMP technology that did not exist. Of course, we thought Robert Hastings is the first guy we got to go to talk to. And here he is. You know, whenever I introduce or talk about Robert Hastings, I describe him as the guy who literally wrote the book about UFOs and nukes. And he did. He wrote the book. He spent 40 years of his life investigating these incidents and instances of UFO intrusions at nuclear weapons labs, nuclear weapons storage facilities, ICBM bases, both in the United States along the US Canadian border, Russia, other places. It is, in my view, maybe the most alarming aspect of the whole UFO topic. And this guy has done more work on it than anyone. Robert, it's great to talk to you. Thank you for having me. It's an interesting time. I know you don't do a lot of interviews. We're so glad to have you on weaponized, especially in the context of what's happened over the last couple of weeks. This article comes out in the Wall Street Journal. I don't think they talked to you for that story, did they? Or did they not? No. No. But one aspect of the reporting, and we'll get into the details in a moment, is about some pretty famous incidents that you have broken ground on and investigated as much as anyone ever has, where UFOs interfere with ICBM nukes, US nukes, the most powerful weapons in the world in very alarming ways. And what the Wall Street Journal explained was there's another explanation. It was a test of some sort. Give me a sense of what it was like when you first read that article. Did your head explode? Hey there, weaponized listeners. When I put on the right clothing, it feels like armor. A thoughtfully built wardrobe comes down to pieces that mix well and last. That's where Quince shines. Premium fabrics, considered design and everyday essentials. The feel effortless to wear and dependable. Even as the seasons change or the skies fill with things we can't explain. Here's what I can tell you. And some of it is classified. Quince has the everyday essentials I actually reach for. Lightweight, cashmere sweaters, short sleeve, Mongolian, cashmere polos, linen bottoms and shorts, teas in 100% pima cotton and European Jersey linen. These are the versatile pieces that make a wardrobe actually work. Season to season, mission to mission. They go direct to factories, no middlemen, no brand markup, no fancy retail store, you're subsidizing just quality clothing, simple, clean, almost suspiciously good. And they only work with factories that meet serious standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. And I respect that. Stop overcomplicating your wardrobe. You don't need a full closet of options. You need a few pieces that actually work. For your cosmic closet. Right now go to quince.com slash weaponized for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it. And you will. Now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q U I N C E. Dot com slash weaponized for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash weaponized. See you on the next episode. I was not surprised, frankly, but yeah, the whole premise that they offered the public is absurd that this EMP electromagnetic post generator was somehow secretly installed right outside of Oscar flights weapons or excuse me, launch control facility. And somehow at night they turned it on and generated this luminous appearance. And the guards mistook it for a UFO, but that was the reason the U.F. The missiles were disrupted and were knocked offline. The whole premise is absurd on its face. Bob Salas, who was one of the launch officers underground at the time has already chimed in online and in various forms such as X and said how ridiculous that was. So again, I wasn't surprised to read what they were claiming, but it was just absurd. Why is it absurd? What makes it absurd? Well, for starters, as Bob and journalist Mark von Renekamp have pointed out, it would have taken a monumental amount of effort to actually install this generator next to this launch control facility. It's constantly guarded 24 seven. There are bright security lights on at night that just illuminate the sky. The sky. There's no way they could have installed this. I understand it weighed several tons and the time it would have taken to put it in place. I mean, the whole, the whole scenario is just, you know, out of fantasy land. More to the point because I have investigated that case and interviewed several individuals who are involved with it. I know for a fact that it was a bonafide UFO and that the air force responded as if it were a bonafide UFO in particular in the mid nineties. I was lecturing at a college in California, a gentleman in the audience named Bob Jamison, Robert Jamison came up to me afterwards and said, we need to talk. I was at Malmstrom. I know about the things you're, you've lectured about and, you know, let's get together. So when I got back home, I interviewed him. He said that in 1967, when that event occurred, he was a missile targeting officer and he was at home one night. He thinks between probably nine or 10 and suddenly he gets a call to go down to the missile maintenance hangar where the targeting personnel were, were located as well and was told that some strange things have been going on out at Oscar flight. A flight is 10 missiles. This one was designated Oscar. Located about a hundred miles from the base at a town called Roy, Montana. And when he arrived at the hangar, there was already scuttle, but the UFOs had messed up the missiles and he heard that from a number of colleagues. Finally, he gets a briefing and his targeting team and other targeting teams are all assembled and they're tall point blank that a UFO had caused the malfunctions of these 10 missiles. The way Jameson put it, and I've got tape recorded, uh, evidence or, or documentation of my interviews with him. He said, uh, we were told that UFOs had been messing things up. And that's the way he explained it to me. And, um, so they drive out to the site. Oh, I bet I should back up before the briefing was over. The targeting teams were told that if they cited a UFO on the way to Oscar flight, they were to report it immediately to the command post. They were further told that once they arrived on site and were bringing up the 10 missiles, uh, not only their missile functionality, but retargeting them, which was Bob Jameson's job. They were told that if UFO appeared at any of the missile sites, they were immediately to get into what's called the personnel access hatch and go down into the silo, shutting the access hash behind them. Further told that they should leave their security guard escort up at ground level so that he could continue to report via a two way radio, two mom's to Marathon space, what was taking place. So all of that was on the record with me in, uh, probably 1993 or 94. I actually heard all of that before Bob Salos went public with the story that he was one of the launch officers in the capsule that night. And I finally met mob in, in, uh, he went public in 1996 with a researcher named Jim Klotz, uh, you can still find their article at the coup found website online. And, um, he, you know, when I, he showed up at a lecture I gave at the university of Washington in 1998, I knew who he was, of course. And I said, you know, when I get back home, let's talk because I've got someone who can corroborate your story. So I put Jameson and Salas together probably around 1999, I would say. And, uh, they compared notes and it was clear they were talking about the same event. It occurred, uh, the evening of March 24th, 1967. And the reason I was able to pin down the date is because Jameson said while they were in the maintenance hangar, waiting to go out into the field to bring up the missiles or to retarget the missiles. Uh, he went to a temporary command post in the hangar and was listening to a two-way conversation, two-way radio conversation between persons in the hangar and persons out at a place called belt canyon. Uh, there had been a UFO that had landed in the canyon that same night. And, uh, he was listening to this exchange and actually as the targeting teams went out to Oscar flight, they passed belt canyon and they could see an assembly of Air Force vehicles on the side of the road. Now, the reason I can pin the date down is because there were civilians, uh, sightings at belt that same night. And someone talked to the local newspaper, the, the Great Falls Tribune. And so the following day on March 25th, 1967, the Great Falls Tribune had a story about the sightings at belt canyon. So I consequently, I was able to, was able to pin down the exact date. Um, go ahead. What was the shape of the UAP? I have two questions. What was the shape of the UAP, the UFO that went over Malstrum? Uh, well, it was, it was a good hundred miles away from Malmstrom again. Um, but, uh, out at Oscar flight, the missile flights, all the missiles are scattered around the countryside at any given base or not on the base itself. But, um, Bob Salas has said for many years that when he was down in the capsule and he got a call from what's called the flight security controller, that individual said, I'm looking at several objects maneuvering around the sky very erratically. Bob said, you know, that's very strange. Are you talking about UFOs? He was kind of incredulous. And, uh, Bob said, you know, if anything more dramatic happens, get back to me. Five minutes later, he gets a second call and the flight security controller is screaming into the phone. Sir, there's one right here hovering over the front gate at the launch control facility. And he didn't get a description right at that moment. The, the, the FSC said, I have to go. One of the guards has been injured. So meanwhile, while the guy is getting off the line, Salas is waking up his miss, missile commander who was captain Frederick Mywald, who I've also interviewed as well and, you know, said, you know, we've got a situation here. I don't know what's going on. So as they're getting to the console and kind of figuring out what, what's what, all their missiles start going into a failure mode. It's called guidance and control failure. So the missiles could not be launched one after the other over space of a few seconds. When all this had transpired and things calmed down, Salas later went top side as he was going off shift, talked to the flight security controller and learned that the object was essentially disc shaped, saucer shaped, but glowing reddish orange and was quite large. I've got an email communication between Bob and I where he's saying he estimated it was at least 40 to 50 feet in diameter. The premise that is told to the Wall Street Journal that an EMP is this big apparatus has pulled up. Nobody even notices the security guys don't notice it's out there. And it disables 10 different silos, the missiles. That idea that it does it on purpose and the effect it would have on our ability to defend our country is preposterous. Is it not? It is. And Bob Jamison actually, when I did a documentary film in 2015, maybe anyway, it's up at my website, ufohacings.com. I've got a 48 minute documentary in the documentary. It's there's a footage of the press conference that I held in Washington in September of 2010. Bob Jamison, the missile targeting officer was one of the veterans speaking at that press conference. He says on camera that, you know, they would never have the government never would have risk deactivating 10 nuclear missiles at the height of the Cold War when we were, you know, threatening Russia and Russia was threatening us. And to take 10 missiles offline, even for a test for, for even a few hours would have been a ridiculous concept and never would have happened. Uh, so the whole, the whole premise again is absurd and ridiculous. I don't know what else to call it. Uh, why the Joel, Joel Sheckman, the Wall Street Journal reporter believed all of this, uh, or his co-author, uh, you know, is anyone's guess. I suspect I've seen you on camera, George, saying that you think that Sean Kirk Pachter was behind this. They were, he was the one that fed them that information. I would not be surprised. I would not be surprised. Well, you've encouraged, uh, people, you know, witnesses from the hundreds of people you've interviewed who've had bits and pieces of information about multiple incidents. You encourage them to go to Arrow and share their information and they went in good faith and how were they treated? Uh, actually, uh, Kurt McConnell, who was, uh, investigator for the Senate Armed Services Committee, uh, two years ago, I believe it was January of 2023, emailed me and said, I've been in touch with Sean Kirk Patrick. He knows about your work. I've told him about your work. He would like to interview some of your sources. So I sent out a blanket email to probably 20 of the people that I'm still in touch with, uh, veterans who were involved in these incidents and persons I had interviewed over the years. I think 11 ended up speaking to Arrow if I'm not mistaken. And when I got feedback from them, uh, initially they said they were treated cordially, they were allowed to say everything they wanted to say. There were no interruptions. There was no pushback, you know, um, but one of them, and I'm, I'm forgetting which veteran told me this. He said, I asked him, is this being recorded? And they said, no, but we're taking notes. Well, if you, if you're doing a serious investigation and you're trying to get witness testimony about something this, this dramatic, you obviously are going to record it. You're not going to just take notes. And I finally, uh, I ultimately got a second confirmation that he was told the veteran was told that they were only taking notes, which kind of confirmed, you know, my impressions of what Arrow was all about. I've said, I think in my interview with you on the coast to coast last fall and on other podcasts with Ross, for example, Ross Colthart, I don't believe Arrow is a legitimate group. I think it's a front. I think it's, it's song and dance. It's a, you know, it ain't what's, what it's supposed to be. It's, it's like data collection, uh, just to know what, who knows what, uh, but without getting into that, that two things. So one is, don't you find it egregious that like this Wall Street Journal article is like this one event at a, at a nuclear facility, you know, kind of explains the way the UAP nuclear connection, when you have directly interviewed over a hundred, I imagine, first hand witnesses. And don't you find it silly that they're trying to dismiss UAP by using one event when you've interviewed hundreds of people? Of course. And, uh, the sources I have now, number 167, actually as a result of my, uh, the article that was posted at the UFO Chronicles a couple of days ago, I got an email from a new veteran who was a security policeman at Malmstrom in, uh, 1995 to 98. And, uh, I'll be interviewing him next week. So it's already now. So I'm going to be up to 168 finally, as far as numbers and sources. But yeah, um, I suspect that, you know, the Wall Street Journal reporters don't know who I am. They don't know anything about my work. They're not aware of the press conference that I held. So I itemized all of those things in this, in this email I sent to there, one of the editors, uh, Judy Walsh, and she hasn't responded, no surprise there. But I basically said, you need to go to my website. Look at this press conference that CNN streamed live, by the way, for these seven veterans are talking about multiple incidents over the years of UFOs being impacted by you, uh, nuclear missiles being impacted by UFOs. And I, I wonder if they'll even do that. Somebody else reacted, I guess, to the Wall Street Journal article and reached out to you, the FBI. Can you share some of that, those details with us? Uh, actually about a month ago, Bob Salis emailed me and said, uh, I've been interviewed by an FBI agent out of the Phoenix office. Uh, his name is Adam Herndon. And, uh, he seems very interested in, uh, you know, what, what happened to me at Malmstrom and 67, and he wonders if he can talk to you. And I said, sure. So I talked to him on the phone about 10 days ago, 12 days ago. And just, uh, yesterday, as a matter of fact, I spoke with Adam and another FBI agent named Michael, uh, her, her wig. And we talked for two hours. I'm surprised I made it for two hours, but, uh, they, they had lots of questions and, um, they seemed very intrigued by what I had to say. They asked, I don't know if you read your email yet today, George, but they were asking about the Russian documents that you brought back and so on. And so, um, I'm also in touch with Jim Semavan, former high level CIA and Chris Mellon and Lou Elizondo, and all three of them. When I told them that the FBI was going to interview me, all three of them said, do it, uh, we've talked to them. We think their, their hearts in the right place and they're trying to get, you know, legitimate, uh, information, uh, to give them, uh, bring them up to speed as to what's been going on over the years. So, um, yeah, I, it was a very good experience and I trust these two individuals, uh, that they, they're, they're sincere in, in their approach and their intentions. Robert, we have a bunch of other questions and a much broader interview to do. We've been dying to get you on weaponized. Maybe we could do a little bit further down the road where we. Cover it or soup the nuts, the whole UFO, new connection. Talk about your book, which it's among the most important UFO books in my library. Anybody who's serious about this topic has got to have UFOs and nukes and also they should see your film and can't thank you enough for being here and sharing your time with us, but we'd really like to have you back and do something broader if that's okay. I'd be happy to. Thank you very much. Do you have a message just real quick at the last thing, do you have a message for our audience, um, in reaction to the Wall Street Journal about UFOs and nukes? You, you've been doing this for so long. You're so specialized in it. Do you have like the blanket message that people should really understand? The average person. I would say, you know, my humble opinion is if you look at UFO activity post World War II, it just shot through the roof and it's been at elevated levels compared to prior to that timeframe. Well, what happened at that point? We invented nuclear weapons and used them in Japan. And I've talked to witnesses who actually witnessed the UFO at a plutonium production facility months prior to the bombings of Japan. They on three separate occasions in January of 45, a UFO was hovering on one object on three, three occasions, hovered directly over the plant and was chased away by Hellcat fighters. So it's been going on. It's, it's, it's longstanding. It's widespread and it's ongoing. Now I stopped doing serious research in 2010. I suspect things have happened since then, probably last, last week at some bay somewhere, but I won't know about it. Hopefully someone will come forward and talk about it to someone. In a sense, it might be the very heart of this mystery. I mean, of the UFO activity. I don't disagree with that. And I refrain from saying that usually because it sounds egotistical. But yeah, I think my work is very pertinent and conceivably central to what's been going on in the last 60, 70 years. Do you think that the UFOs have become more present because of the nuclear weapons? That's what you're saying. I do. I believe that. Like, you know, I'll, I'll, I'll, at the risk of losing books, it fails. I'll also say someone who doesn't want to buy my book. I've got article after article after article at my website and, you know, essentially interviews with these veterans about many, many cases. So check those out and draw your own conclusions, folks. Thank you so much, man. This is our friend, Mark von Reninkamp. He is the dragon slayer of euphology. Man, sometimes he writes opinion pieces in the hill. And every time he does that, I listen when Merrick talks, I listen because this guy is tenacious, pugnacious. He doesn't let anything slide. He goes after the debunkers. Like he makes them his bitch. And it is like the most fun thing in the world. So other than working formally in the DoD, which makes you suspicious, Merrick, it is cool that the way that you fight fights, even though I'm pugnacious too, the way you fight fights that I don't. So I really love your opinion pieces in the hill. They should publish every time you send one in, man, you're really good. And I want to get specific opinions from you on this Wall Street journal piece because George is being so nice, being like new journalists coming in, he got barrage of false information, incomplete. He said information from Arrow. I'm not as forgiving, but the way George says it, I tend to lean now towards what he's saying. You're a journalist, you know, you rely on your sources, but you found a lot of, let's just say flaws in the Wall Street Journal piece, but you went into the minutia. So what I want to get from you today is tell the average person why what they read in the Wall Street Journal was absolute horseshit. Yeah. And Jeremy and George, thanks so much for having me back on. It's great to see you guys. And I'll kind of put this all into a broader context. And I have taken a lot of time looking at the historical record, how the government treated this topic, the UFO topic over the last 70, 80 years. And by and large, the post 1953 history of this topic is the Air Force slapping on absurd, truly absurd, so-called explanations to very credible UAP incidents reported by multiple credible observers. We're talking about up close within a few hundred feet observations by police officers, pilots, scientists of objects that defy easy explanation. And the Air Force came through time after time and slapped on absurd explanations. So I'm looking at this journal piece and I look at the ufology. I look at the topic more broadly through that lens of just nonsensical debunking. By the way, it was US government policy to debunk. It's there in black and white in the Robertson panel report of early 1953 that debunking these sightings was government policy. So I look through that lens and the Wall Street Journal was it was alarming. It was like it was baffling for me to see that continued on in one of the the major newspapers in the United States when you do a little bit of digging to see that trend continuing just these absurd, so-called explanations for credible UAP incidents. And I zeroed in specifically on at the bottom portion of that journal piece was a a disparate, quote unquote, explanation for one one of many, many, many incidents involving UFOs interacting with appearing around in proximity to nuclear weapons. And that was the 1967 incident announced from Air Force Base. Robert Salas was an Air Force nuclear missile officer. It was spoken about this publicly, but there are other witnesses who have gone on the record. His direct missile commander who was in this underground capsule with him has gone on the record. He's passed away several years ago, but in in the key book on this UFOs and nukes by Robert Hastings. You can you can read all about this. There are recordings of his conversations online. Bottom line is there are multiple witnesses to this event. The air at Arrow, the the government's UAP analysis office via the Wall Street Journal, says that this was some kind of test of an electro electromagnetic pulse against active live nuclear weapons, which is anybody who has any kind of semblance of understanding how the government works. Generally speaking, people are not going to test a devastating electronic pulse against live active nuclear weapons and unsuspecting nuclear missile officers at the height of the Cold War. This is a couple of years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is ludicrous, the notion that somehow the Air Force or some some other secret swirl entity moved this device, apparently, to the front gate, undetected and zapped live nuclear weapons. It is preposterous. Now, that's just the kind of that's just one element of this. The other element is is the truly shoddy journalism that went into this. And that centers around the fact that to support this case or this so called explanation, the authors, Joel Scheckman and Aruna Viswanatha, I think, they cited certain documents to make their case. When you actually look at those documents, the system that they claim explains this UFO incident and Maltram had not even been proposed, let alone tested in 1967. It was only proposed in 1971, four years later, and it wasn't operational until 1973 or so. So you have just just on its face that the kind of the absurd idea that somehow this massive device was installed, undetected by the front gate of an active nuclear missile base and then used to fry actual active nuclear missiles. And then on top of that, to add insult to injury, the documents say that it's impossible that the system did not exist at that time. So that's a long-winded way of saying what I'm seeing in that journal piece is a continuation of these nonsensical absurd explanations for very credible incidents of UAP, in this case, UAP interacting nuclear weapons. Ready to launch your business? Get started with the commerce platform made for entrepreneurs. Shopify is specially designed to help you start, run and grow your business with easy customizable themes that let you build your brand, marketing tools that get your products out there, integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time from startups to scale ups online, in person and on the go. Shopify is made for entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your one dollar a month trial at Shopify.com. Set up. Back from holiday with everything stained and smelly. Here comes another long day of laundry. This calls for new vanished turbo. Pick crew with me. New vanished turbo removes tough stains and works against odors with intense freshness on a quick wash. Even a 30 minute one. Affirmative. Vanish's unique accelerator turns every quick wash into a deep clean. All good to go, mom. Quick wash on. Deep clean done. So clean, so fresh, so fast. Trust Vanish. Forget stains. Mark, you've you've worn both hats as a journalist working there and writing about these kinds of matters and you've worked on the inside too. You know what it's like, that that secular, that insulated world of intelligence and defense. It's a closed world for a journalist to pierce it and to try to get the truth. I mean, you know, the UFO topic for you as for us, it's a steep learning curve. And you go through stages of understanding along the way. It takes a long time to get your head around it. For the benefit of those Wall Street Journal reporters who trusted their sources, who have credentials, people like Sean Kirkpatrick, they have been on the inside. It seems like that's what happened here is they trusted those people because they have credentials and experience. And maybe they talk to other people as well. But seems like they took them at their word. They got some documentation that sort of backed up the story. And that's as far as it went. But, you know, that's the way it goes for a lot of reporters who parachute into the subject and don't really spend the time it takes to get their heads around it. Correct? I'm going to push back a little bit, George. Sure. The key document that they cited on literally page one of that document, it says that the system was not operational until four years later. They had to read to page one. Quickly. This is astounding. I actually wrote a fairly strongly worded email to the Wall Street Journal's corrections editor, and I cited every I mean, meticulous citing. And the question was, how does how does this pass any sort of editorial vetic when the documents that you cite, like roundly debunk this absurd explanation? How does that happen at the Wall Street Journal? Right. We think of the Journal, the Times and the Washington Post as kind of the three major papers in the United States. How does this happen? It's shocking to because I think they knew that there's going to be a bomb shell article that is going to get a lot of eyeballs. What you want to double triple a quadruple check and be meticulous in what you report. I am I don't know if I subscribe to a nefarious kind of explanation for this, or if this is just what I call stenographic journalism, right? They're just regurgitating what sources tell them with no critical thinking whatsoever. I don't know, but it's one of those those two and either one is terrible. Did you get a response from the Wall Street Journal? I got no response. I mean, you, Salis, Hastings, a bunch of people have written to them and they're like, did you not check anything? So it's preposterous. But man, I mean, George is being so dip, not diplomatic, you're being diplomatic. You know, he's like, look, man, it's hard. This subject is hard. But what I'm hearing from you, man, is they didn't even check the cover page to their reporting. Fuck. I guess what I'm trying to do is I remember starting down this road myself and and really hooked me on it was when I realized I'm being lied to and the public's being lied to and it pissed me off. And it still does. And I'm hoping maybe these reporters, all this feedback they're getting, it's got to be hard for them to get this kind of feedback. And I'm hoping that they react by saying, God damn it, I was lied to and I'm going to dig in harder now. I, George, I 100 percent respect your I get your point. It is a it is it's like taking a drink from a fire hose, this topic. And I think I initially when I first waded into this, I had the same idea that you did, I thought this is this topic, this whole topic is your postures. It's a possible tinfoil territory. And of course, as you dig and dig and dig, that is, it's the opposite of that. It's a truly a treating story. So I take your point. However, I'll push back in another way. The two authors of the article, they they basically summed up, summarized congressional interest in this topic as a bunch of Maga Republicans in the House who are suspicious of the deep state, deep state, not a peep about the UAP disclosure act sponsored by Senate then majority leader now minority leader, Chuck Schumer and Senator Mike Browns, who is a moderate, respected Republican who sits on both the armed services and intelligence committees in the Senate, which is a rare double billing and any article that does not make mention of of of the Disclosure Act, the support it has from Secretary of State Mike Rubio, Marco Rubio, when he was in Congress as the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kirsten Gillibrand, another high profile Democrat. These are both two former presidential candidates. Oh, by the way, right? Rubio Gillibrand not mentioning the disclosure which is perhaps the most extraordinary legislation that has ever been introduced in Congress because it alleges a quote legacy program that has retrieved, quote, biological evidence of nonhuman intelligence. Right. That's extraordinary. Not to mention that. I think something something deeply, deeply wrong is and it's certainly not objective journalism if you don't make mention of that. And I'll just add one more thing. We just heard a few days ago that this journal piece appears to have zero effect because Senator Mike Rounds hinted just a few days ago that the UAP Disclosure Act will be reintroduced for the third time. I don't think if if Congress and Senator Rounds or Senator Schumer think this is all BS and this is all hazing and the nuclear stuff is nonsense, that they would be introducing legislation that alleges that the government has squirreled away UAP and again, biological evidence of nonhuman intelligence. Let's let's let's be very clear. That's alien bodies. That is what the top senators in Congress are alleging. The government has retrieved. I think admittedly, I will say this is that I am not known for being a Polly Anish, a rose colored glasses, glasses half full kind of a guy. I'm trying to look hopefully leave an open door for these journalists to realize they got burned themselves. They didn't go far enough. They made a mistake and hopefully they walk through that door and realize, hey, there's a real story here. I'm pissed off to be treated this way and and have made that mistake. And now I'm going to dig in a little bit further. That's the that's what I hope happens. I don't know if that's what's going to happen. That George, that's a great that's a great point. And if in the off chance that they're listening to this, yes, we would love to have you and please we want you to be force multipliers. But, you know, the opening round that they, you know, they open the fiery shunt of the U of the foray that they took in the UFO world. I think they know by now was was really poorly executed. I think they're quite I think they're well aware of that. Well, we know that Wall Street Journal watched our last episode of Weaponize probably by this time this airs a couple of times ago. You know, the guy they admitted that they watched it. And they're they're seeing public opinion. I'm going to take the between middle of the road between you two. I don't trust nobody till they earn my trust. But at the same time, I think that people have the ability for redemption. And this journalist, the main journalist, Joel, I mean, honestly, he should talk with you, man. I don't know you said a force multiplier. I think that he should educate himself because his job is to report the news as is true. And not just as is told. And so I think hopefully we can get people to really look at this and be a force multiplier for the truth about UAP. Merrick, look, man, I just got to say, you kick ass in ways that I am exhausted of trying anymore. And I appreciate you so much. I do remember that you had pre knowledge a little bit about what George and I were going to put out when it came to the it was the the witness. Was it? Yeah, the Jackson, USS Jackson and those UAP. You did a great job. I see you take the debunkers to task and then basically give up with some bullshit answer, keep doing what you're doing, man. You know, we George and I love having you on the show because you really do bring a sincere and authentic and straightforward point of view. Man, keep it up. Just never fucking quit. Never quit with what you're doing, man. Maybe we'll do an introduction of those Wall Street Journal folks to you. And you can start a dialogue of your own privately and truly be honored. I would and I mean that sincerely. I would be honored and I would have I would appreciate a good faith discussion with them if they're open to that. Absolutely. More. And again, if we can turn these folks into the true investigative journalists that actually want to get to the truth and not about UAP. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. We want more people diving into this. That's the end goal, right? We do want people because we believe, I believe, having looked at this now exhaustively, that there is something significant here. What that exact what that is exactly, I don't know, but there's absolutely a story. There's no question. Get get get your own weaponized man. Let's get him. I mean, let him talk for himself and we can all round table this stuff. But anyway, Merrick, sorry, Maric. I'm learning to pronounce names. This is like, I don't do intros that I'm learning to pronounce names. Is there anything else you'd like to leave the weaponized viewer with just kind of big picture about all this? Like. I'll just say very quickly, I think the bottom line, I booked some one portion of that Wall Street Journal article, really, when that's the 1967 Mountstrom Air Force Base UFO. I think the bottom line takeaway from that story is is that there was allegedly some massive sweeping, hazing ritual, bizarre ritual that exposed office Air Force officers to fake bogus UFO programs and that this was at a widespread level, that this was to the order of thousands of individuals. And I have seen zero evidence about the people that I have spoken with. Do not believe that. And the people who are in positions to know that do not believe that that is accurate. And I'd be very curious to see if the current leadership of Arrow agrees with what was reported in the Wall Street Journal. They don't. Of how widespread this was. They don't. And I can't say anything more, but I just know that the current leadership of Arrow are not completely aligned with what was presented in Wall Street Journal. That's all I can say. And I would say, look, the other question is, has John Patrick and all these closed door briefings and hearings and meetings that he's had with members of Congress has ever shared this point of view with them? Because it doesn't sound like he ever did. It's something he did after he left that job and is now saying to a journalist that he never said to anybody in positions of power. The article claims he briefed Congress and Susan got the Pentagon spokesperson said that they briefed Congress on this. I've seen no evidence about. I'd love to know more. And I would before I leave, I'll just say very, very book. I think one of the most significant developments that I have to give Steve Green Street credit, the most one of the most significant developed developments in this topic. And quite a while was his interview with the former deputy director of Arrow, Tim Phillips, who admitted, who admitted that they are stumped by fiery orcs, direct code fiery orcs. That is those are foo fighters. You can go through the historical, the documented record of UAP assessments by the US government, and it is littered, littered with references to balls of fire, flaming orbs, things of that nature. And he talks quite a bit about black triangles and fiery orbs, and that those have baffled him personally. That is fascinating. That is unprecedented. I never thought I'd live to see the day that a former government official that was directly involved at the U of Otavic be that specific about what they are truly stumped about. It makes you wonder if the reporter asking that question knew he was going to get that answer, I suspect not. That's a great question. I don't know. Anyway, fascinating stuff. Mark, thank you so much, man. I hope people continue to watch your work and be loud. Don't ever stop. Never stop, dude. And we've got something that we're going to be talking to him about soon. And the. Yeah. What's up? You seem buddy. All right. As a respected newspaper has an obligation to address those things, and they haven't done it yet. So maybe they'll do that in the future. I still think these are good journalists. These reporters are are smart and they got locked on to a theme. And it seems like they knew the theme, what it was going to be going into this story and went and look for people who would support that thing. This entire project, these two parts, seemed to me to be a Sean Kirkpatrick production, is that he was in that first story. It was like a dead giveaway that he was described as like the bespectacled, avuncular scientist. Oh, what a swell guy he sounds like. Nothing about Sean Kirkpatrick's very spotty his history with the truth and problems that he's had in absolute lie, such as the meeting with the Skinwalker Ranch crew that he said never happened until they produced photos of it. And there he is sitting with them for a couple of hours. It's not a kind of briefing that you'd forget about. You know, and he is not well respected by other intelligence officials. They figured out right from the get go, Jeremy, we were in Huntsville, Alabama the day that his name surfaced. He's going to get the job. And the impression was almost universal by people who knew him. Oh, man, they knew what that meant for the program, for Arrow and what direction it would take. And sure enough, you know, it ended up exactly that way. He doesn't like this topic. He is very thin skinned, as we've discussed before. He does not take criticism very well. And this feels like the Sean Kirkpatrick revenge tour. It's like an aging rock band that promises it's going to retire. And then a year after a year, it keeps having a farewell tour that goes on and on. This guy supposedly left this topic. He wants nothing to do with it. And yet every time we turn around, there he is bashing it all over again. He can't let it go. It's like a girlfriend who spurned him somewhere, can't let it go. And I think he is the primary source for this. That's the guy that they listen to. They need to address some of these these questions, even if maybe they've got an answer for it. You know, maybe there's a way to explain how they could be so wrong about this EMP stuff that that Merrick was talking about or these nuclear incidents. You know, I really hope that that's going to happen. I no longer am holding my breath for that to happen. And it's too bad, you know, the as you mentioned earlier, when you got a Department of Defense person who is saying we have no evidence of extraterrestrials, that is a dead giveaway. That's a giant red flag. It's like bloody handwriting on the wall to say we're avoiding the central question. Here is we don't know where these things are from. We don't know what the nonhuman intelligence is. I don't anyway. And I would not expect them to know either. They might have an idea if they've got bodies and crash materials, but they but they don't know. So when they say there no evidence of extraterrestrials, they are probably being truthful. But what would that evidence look like? It's like that quote from that whistleblower that you raise. We're not going any other planets anytime soon and looking for, you know, their civilization and their manufacturing techniques. So it's ingenious and deceptive and it and it's disappointing, but not surprising. Global innovation is accelerating. But how are businesses staying in the fast lane? AWS AI is how? Like Formula One. Turning race action into real time insights. And the AI momentum doesn't stop there. From energy companies using smart grids to prevent surges to educators personalizing lessons to move at every student speed. Across industries worldwide, AWS AI is how industry leaders stay ahead. Idle money lies in your current account picking crumbs out of its belly button wondering, should I eat them? But when you start investing with Monzo, your money is always busy. It turns on regular investments, invests your spare change and tops up your stocks and shares, Iso, it even helps you make sense of risk and return. Monzo, the bank that gets your money moving. You could get back less than you invest. Monzo current account required UK residents 18 plus T's and C's apply. Yeah, they're not being truthful. What they're doing is they're doing mental gymnastics, a word dance, so that they can lie without saying a explicit lie that they could get them in trouble legally. So let's call it as it is. But look, I think my message is, hey, Joel, everybody loves a redemption story. If you have honor and you have integrity, then I got your back. Everybody's got your back and everybody loves a redemption story. When a journalist actually says, I got it wrong and here's why. So that's first of all, second of all, George, for the first time in a long time, because I don't do this, I'm going to make a prediction. My prediction is that there is no turning back and that people are going to learn shit live and that's either going to be in Congress like the easy way. Or they're going to learn it live in another way. But I am making that prediction. Let's see what that riddle means. If I were members of Congress, representative Luna, Birchit, Jamie Raskin, AOC, people who have shown an interest in this subject, Mike Rownes, Chuck Schumer, I'd be kind of pissed. And I'd want to call some people on the carpet. I would want to have Sean Kirkpatrick come back because he's had a lot of meetings with members of Congress in public and in behind closed doors. Did he tell them this story? By the way, this is all disinformation. This is counterintelligence. None of this stuff is true. Is that what he told them? Because they got a feeling it's not what he told them. And if I were them, I'd have his name on the list at the top of the list. Come on back, Sean. Let's have a conversation. And I'd love to be a fly on the wall when that interrogation takes place. I've heard that even with inside arrow, like now they're like, what the fuck is Kirkpatrick and that other guy, Phillips talking about like the way it was presented. So that's interesting to me that even with an arrow, there's like this bickering. We got eyes everywhere, George. I'm that's high confidence information. So yeah, man. Look, when when when Sean, when Dr. Sean, when he went up and did that testifying, it wasn't testifying. It was up there with Gillibrand and she was like, oh, what do you need? How can I help you? You're so handsome. Cool, cool cuff links. That wasn't a congressional hard press. What are you doing with our money and with our mandate? It wasn't that I would love to have rep Luna who would tear Sean Kirkpatrick apart if she gets one minute to question him live like that. She would tear his ass apart because he's lied verifiably against the American public to the detriment of the need to know of the nation that he has sworn to protect and taken an oath to he's lied to us. And I think that's super fucked up. I know I saw, you know, some responses from those folks who were quoted in that story as saying, see, we tell the truth and those crazy UFO people attack us as if there's not going to be any response to these two stories. Yeah, we're supposed to sit back and everybody accept it. Well, it's in the Wall Street Journal. Sean Kirkpatrick said it. I guess it must be true. The reaction is justified. You know, I'm uncomfortable with some of the personal insinuations made about the reporters. Well, this guy worked here and is in a previous job. And that this lady worked on this. They have connections to the deep state and the shadowy world and the people who have been spreading lies about UFOs. I, you know, I don't want to see that. We haven't looked into it ourselves. I still want to think of them as honorable people and good journalists. And I hope they will do the right thing going forward. I'm not I'm hopeful. George, yeah, I mean, the trick of being seen as an honorable and honest journalist is is what, George? Well, it's it's not a trick. You know, the trick is to actually be trustworthy. You know, exactly. He's got a chance. So yeah, this is not a personal attack. You don't got to do it. Just like be an honest, honorable journalist and, you know, tell us what other people have told you that you now know to be different than what you reported. Simple as that. Easy done. You know, that's it. The one bright spot for the two Wall Street Journal reports, we weren't in them. We dodged.