Threats, Intimidation, Prosecution - The Daunting Risks For UFO Whistleblowers

The world moves fast. You work day, even faster, pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data. Microsoft 365 Copilot is your AI assistant for work, built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps you use, helping you quickly write, analyze, create, and summarize. So you can cut through clutter and clear a path to your best work. Learn more at microsoft.com slash n365 copilot. Bowser is back! Ha ha! Bowser! Bowser! Everyone calm down! The Super Mario Brothers can take care of the kingdom. Let's go! On April 1st. Toad, pack our things. Woohoo! The galaxy is waiting. Who is this? Special! So some cool dinosaur just shows up and he's now part of the group. The Super Mario Galaxy Movie. Only in Cinema's April 1st. Employees at Groom Lake, loyal employees who'd spent their whole lives out there, kept secrets, started getting sick. And loyal Americans to the end, they would say, hey, can you at least tell us what we are exposed to so we can tell our doctors and they can treat us? They wouldn't. And the government just simply came back and said, we're not, we can't tell you, we're applying this mosaic theory. This could be used by our enemies and so we're not going to tell you. I mean, basically they just let, and I think you even probably knew at least one or two of those guys personally and had interviewed them and knew exactly what they were up against. But again, that is what killed FOIA. And so while we're all arguing about this and having our congressional hearings, there are insidious human beings in a lab somewhere that may be very close to figuring out these propulsion secrets. Maybe they already have and there's a plan already in place. But it's a battle for disclosure so that these technologies can be released to benefit all of us. Between those people and the people that want to sequester this to themselves and dominate the whole planet and enslave all of us, that's really what it's about. I hate to be so grandiose, but ultimately that's really what it's about. I always wonder what happens when, let's say if we're a genetic experiment or if there is something about us that is a product, what happens when the subject of the experiment becomes aware of the experimenters? Is it time to start over and wipe the slate clean? This is Weaponized. I'm George Knapp, hunkered down here in the cool confines of my Las Vegas bunker, joined by my friend and colleague Jeremy Corbell, hiding in places unknown. How's it going, Jeremy? It's great, man. Just got back from the desert, was just digging shit up. Are you still a law enforcement official out there in Pioneer Town? Officially, I gave the badge to my buddy out in Pioneer Town to make sure he's keeping Pytown on lockdown, but I'm out there all the time. You know, the UFO world is on pins and needles. I think waiting to hear some news about this next UFO hearing before Congress. You and I have been in contact with the staffers there and committee members. Yeah, we're still in process. Again, this will be their announcement to make. I don't want to speak out of school. We provided six first-hand whistleblowers and witnesses, and we're going through the legal ramifications of who can say what publicly. It's really nice to bring people in to closed door briefings, but as you know, George, I'm kind of dogged about the idea that we have hearings where people can hear directly from people who observed or were in close proximity to the UAP or in their professional capacity were involved somehow. Look, it's an uphill battle. There's a lot of legal restrictions and everybody in Congress is doing their best. Rep Luna, amazing job. Rep Birchit, he's pushing. Rep Burlson as well, throwing down hard this time. I really hope, George, that the best individuals that we can legally bring forward in the hearings will come. They've chosen for sure three and we're just going through those legal hurdles right now, and they will announce that. It's up to them to announce all of that, but it's coming and I hope it's going to be as good as possible. You know, we understand the frustrations of people who want it all, they want it now. We want whistleblowers with hands-on experience, working at the craft, reverse engineering programs, and that's a tall order. I mean, there are difficulties for true whistleblowers, whether they should ever come forward even to Congress. What are the legal ramifications? Can they be prosecuted? Or, you know, there are other ramifications that are worse than prosecutions. Bob Lazar knows that. Dave Grush knows that. What can happen to people's lives, their livelihood? I mean, they'll never work in customized programs again. They'll never get a security clearance again. So you have to worry about not only staying alive, but protecting your family, things like that. And so, you know, today we're going to be walking around some of those issues with a long time attorney who's written a book about secrecy, the growth of secrecy, and what protections there are for witnesses, right? That's right. We're going to have a quick update first by a friend of ours who wanted to tell us a little bit about skiff flus. I think we can open with that and have him explain what you've been hearing online about people wanting to give classified briefings to Congress. And then, yes, we have, I would say, a legal scholar who's really looked into this issue and be a great guest for today. Yeah. So there was a big brouhaha this past week. Joe Rogan, our buddy Joe, had Representative Luna on there to talk about progress and getting to the bottom of UFO secrecy and programs. And there were some comments made that really stirred the pot, and people are a little confused about the source of it. So Mike Gold knows a heck of a lot about it, right? Yeah. So let's have him talk about it because I'm staying out of it. I think everybody's on the same team fighting for the same thing. There seems to be a miscommunication and Mike texted me up and called me up and he says, look, I want to tell you what I know. So we'll hear from him first and then we'll move in to the next part. So listen, I've seen a lot of stuff going online right now. We have a hearing coming up, a new UAP hearing, and there's a lot of Scuttlebutt going online. My buddy Mike Gold gave me a call and he says, you know, look, I was there. I can kind of explain it, bring peace to the situation, at least understanding the situation. So Mike was going to tell us a little bit about the skiff flu issue of people coming in to testify under classified settings and kind of what the issue is that people are seeing with that. So Mike, thanks for giving us the 411 and the information. How you doing and what's going on? What is skiff flu and what are you seeing? What flu is a myth? Today, I hope to inoculate you against it. And thank you so much for having me on, Jeremy George. Always a pleasure to be on, weaponized, but I don't have any social media presence really. So I'm very grateful this opportunity to talk about what I think was really just the total miscommunication and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to talk about the context here. So you've been through the process. You were a witness at the last hearing. Tell us what you know about who gets access to a skiff and what the miscommunication was, how it started. Yeah. So first of all, again, a skiff is where you go when you need to talk about classified information. And per the hearing, there are certain things that can't be described outside of a skiff without people getting arrested. And that's why the members wanted to get a skiff. And normally it shouldn't be that difficult to get a skiff. But I think other members of Congress were making it challenging for Congresswoman Luna, for Congresswoman Burleson to go and get the skiff. And that's why I give a great deal of credit for them to find the skiff, to break through any challenges, and actually to make it happen. But the challenge that occurred here for the skiff meeting, and I believe this was in May, although the original meeting was supposed to be in April, that there were multiple attempts to get the skiff. So I was going into the skiff along with Lou and a number of others. But I think literally three times we were told it was going to happen, and then it didn't. And that's easy enough for me living in Washington, D.C. But for someone like Lou who has to come in from Wyoming, that is very, very challenging and expensive and costly for someone of their own time to keep trying to come in, only have the meeting canceled. Now that's not the members fault, that's just the nature of trying to get the skiff and some of the difficulties that they fixed. So finally in May, we were able to secure the skiff and move on with the meeting. But this only occurred after I think the two weeks beforehand, we were told the meeting would happen that week, it was delayed, we were told the meeting would happen the next week, it was delayed. And again, my memory may be a little foggy, but I want to think it was only about two days notice that we had to go into the skiff. Again, easy enough if you're living in D.C., but very difficult for people like Lou, Eric Davis who did eventually make it and kudos to him for doing so. But I hope that your listeners understand just how difficult it is for someone to pick up in 48 hours. And Lou obviously, as you heard, he had other commitments that he had to make. It's just very difficult. So we get to the skiff and this was arranged by the UAP disclosure fund, some terrific people, everyone trying to do the right thing. And unfortunately, Chris Mellon legitimately had the flu. I mean, a really, really bad flu. Chris Mellon wanted to be there. He was providing information. I think he provided a bunch of memos or something just in lieu of being there. He was very, very sorry. And he was legitimately ill. But prior to the meeting, there was a discussion of where is everyone else? And by then the UAP disclosure fund team that had been arranging everything was no longer there. And then the question asked, where is everyone? And someone described, well, there's the flu. Chris Mellon's out for the flu. And then someone said, well, what about the others? I don't know if there was just a shrug where someone had said everyone else is sick, but somehow it got communicated that the others weren't there because they were ill. And if you're representative Luna, if you're the other members of Congress, I completely understand that would sound very odd that everyone got sick. There's nothing that communicable among everyone. But obviously that wasn't the case. Yes, Chris was sick, but it was just literally a matter of miscommunication that someone shrugged or didn't say the right thing. And then when I heard it told to the members of Congress that everyone was sick, I myself just took a pause and said, huh, that sounds odd. I don't think that's the case. But again, I hadn't organized everything. So I didn't know to step in or know that that it wasn't true. And then I didn't really think of anything of it because, you know, Eric had a lot to share and obviously I can't talk about what happened to Skip, but... Come on, you know. Yeah, I like this beautiful apartment. I don't want to spend the time in jail. But I think what I can say is it was a very, very productive discussion and again, I applaud Eric Davis for having time to come in and talk. And I didn't really think anything of it, although I thought it was odd at the time that it was communicated that everyone was sick. I thought that was weird. And then as I listened to Representative Luna's interview on Joe Rogan, which was absolutely fantastic, she did an amazing job and, you know, really appreciate what Joe Rogan's doing to bring attention to this. Second, only to Jeremy Corbella and George Knapp. He's doing wonderful things. And then I've watched online this debate or issue develop. And it's very unfortunate because I think Lou Elizondo is an American hero. He has done amazing work to bring disclosure forward. He flew to Washington multiple times to do this. And I would just ask for a bit of grace from the UAP community. And I know I may be tilting at windmills here relative to asking for grace or understanding from the internet. But I know Lou, he's a really good person. He's trying to do the right thing. Is he perfect? No, I mean guilty of that, but we all are. And Lou wasn't there to communicate what the issue was. Now also in Representative Luna's defense, when you work day and night and really struggle to get a skiff and eventually get one, and then some of your prime people don't show up, I understand the frustration. She was justifiably upset. And then she gets this rationale again inadvertently, saying everyone's sick. And again, she was very justifiably, I think, annoyed, frustrated with that kind of response. The problem was it wasn't the truth that I'm sure had it been communicated that meeting that, hey, Lou tried to come twice. He had a commitment. He had 48 hours and just couldn't make it on that time. I'm sure Representative Luna and the others would have been understanding. Yet it was this inexplicable skiff flew, which I think literally could have been due to a shrug or miscommunication. And the fact that those who organized it weren't in the room, that's what happened. So skiff flew is false. There's no such thing. Chris Mellon had the flu. That was true. But the others didn't. So again, what I like so much about the UAP issue is how it brings us together. You had Democrats, Republicans coming in working this issue. It's what I love about space exploration. We go to space, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. And UAP unites us even further as humans. So let's not spend time fighting each other. We have far too many difficulties ahead of us for that kind of nonsense. Let's instead fight for the truth and stop fighting each other. That would be my plate. I wouldn't want to stir the pot and cause trouble anymore, but it does seem that higher ups, the power hierarchy in the house has thrown roadblocks in the way of this committee before. And it's done in a way there are no fingerprints on it. So leadership can say, well, I didn't do it. I didn't do that. Somebody's doing it though, or does not. Is that exaggerated? No, I think that's very true, George. And I don't want to speak for representative Luna, but if her call might have been on the Joe Rogan interview or past statement she's made, she and Representative Burleson, others have been very clear that there are several members of the house and other committees that have thrown up roadblocks, whether it's the holding the hearings, whether it's the UAP disclosure act, or whether it's getting into a skiff, which is why, again, I applaud Representative Luna. She has been a warrior for the truth and even getting something like the skiff is difficult for just the reason that you articulate, George, that there are people who are pushing back. I'd like to say this as well, that when you get these hearings, and I know people can often be disappointed that we didn't have the first hand whistleblowers, we didn't get enough, every hearing we have is another brick in the wall that defends us from the stigma. This is unfortunately going to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. And we need to thank and congratulate the members of Congress, like Representative Luna, and the whistleblowers like Lou, as well as the incredible journalists like yourself and Jeremy for helping us build this case. It is going to take a team. Let's not fight each other. Let's fight for the truth. And that's not to say that we shouldn't be cautious of disinformation or just bad info. And that's why I'm so grateful to Jeremy, how you and George spend years vetting people and vetting stories. That's very important too. But again, we're all human. I think we need to proceed with a degree of understanding, a degree for grace, especially for American heroes like Lua Zando and Representative Luna. And while I'm on the topic of Lou, because why not as long as I'm going all in causing trouble here, when there was a UAP disclosure fund event on Capitol Hill, not a hearing, not a great event on Capitol Hill, I know Lou caught a lot of flak for the image that he was showing. What I think got missing this shuttle there is that Lou was showing that to demonstrate that pilots don't know where to go with UAP information. And that is so true and stuck to problem. And maybe he could have been more careful in terms of showing an example, but his point wasn't necessarily that this is real. He was trying to make the point that pilots didn't know and they were calling him. And you shouldn't be calling Lou Luzando with that information. There should be a better process. And when I testified and when I was on weaponized previously, and I'm not going to shut up about this until it happens, we have the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System, ASRS. It's used to report anomalies for aviation safety. Hundreds of thousands of cases. It's been operational for decades. And it allows these reports on a confidential basis. It would take very little effort to include UAP in the ASRS system. And if we do that, every pilot, every crew, even every passenger will become a sensor for UAP. And we can gather a huge amount of data. When we talk about incremental progress, well, I know that's not a smoking gun, etc. These are important things that could be done to gather more data, get it in the hands of academics and move forward. And when I was on the NASA UAP independent study team, I was so frustrated with the fact that the FAA didn't know where these reports were going, who was collating them, or where they were. There's just complete confusion on the issue. You can go back to my questioning FAA officials on the record, on YouTube, when I was part of the team. So that's an extraordinarily important point that Lou was making. Ryan Graves, American for Safe Aerospace, has been pushing this. I'd like to see the NASA authorization bill. And by the way, the interim director, the interim administrator of NASA is also the Secretary of Transportation. So this would be the perfect individual to implement a system where NASA has been gathering information on behalf of the FAA. I have high hopes for this interim NASA administrator. He has articulated an interest in UAP. And just as I've described, there's great crossover between transportation at FAA and NASA in terms of gathering information and data. Jeremy started a story, a statement from the new NASA administrator. We can't tell if he was joking or not. Jeremy, remember that piece? It was the NASA guy asking about the alien briefing? Yeah, yeah. I think it was kind of ingest, but he did say at the end, look, we need transparency on this issue. So I know that anytime somebody from NASA goes on the news and talks about wanting a briefing on UAP is a good thing. Mike is saying it's building a wall up against the stigma. But Mike, I'd love to hear your opinion. There's a guy at NASA talking about wanting the alien briefing. I know there was a little humor, but there was seriousness to it. Can you shed any light on that? 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, tees 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. 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 quince.com slash weaponized for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash weaponized. See you on the next episode. I'm cautiously optimistic that it was not a joke, particularly if you go back to Congressman Burleson in a hearing asking the NASA interim administrator if he would work with Congress to develop information. Congressman Burleson asked if there could be a nonprofit, for example, that would go in and look at the NASA data. And the response from Sean Duffy was very positive that he understood wanted to work with NASA. So in addition to the comment that was made previously, there was a much more serious dialogue in Congress. And as you know, Jeremy, I think that is so important. If you go back to what I shared, the imagery that I presented, not at the hearing, but at the, I think it was in May, the event that UAP disclosure fund put on, just through a cursory review of the NASA archives, we had from the surface of the moon, from an Apollo 17 astronaut, imagery of what looked to be a triangular spacecraft. At Redwire, our cameras were picking up an extraordinary lunar horizon globe, which is the literal definition of unidentified anomalous phenomena in space. So there's a lot that we could learn by diving into the NASA archives. And I was very encouraged, maybe not necessarily by that comment, but by the colloquy that happened between Congressman Burleson and Sean Duffy, that NASA will get into this and help us get to the truth. And that's more optimistic than ever. Well, I hope if he gets an alien briefing that he'll spill some of the beans to you, and you can have a conversation with us. Yeah. Let me say I'm a little more pessimistic on him getting or even there being an alien briefing. I don't know what that is. I think that Secretary Duffy was just using that as short and for getting a briefing from his team on the issue. And let me be clear how serious this is and how fortunate we are to have Secretary Duffy who is both the Secretary of Transportation and the head of NASA, because there's great crossover, particularly when it comes to the drone issue. As you'll recall, we saw the power of drones when Ukraine had drones coming out of shipping containers and trucks and devastated the Russian military. If we get in a fighting war with China, China will do to us what Ukraine did to Russia. So it's very important that we take the UAP issue seriously, not only because of the more extraordinary aspects, but because of the potential for drones to destroy infrastructure or military capabilities. So this is the time to take a look at it. And Sean Duffy, because of his dual-headed position, is perfectly suited to doing so. So I'm cautiously optimistic. What you're saying and what I'm hearing is, look, everybody is on the same page. They want to give this classified briefing. They want to go through this process. And it just didn't work out. Rep Luna, Rep Furchit, and Rep Ferrelson have really fought at this moment to get this next hearing going. I know because I've been working with all of them and all of Congress to get the best witnesses we can who can legally talk about what they're doing. So thank you for clarifying, Mike. And let's see the next hearing coming up early September, baby. It'll be exciting. Richard Beckwith must be, what I guess is 95 years old, who have done all the things that he lists in his varied background. He's an attorney. He worked as a government attorney, a city attorney in Wyoming where he lives. He's also a microbiologist. He's managed and directed programs, I think, in that field. He is a talented musician. He's worked in television and in news. So in his spare time, he wrote this book called Need to Know. It's sort of a broad look at the development of secrecy in the United States. There's a lot of people, issues and controversies that we are familiar with here, in particular UAP. And of course, Richard has been around the UAP topic for a long time, both with, as an advisor to Dr. Stephen Greer and on the board of MUFON currently. Richard, welcome to Weaponized. Thank you very much, George. It's really an honor to be here. I appreciate you having me. I really do. Yeah. I think you start with, what I hope the book would start with is the inherent tension and conflict between secrecy, excessive secrecy in particular, and democracy. I mean, in a democracy, we, the people, are supposed to participate. We're supposed to help make decisions that guide our country. And yet so much of what goes on in our government is hidden behind a veil because of secrecy, often excessive secrecy. Would you agree? I agree. That has persisted throughout history and it will continue to persist because as you both know, there is an absolute need for security and to keep some things secret. You cannot share all of your secrets with the world. And if you do that, then you are sharing them with your enemies. And in a world, especially a world like ours, we continue to have enemies and or, or perceive enemies or perceived negative interests. And as a result of that, we must keep things secret. And our, our law, our laws are designed to do precisely that, to provide authority for the government and its operatives to keep things secret. And honestly, I think that when it comes to this particular issue, I have been in a room with the congressman, we were in a room with the congressman from Indiana. And there was a discussion about, you know, can we tell the people? And my response was no, for a lot of different reasons. But I think, you know, getting back to your original question, you know, secrecy will persist. It has persisted throughout history and it will continue until, until we as a civilization get to a point in time where we can all just completely trust each other. Good luck with that. Jeremy, you want to jump in? Yeah, I was really curious. So reading through your book, one of the things that George and I have kind of run into the most is when we do reporting, we obtain and release things that were leaked to us. As journalists, we feel and there is precedent that we have not only right, but duty to inform the American public, especially when there's illegal activity going on, which there is with the hiding of UAP technology and the knowledge, the basic knowledge of UAP origin. So you talk about in your book, something that you call and other people call mosaic theory, and I think that's a really good place to start. You know, my understanding is it in my experience with it is it refers to kind of the legal and intelligence concept to justify withholding information from the public or public disclosure, you know, through the FOIA or something like that in the context of national security. But if you can explain what mosaic theory is and how that inhibits or threatens the first amendment, you know, that we use in journalism a lot, I think that's a good place to start for our audience to understand. OK, well, this has become a fairly well known idea in journalism and in researching national security. And that is mosaic theory. And what mosaic theory has essentially done is it killed FOIA along with the state secrets privilege, the use of those two things together have pretty much killed FOIA relative to obtaining secrets about the kinds of things that that we deal with. So mosaic theory is the theory that although a particular piece of information may on its surface appear to be innocuous or unimportant, if placed into a larger mosaic or a picture, if you will, of a much greater scheme that's taking place, these little mosaics or these little pieces of information can be pieced together over time by an enemy or an adversary to determine what sorts of things you are working on, for example, the kinds of chemicals that you may be using in a particular experiment, the, you know, plans for what appear to be a very simple lever, all of these things can come under the veil of this mosaic theory. And so what they have done illegally is taken this mosaic theory. And whenever there's a piece of information that they even really feel uncomfortable with releasing, they can say that this, and what they do is they claim exemption one under the Freedom of Information Act when they're when the request are made under FOIA. And they claim that exemption one. And because this piece of information, again, no matter how innocuous, can be placed into a much larger picture that can help them determine what we're up to. I ran into that head on in the early 90s regarding Groom Lake. I was looking for it. I didn't know, I didn't see it in your book, but employees at Groom Lake, loyal employees who'd spent their whole lives out there, kept secrets, started getting sick because they, nothing excessive secrecy out there, nothing could leave the plant. They'd throw all these weird materials and spare parts and computers and everything into giant pits, douse it with jet fuel and set it on fire. And giant rolling clouds of this toxic smoke would cover the base. People started getting sick. And loyal Americans to the end, they would say, Hey, can you at least tell us what we're exposed to so we can tell our doctors and they can treat us. They wouldn't. It went to eventually a couple of them died. Their widows filed suit. It was in district court here in Nevada. It went to the ninth circuit and then finally to the Supreme Court and KLAS was part of that suit. In the end, they used the mosaic theory. We can't tell you what's poisoning you because somebody might be able to figure out what we're working on. It was outrageous, really. Yes. And I knew this was an issue that would be familiar to you, George, just simply because of those cases. And I think I may have touched on them a little bit in the book. And as you recall, they sued the federal government because not because they wanted compensation for their injuries, but they simply wanted to know what they'd been exposed to. And the government just simply came back and said, we're not, we can't tell you, we're applying this mosaic theory. This could be used by our enemies. And so we're not going to tell you. And I mean, basically, they just let, and I think you even probably knew at least one or two of those guys personally and had interviewed them and knew exactly what they were up against. But again, that is what killed FOIA. Another thing that they use is something called the state secrets privilege, which I touch on a little bit in the book and, well, quite a bit when I discuss FOIA. But the state secrets privilege also comes into play there. And basically, the government on the affidavit of a government individual or a government authority can come in and simply by affidavit say that the information that the defense or that the defense may be requesting is classified and they're claiming the privilege based upon its association with national security. And quite often suits are dismissed or they're just simply unable to use that evidence. I think one of the cases that I brought up in that regard was the case of that bomber that was doing some testing of some sort of electronic equipment over Georgia in 1948. And it crashed and the widows sued the Air Force because they wanted to, you know, of course, be compensated and they wanted to know what happened to their husbands. And as it turns out, they were again testing some sort of strange classified electric equipment and the government wouldn't tell them what it was or what they were testing. And they asked for reports. They wanted the crash reports and the Air Force wouldn't release them. And they claimed that privilege. They were allowed to depose the widows or excuse me, to depose the pilots. But the pilots, of course, weren't allowed to talk about whatever the thing was that was classified that they were flying around on the bomber. So one of the things I wanted to talk to you about, so when George and I, when people leak information to journalists like UAP videos, or even just testimony, the idea that we've had to face a bunch is that we're on our own to determine, in a lot of ways, we're on our own, you know, could this contribute to a mosaic revealing advanced technology or intelligence methods? And I kind of want our audience to understand this is why it takes some time, sometimes years, to vet videos and also testimony. It's not about the authenticity of the videos or testimony. It's will we be doing harm by putting something out to national security? And it really does fall on us. That is something we've been told over and over by intelligence agencies. So we have to be very careful as we do this work to do no harm, because it can justify restrictions or reprisals or that kind of thing. But the danger here as journalists that I see, is that it can limit what whistleblowers can disclose, not just to journalists, but also in congressional hearings. It can throttle that just the fear of a mosaic theory case being brought against a whistleblower. And so that potentially chills free speech and free press activities. So I wanted to know from you, we're kind of out here on our own as we receive stuff, but do you see that as a problem? We have whistleblowers who want to testify at this next hearing. George and I have provided six now firsthand people. Now they're being selected by the great group of people that are that are looking to make this happen. But there is this lingering question. What can be said in a public forum? How much can be told? Will there be reprisals for simply testifying being asked as a patriot by your government by Congress to testify? We're doing this dance of like, what can be done publicly? Does that track for you that issue? It does. And in my opinion, they can't violate their security oaths. They, you know, if they've been involved in some kind of a special access program, and they may even know of some wrongdoing, they still have to follow the process like David Grush did in order to be afforded the protections under the, I guess it would be the intelligence community whistleblower protection act. So they can't just simply go to Congress and tell their secrets. They have to go through a process and they still, even then, as you know, as you are already aware, they are still subject to their security oaths. So they can still only go so far. They can only talk about what they're essentially authorized or what their interpretations of their security oaths allow them to. And so they're still bound by that unless they can find some way to get that completely waived. You know, I think that's been discussed by some of these folks that they, you know, they still have this obligation under their non-disclosure agreements under form 312. And I think there may be some other NDAs out there. You yourself talk to Bob Lazar, who was under a non-disclosure agreement that was signed by President Reagan. And as I recall, that particular non-disclosure agreement allowed the government to overlook Mr. Lazar's constitutional right to due process. So essentially when Bob signed on to the program, he waived his right to do process. Now, I'm not so sure how often that happens now because we have a specific form that deals with non-disclosures. But nonetheless, I'm not sure how you get around that, especially when the powers that be that, you know, hold the reins behind those form 312s are not so easily going to give up those secrets that they're protecting. So, I mean, now under the law under Title V, you can, anybody can go to Congress and essentially give them information. But that information cannot be classified information. And in my view, you know, without some sort of assurance that, you know, that they're not going to be prosecuted, I'd be, I would be reticent as a whistleblower myself. Yeah, there are a lot of reasons for that. The UIP disclosure fund put this out at the end of July. That's Chris Mellon, Kirk McConnell, and they said to date, no one appears to have been prosecuted or sued for sharing classified information with Congress behind closed door. I'm assuming that means a skiff. So there's no case that we know of that anybody's been prosecuted. But there are consequences for people who even think about it. We talk to these guys on a regular basis. They're scared. They're scared because they know there's all kinds of other things that come from them sharing information, even if it's legal. David Grush is an example of it. The terrible things have done to him, intimidation, death threats. I don't know if they've ever killed anybody, but they can certainly create enough doubt that people think twice, three times, four times about providing information about things that they think the American public and particularly Congress should know. And that's a really good point that you make there, George, because under these various whistleblower protection acts, I talk about one in particular under title five, I think, in the book, but there are others that under which David Grush has included. And those protections under the whistleblower protection acts include protections for retribution at work, having your pay cut, maybe losing your position. But there really doesn't seem to be a lot of protections for guys coming to your house at night and lurking around outside of your house and planting bugging devices and following your wife to work and calling you on the phone and exhibiting the intimidating behavior like the folks that bother Bob Lazar. So where are the protections from that? I'm not seeing that. In your book, you talk about the press's duty to kind of foster, you call it, a marketplace of ideas where open debate, uncovered truth, the center for public good. There's something you call, I think, also conscientious leaks to the press, noting that leaks often expose corruption. And this is something that George and I see all the time in our work is that people don't come to us just because they're excited to talk about UAP. They come to us because they have experienced absolute life-threatening reprisals at attempts at offing them. And this is the reason why, at least perceived, if not actual. So this is why people come to us. So can you explain, in America, the idea of conscientious leaks to the press and why that's so important for our First Amendment and for holding government accountable? Because that's what we deal with. Well, I have to say, I think that our society has, in many ways, on many occasions, changed for the better because of conscientious leakers. In particular, I talked about Daniel Ellsberg a little bit in the book and his revelations regarding the Vietnam War and the matter in which it was being portrayed to the public versus the reality. Edward Snowden is another one. And now, from a national security perspective, you can make the argument that these guys are guilty under the Espionage Act for revealing national security information without authorization. On the other hand, you cannot ignore the changes in our society that resulted as a result of these leaks. I think right after the issue with Edward Snowden, we had changes in surveillance. We had people being able to take their information out of the zeitgeist. I think there's actually legislation now in Europe that allows people to have themselves completely erased from the worldwide web or something like that. But nonetheless, there have been some positive changes. At the very least, we're aware of what, in Edward Snowden's case, the NSA is doing and obviously still continues to do to this day. As far as the protections for those folks, that protection ultimately will have to come from legislation. You can't hide them in your basement and bring them a movie every once in a while to watch. They have to live in the real world. And when they take the risks that they're taking in revealing that information, along with those risks come the consequences. And sometimes, but one of the good things that comes out of making it known to everyone is that if something does happen to them, then from an intelligence perspective, that adds legitimacy to their claims. And so it's best to just simply let them talk. I mean, from my perspective, rather than eliminate them. But you can also, at the same time, relative to their employment, their benefits and so forth, treat them as persona non grata. Kick them when nobody's looking. In your book, need to know you sort of describe the hierarchy of secrecy that exists now and how SAP, special access programs, even if you have a top secret security clearance, you wouldn't have access to that. The USAPs, the unannounced special access programs that really restricted even further. And then, WUSAPs, and I raise the question because Congress's job is to oversee where we're spending our money, what our executive branch is doing. They don't even get informed those things are real. It's supposed to be at minimum, the gang of eight, the top members of Congress. But would your sense be that some of these SAP special access programs dealing with UFOs, that even the gang of eight is not being told? Yeah, not the entire gang of eight. There may be one or two individuals on the gang of eight. But I think the information that they receive, even if they get some inkling of the existence of the program, it's just something along the lines of either a code number or a line number for the line item or a name of a program and how much it costs. And they say, well, what's this for? And then the intelligence guy says, well, that's, we need that. But I agree with you, George. I think that especially when it comes to these waived, unacknowledged special access programs which have to be signed on either by the Secretary of Defense or the President, they may have these kinds of programs where they've been authorized to not say anything beyond that except to one or two individuals. So it's impossible to find out really exactly what they're up to. And those witnesses are told, you got to lie. Somebody asked you about it, even if Congress, it's your job to lie about it, deny it or not give it anything. Right? That's, well, as you know in your own investigations, that when they were, the guy, I keep getting back to Bob Lazar because I love the work that you guys have done with Bob. But with Bob, they gave them instructions on how to lie on. And that continues to this day. It's part of the deception. You have to be able to, you have to be able to be deceptive about what you are doing if you are dealing with issues of national security. You have to lie to your wife. You have to lie to your kids, your parents, everybody in your life. And that can be really difficult. It can weigh on a person's mind. And I think that's also why they really keep close tabs on them to see when and if they start winging out over it. Need anything from Tesco? Like Nescafe Azir and 90 grams instant coffee, for just £3.50 this Easter with your Tesco Club Card. Because every little helps. Majority of larger stores are 0.90 grams since 14th April. Club card or app required. 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. Vanishes 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. You're talking your book about journalists serving as a vital kind of fourth branch of government with the inherent duty to expose hidden truths for public good. Can you explain what you meant by that, the fourth branch of government? Well, as we know, and this is not a term I invented, it's the part of our unelected social structure that allows people to tell the truth about things and the truth about wrongdoing and spread that word amongst others. Now, some would argue that the free press has not done a very good job. You know, we sort of look at the media and say to ourselves, well, you know, there really is a manipulation taking place there. Stories are changed or are embellished in order to to, you know, bolster certain political ideas and points and so forth. But there still is real journalism taking place. That doesn't negate the real journalism that's taking place, especially when it regards issues like this. I think that the journalism that's taking place relative to UAPs at the level that you guys are conducting it is absolutely excellent. There's and it has to be done. This truth must come out. But it's necessary in a free society. It is sort of a check on all the other three branches of government because it is designed or it's supposed to from its inception designed to inform the public about what the three branches of government are up to, because this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And so that fourth branch of government's duty is to inform the people so that we can make real decisions about the world we live in and take certain courses of action. You know, the secrecy that takes place, it's for all kinds of reasons. There's legitimate national security concerns, including on the UAP issue. But we know we can list a dozen examples of where secrecy is used to hide other stuff, crimes by the people involved in these programs, corruption, bribes. You know, I think a lot of what has gone on at the Nevada desert has not been revealed because as a congressional investigator told me one time, when this comes out, they'll go to prison. You know, when you look at that, is there a way to pierce that veil? You write a lot about FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, in your group. But if they want to keep it secret, it's going to be kept secret. And FOIA won't do crap to get it out of there. No, FOIA is dead, as I mentioned, because of the state's secrets privilege and because of Mosaic theory as well. Now, it doesn't work all that bad when you're talking about issues that don't relate to national security, although there are other potentially applicable exceptions. But when you want to talk about, you know, the mishandling of funds, you know, at some other government program that doesn't involve, you know, weapons or, you know, atomic energy or something like that, then FOIA works pretty good. But when it comes to things like this, FOIA is just absolutely dead. It seemed like there for a while after it was passed in 1966 that there was sort of a heyday for a little while. And things did open up and some documents were retrieved relative to these issues. But as you know, the folks that are keeping this, these secrets are much better at it than we are getting them out. And so they figure out ways around that immediately. And of course, Mosaic theory and the state secrets privilege are perfect for that. But nonetheless, we have to continue to try to get that information out, even at, you know, at great risk. There are, you know, one of the reasons that I wrote the book, I just simply wanted people to understand that secrets aren't just simply kept because people want to keep certain things secret. There has to be authority provided by the government that allows them to keep things secret, that directs them to do so. And so most of these folks are hiding behind the authority that has been granted to them by the government, which is great. Tremendous amount of authority to keep things secret. And they can always claim that this, well, and it's because of national security. Again, you know, that, that big brick wall that goes all the way up to the sky and for miles each way that you, you really can't get past that. And I don't know how you will accept that. Eventually secrecy in my view can also be a threat to national security. And, and we have to decide what, what our national security means. Are we willing to hand over these secrets and just simply allow a handful of individuals to control them on our behalf, trusting that they are going to do their best? Or are we going to force the nut to be cracked open so that the technologies glean from whatever they're studying and whatever they're learning from these things can be disseminated amongst humans and we can, you know, enhance life on our planet. There's a, as Jeremy and I talked about this the other day, there's a real struggle taking place here. And that's what I think this is about, George. It's not about, you know, I think honestly, the, the time that we're spending in Congress is, is great to, to try to get the information about this out, but it's not about governments anymore. It's about tech, it's about corporations and private interests that have this technology. That's been basically handed to them by the military. And so they're not going to let that go anytime soon. And we can argue up and down about, you know, what, whether this section applies or, or, you know, what, what can be done procedurally, but, you know, the law only works for those who are, who like to follow it and who think that it's important. But when you're talking about a technology or perhaps a collection of technologies, the, the culmination of which can result in the possessors of that technology being able to dominate the entire planet, who cares about the law? I mean, we're talking about the, the grand prize, the, you know, the, the, the big, the big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that's, that is the prize. And so while we're all arguing about this and having our congressional hearings, there are insidious human beings in a lab somewhere that may be very close to figuring out these propulsion secrets. Maybe they already have, and there's a plan already in place, but it's a, it's a battle for disclosures so that these technologies can be released to benefit all of us. And, and between those people and, and the people that want to sequester this to themselves and dominate the whole planet and enslave all of us, that's really what it's about. I hate to be so grandiose, but, but ultimately that's really what it's about. You know, I'm thinking about what you mentioned there about secrecy can be counterproductive if, if it's excessive. It can erode trust in government on something like this, UFOs, UAP. There's a broad public interest in this. And they know something's not right. Obviously, the public who's following this knows they're not telling us the basics. They're not acknowledging that they're lying. There might be all kinds of reasons for it. Maybe a small group wants to control have the power from that technology, but also the money that it could represent. I mean, trillions of dollars if we could do in the energy sector what we think it can do. You know, I think about Area 51. So when we first started working on this, the government would not acknowledge they had a base there. Look, I got photos that John Lear took right up against the edge of it. There are Soviet satellite photos of this thing. People could climb up on a hill and look at it, and they would not acknowledge it was there. And when you have a place that doesn't exist, you don't have to follow the rules or the law. There is no law out there. I just think, you know, it's so counterproductive to say, yeah, we don't have a base up there when people can see it. And the same thing on UAP. You know, damn good and well, there's something to this. Congress knows it now. They're digging in to get it, and they're hitting roadblocks every way. And I think it really is a danger to trust in our government, which is pretty damn low as it is. I agree, George. And it's going to continue to get worse. You know, I was asked this at the Mouffin symposium last summer. I was very fortunate to sit on a panel with Robert Solis. And they asked the panel, you know, when the government was ever going to, you know, disclose this information. And my response was, it's just like Charlton Heston's gun. They're not going to disclose it until you pry it from their dead cold fingers. It's just not going to happen. You can have all the hearings in Congress you want. But the gatekeepers, and I think, you know, some of us may have some idea about who those gatekeepers might be. But those gatekeepers are not going to let that information go. There is no altruism at the level of people that are safeguarding this information. There's a real lack of concern for fellow humans at that level. So, you know, I think the rest of us are sort of on our own and telling somebody, you know, cuts loose with, I think we're going to have to force it. But how you do that, I don't know. You know, they've certainly done everything they can to stop any congressional efforts. But then what happens if Congress, you know, passes some sort of an act that, you know, like say, you know, exerts eminent domain over the technology? Who's going to go in and get it? You know, I mean, think about Richard Dolan's, you know, breakaway civilization. I mean, maybe we'll go in there with our AR-15s and our 308s and we'll be met with something far superior to that from our own fellow humans. I don't mean to make light of it, but, but, you know, I always laugh when I'm scared. Go ahead, Jeremy. Yeah, well, we have a hearing coming up in September. I don't want to publicly say the date. I think people have guessed right online, which is great. But we have this hearing coming up. And for some of the people that we nominated to be able to be heard publicly, the reason why they're ready to come forward is because they have no other choice or they feel they have no other choice. They have gone up the chain of command. They've tried to expose, you know, what it is they know, the illegalities, the threats to themselves. So some of these whistleblowers really feel they have no other choice. There's no higher stake, but having your own life threatened. So now Congress has something they have to decide, which is how, how forward do we go? Do we get people that were just witnesses to operational craft? Are we going to have a real whistleblower as an addition to that hearing? So knowing that some of these whistleblowers really feel they do not have another choice. They've tried everything. They feel in threat and in fear for their well-being, their safety and their lives. When it comes to the hearings in September, do the protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act, does it directly apply to them doing this testimony if they are selected and decide to do it? If they have followed the procedures that are available to them under the applicable Whistleblower Protection Act, then they should be afforded the protections that are provided for by the acts. So relative to the intelligence community, that would be the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which was passed in 1998, I believe, and is a part of Title 50. Service members are protected by the Armed Services or Military Whistleblower Protection Act under Title 10, and civil servants are protected under Title 5. So as long as they followed that process, but if they just showed up at the hearing and said, hey man, I got a lot to tell you, I think there's going to be a problem, and they do so at grave risk to themselves. If they haven't followed the process. So what is following the process to be clear to people that are thinking about coming forward? What is following the process? I thought you might ask me that question, and I want to make sure that I give you an accurate answer. So I'm going to, I'm just going to call up my little process sheet here, because there's a different process, all depending on what title you are under. So if you're a civil servant who is a covered in employee under the Whistleblower Protection of 1989, which I spoke about in my book, then what you can report is a protected disclosure would be law violations, waste, abuse, and safety dangers. And you can report that to the Office of Special Counsel, the Inspector General, or Congress, if classified. And that is under Executive Order 13526, which I talk about extensively in the book. And that's under Section 1.7. And you can also report retaliation. And you can file the complaint with the Office of Special Counsel under Title 5. And the Office of Special Counsel really is the body that works with the folks under the civil service. Now, under Titles 50 and Title 10 for intelligence community members and members of the military, they have to go, the only possible place that they can go to is to the Inspector General in their particular branch of the intelligence community. And I think there are 18 different services in the intelligence community, so different members, you know, so CIA, NSA, and so forth. But the intelligence community is covered under Title 50. And that section is 3234. And for Title 10, it's section 1034. So they have to go to the Inspector General. And then, and as you know, this is the same process that David Grush followed. And so they go to the Inspector General, the Inspector General then has 14 days to give a response. And in David Grush's particular instance, it was that the claims were urgent. And that went on to the Secretary of Defense and ultimately to Congress. So that's, they can't get in front of Congress until they go through that process, if they're in the intelligence community or if they're members of the armed services. So you've got to go through the, you've got to go through the Inspector General. A lot of people in UFO world suspect that the real secrets are stashed somewhere under the umbrella of the Department of Energy, that it would make sense there that the atomic secrets apparatus provides an extra layer of secrecy that can keep prying eyes away. Do you know about that? Well, I don't know about that. I mean, is that, that will you, let me raise the question. Would you, would you say that made sense as a place to stack? Absolutely. Absolutely. I think that from the beginning, I think the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 created the Atomic Energy Commission and placed the whole atomic issue under civilian control with the exception of nuclear weapons, atomic weapons. And later that became the Department of Energy. And I think that whenever there's a potential for the involvement of nuclear materials that the Department of Energy and back then the Atomic Energy Commission was involved. And so I think that you probably have even talked to some folks who have been at alleged crash sites and have been told that when they were there, they saw folks that had Department of Energy environment suits on that were marked with, you know, of course that could all be a ruse. But I do think that there is some information out there that would lead us to believe that the Department of Energy and the formerly the Atomic Energy Commission had a lot to do with the investigation of UFOs, in particular UFO crash sites, because then they'd be exposed to the materials and they'd be able to perhaps examine them and that's, and so forth. And there is a, there's a whole secrecy regime, as you know, within the, within the Atomic Energy Act as well, they talk about restricted data. And so, and they also have under the Department of Energy, something called a Q clearance, which isn't applicable across the board, but just relative to nuclear energy and it falls just simply under the Department of Energy. So I'm, I'm sure that the DOE has may even have quite a bit of materials in its possession. The coincidence of the birth of the national security state in 1947, CIA has created, you know, all kinds of other things. Department of Defense is formally formed. And the, what happened at Roswell is, is too, too juicy of a coincidence for people to handle in a lot of sense that maybe that crash had a part in the creation of the national security state that is now expanded to places we would never have would have imagined back then. Do you think it's related at all? Well, certainly related in time. And I think what it may have done is provided some additional impetus. I think they actually passed the act in, in July. Maybe it was in, in September, but it certainly was coincidental, wasn't it? But, but to say, but I think that they were already aware of the existence of these objects prior to the crash. And so, so the Roswell crash itself may not have itself played a specific role in the National Security Act of 1947. But I think that the phenomenon of UAP, UFOs certainly did play a role in the need to consolidate all these efforts and, and sort of place everything under one Department of Defense. That was part of the impetus. I don't think it was necessarily Roswell itself, but it certainly probably would have waken a lot of folks up to say, boy, I'm sure glad we're working on this. You know. This is your latest idea. It's unique. It's game changing. It's huge. But you can go even bigger with AI powered PDF spaces in Acrobat Studio, turning your files and links into actionable insights and content, plus share projects and collaborate seamlessly while keeping everything private and secure. So your excellent idea stays yours. Do that with Acrobat. Learn more and try it out on Adobe.com. Jeremy. Yeah, I'm just curious. So, you know, from everything that you've done in this field, you've seen the hearings kind of build with each one that we've had. I know it's just another brick in the wall. It's going to take, you know, it's a marathon, as they say, you know, not a sprint. But are you optimistic that these hearings have positive impact on kind of not only the zeitgeist of what's going on, but specifically tasking people within government to look deeper in and try to expose some of these hidden truths that have been hidden by them, you know, from the American public. Are you optimistic about these hearings that we've been holding? Well, Jeremy, I've been optimistic my whole life. And, you know, I always hope for the best and prepare for the worst. You know, so I've learned over the years not necessarily to get my hopes up. I do have a lot of, you know, I do see a lot of changes. I, you know, I have, you know, I started doing this back in the late 70s when I got to know Dr. Leo Sprinkle. And then later on, he and I, and a group of folks, I was actually a former guy from SRI, a guy named Dr. Stanislav Ojak formed a group called the Institute for Human Cosmic Interaction. And I, you know, that was kind of a closed group with the idea in mind that we do the CE5 protocols and all that sort of stuff. So I've been, I've been doing this for a really, really long time. And, and my attitude has kind of helped me. Hope, hope for the best and prepare for the worst. In my view, it's a great thing. We certainly know a lot more publicly than we did, you know, many years ago. But what more do we really know? The government has existed, or excuse me, has, has admitted the existence of UFOs, but they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that these things are from somewhere else. You know, whether or not we're ever going to learn the truth of that, I don't know, but I'm, I do want to say this, that I think the truth of it is, is much, and you, I think, and again, I don't want to speak for you guys, but I think that the truth of this has sort of crept up on you folks as well, which is that what we're not just talking about little guys that are coming here from a planet orbiting Zeta reticuli, or, or with necessarily just with people coming here from another planet. What we're, what we're talking about here is if these non-human intelligences have been here for a really long time, and perhaps even predate our presence on the planet, are they really aliens, or are they a higher form of intelligence that we simply have not been able to interact with, and that we are starting to, you know, sort of wake up to as we evolve. And so this intelligence, this, this, this non-human intelligence, or these non-human intelligences that we're dealing with may have all kinds of things to do with, you know, the manipulation of our genes, with our evolution, with where we may go in the future. I always wonder what happens when, you know, let's say if we're a genetic experiment, or if there is something about us that is a product, what happens when the subject of the experiment becomes aware of the experimenters? Is it time to start over and wipe the slate clean? So, you know, when we talk about disclosure and we talk about aliens, you know, it's one thing to tell people that, you know, there are aliens, you know, that we're being visited by some higher intelligence or some different intelligence from another part of the universe. That's one thing. But it's a completely different thing to tell them that they're the product of an experiment. And just one more thing about, as far as, you know, disclosure, what exactly is, how is that going to take place? Because think about this for a second. What is disclosure going to do to culture and to society? Because there's something, it presents something that has never happened before. And that is that we all as human beings have an ego. And that ego places us in a specific place on our planet, in the universe, and in our culture, and in society, and in our local culture. And that is where we are. And then you wake up one day, and this is true for every human being on the planet. And then say every human being, as they wake up one day, is told that everything that you were told that places you on this planet and structured your ego is not true. And the restructuring of the ego of every human being on the planet simultaneously taking place, you know, relatively all at the same time, you can't predict the outcome of that. I have one more question, Jeremy, you could take it from there, but it's very important. I don't know what's in the water up there in Wyoming, but there are a number of UFO luminaries out there in the West. You mentioned Leo Sprinkle who's passed on, but I saw a photo of you with Lou Elizondo, and I need to know you as a musician, are you going to be performing at his new honky talk? Well, I tell you, if Lou Elizondo asked me to play at his bar, I certainly would. I was, I made a living as a musician back in the 80s. So I'm a drummer, and I can go right now. I got my stuff packed up and ready to go. As far as, let me tell you that about Lou, and I'll stop talking, but I want to reiterate what Michael Gold said. I had an opportunity to spend some time with Lou after the Tic Tac videos came out because he came and talked to the board and spent a couple of days with us. And I got to spend a little bit of time with him in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, when we had the symposium and he spoke there. And Lou Elizondo exudes patriotism and love for his country. I would, now you've seen Lou, he's a tank, and I would be behind him all the way in any sort of battle for disclosure. Lou is a patriot, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for him and the work that he's done. He is absolutely a true hero. And I'm ready to go right now up there to that bar and set my stuff up. They might not have a stage big enough for my drums. I'll ask them. Well, thanks so much, man. I really appreciate kind of walking us through some of this. I do want to make one comment, which is people talk a lot about the origin of these others through this presence that we call UAP, this phenomenon, the place where I get stuck. I have not made a decision on origin. Maybe it's multiple origins, but like I wouldn't build a Ferrari if I didn't want to go fast. The issue I come up with is that a lot of the people that George and I have spoken with who have had direct access to these technological programs or they allege they do and pretty much we're sure they do, is that these craft appear to be built to be able to travel amongst the stars. So if you're not doing that, why would you build the craft that appears to be able to do that? That goes all the way back to the Lazar story. And if these craft can traverse the stars, why would you make that if you're not doing it? So when you talk about extraterrestrial or you talk about ultra-terrestrial being from here originally, it just doesn't add up to me that one of these options is that they're not from somewhere else physically in time space. Just curious what your thought is on that because I'm sure you've heard from people who have worked on some of these programs. Yeah, well, and I'm glad you brought that up because I think it's difficult to attribute these things to one specific group. I think that Earth is the center of interest of a number of different civilizations, a number of different entities that are on a number of different technological levels. And so I think that we're not just talking about a few different species or even groups that are interested in us. I think that we may very well be the subject of interest of a wide variety of intelligences across the spectrum that include individuals that came, as Bob Lazar said, in the materials that he was provided that come from Zeta reticulata. We in fact do have those things and you're exactly right, those craft exist. But I'm also saying that that may not be the limit of what we're being exposed to because when we're talking about interdimensional beings or maybe even beings that might exist in a universe that's just a some frequency away from where we are, then that's a little bit different subject. But I think it's all of those things or it's possible that it is all of those things. Fascinating. Yeah, Richard Beckwith, thanks very much. The book is Need to Know. It's great stuff in there. Also, a lot of it is UAP centric, but it expands so much broader understanding of secrecy and how it's developed this way. I'll be talking to you again soon. And thanks for joining us on Weaponize. Richard Beckwith, that's a great guest. The book we both read it now. It's really interesting packed with a lot of stuff that goes beyond just UFO related secrecy, but that is at the core of it. I hope that we'll be hearing a lot more from him. Yeah, definitely was a cool read to check out his book. Look, man, I'm just really pumped for the September hearings. I know they're going to be as good as humanly possible. We're still fighting or not fighting, we're still kind of working all together to try to bring the best people forward. It's going to be a great September. One thing I wanted to mention, I haven't watched it yet, but I heard our friend Ernie Klein texted us and he's like, he just said, I hate being right all the time. And it was about the mummies, which we were very dismissive of because we saw the little ones in Congress. But apparently, Jesse Michaels made a really cool video where he deep dived into these some of these mummies. So I'm going to keep an open mind because Ernie Klein is teasing the shit out of me. And I'm going to check out what it is that Jesse came up with, but I heard it's really good. I just haven't watched it yet. So I'm going to watch it actually right after this. And I hear it's good. What I saw online is that Jesse is now quarantined because he came into contact with these mummies. So I want to watch it too. Ernie, if Ernie is vouching for it, I'll take a look. Anyway, I hope you're happy. Jeremy, I'll talk to you soon. Okay, talk to you soon, George.