Speaker 1: Now here's a highlight from Coast to coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Jeremy, one more question about this immaculate Constellation thing. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's it was a pretty big story, got a lot
Speaker 2: of coverage around the world and a lot of questions
Speaker 2: asked by members of Congress. There was something introduced to them,
Speaker 2: a document, and you were instrumental in getting that there.
Speaker 2: They asked questions of another journalist, Michael Schellenberger, who was
Speaker 2: there on the panel. Do you have hopes that you
Speaker 2: would be one of the witnesses and be able to
Speaker 2: talk about, among other things, immaculate constellation.
Speaker 3: I was hoping that the best people to testify for
Speaker 3: the most power would that's not the issue at all.
Speaker 3: Let's go real quick, the good, the bad, the ugly.
Speaker 3: I just want to say, for sure the good look.
Speaker 3: I thought hard for Lou Alizondo to testify under oath
Speaker 3: to the American public. That was actually a heavy lift.
Speaker 3: I got to a point where I said, you're going
Speaker 3: to be doing a disservice to the American public if
Speaker 3: you don't have somebody directly involved with UAP officially on
Speaker 3: that panel. I don't know why it was such a
Speaker 3: heavy lift. But I'm really glad that lou did testify
Speaker 3: so the American public can decide is he worthy of
Speaker 3: our trust? That's what they need to decide, because what
Speaker 3: he's saying is pretty big. So that's the good. Yeah,
Speaker 3: the bad. Look, you know, Congress their staffers accountability and oversight.
Speaker 3: They lied to the American public. They intentionally attributed a
Speaker 3: submission for Congressional record to someone else, and the chain
Speaker 3: of custody for that report is essential for understanding and
Speaker 3: trusting its authorship, and that's going to come into play soon.
Speaker 3: It was a very bizarre Shakespearean move and it wasn't
Speaker 3: about me. It's about honesty, truth and transparency. Now, Representative virtute,
Speaker 3: he whispered the truth. If you listen to the first
Speaker 3: moments that he got the mic that day, he is
Speaker 3: the one that stood up and told the truth. So look,
Speaker 3: there's going to be more about that. This is highly
Speaker 3: important that the American public. It's to learn exactly what
Speaker 3: happened and transpired that day and why it felt so
Speaker 3: off to me and maybe the hundred other people around
Speaker 3: that saw. The journalists that were embedded within the White
Speaker 3: House cores to watch for any trickery because we all
Speaker 3: felt it coming. So there's more about Immaculate constellation, how
Speaker 3: Congress members were notified about its existence, and what promises
Speaker 3: and protections were offered verbally in person, all of that,
Speaker 3: all of that will be coming out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, basically, though, they could have had a first hand
Speaker 2: eyewitness at somebody who's involved in these programs if they
Speaker 2: wanted right.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, and they didn't need to write subpoenas for all
Speaker 3: of them. It was a very bizarre. It felt like
Speaker 3: a counter intelligence operation to identify whistleblowers and not let
Speaker 3: them talk.
Speaker 2: It was just very curious how that whole thing went down,
Speaker 2: And it makes you wonder what other kind of agenda
Speaker 2: is at play here. Why go to the trouble of
Speaker 2: attributing that thing to someone else. It's very curious and
Speaker 2: I can't wait till more about that is shared.
Speaker 3: With the public.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to some other things you mentioned about
Speaker 2: lou Elizondo. I agree his testimony was important and it
Speaker 2: was under oath, so I mean, he's putting things on
Speaker 2: the line. You and I hear this all the time.
Speaker 2: No one would dare put these whistleblowers in prison for
Speaker 2: telling what they know about UFO programs. It would you know,
Speaker 2: it would confirm the things are real. They should go
Speaker 2: ahead and risk their lives and their homes and their
Speaker 2: careers and everything that they own and possibly their freedom,
Speaker 2: and go ahead and tell us what they know. There's
Speaker 2: no way they'd ever go to prison. What do you
Speaker 2: say to that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's you know, I can understand from the outside
Speaker 3: the way people would say something like that, but they
Speaker 3: don't know what it's like talking to and guarding the
Speaker 3: identities of people that have you know, really put it
Speaker 3: on the line just to talk with you. You and
Speaker 3: I both know, George, and you've seen the evidence of
Speaker 3: this is that there are scare tactics. At minimum. We've
Speaker 3: been part of that. We've been followed before when we've
Speaker 3: gone and talked with first ten whistleblowers. You know, we've
Speaker 3: been menaced before. Man, We've had agencies contact that's interested
Speaker 3: in this kind of thing. This is a problem where
Speaker 3: whistleblowers are being threatened, and they are And I don't
Speaker 3: want to go much further than that, but I think
Speaker 3: other people have said it, and it is true. Some
Speaker 3: people that we're willing to testify are no longer alive
Speaker 3: through suspicious causes, that is fact. So the question becomes
Speaker 3: is this a secret that they will go to any
Speaker 3: means to keep? And unfortunately I'm feeling like it is.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about something that did come out this year
Speaker 2: that you and I had a role in. Actually the
Speaker 2: roll in it was the jellyfish video. I haven't decided
Speaker 2: whether that's bird poop on the lens or whether it's
Speaker 2: just a smudge. Can we talk about how the jellyfish
Speaker 2: came out, what the reaction from the public was.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was you and me deciding that, you know,
Speaker 3: it's time to do our best journalism and look at
Speaker 3: something and say, you know, this does not hurt national security.
Speaker 3: This has been entrusted to us, it's legitimate unknown, it's
Speaker 3: designated UAP within our intelligence communities. It's something for public
Speaker 3: good people needed to see. So just so everybody kind
Speaker 3: of remembers the jellyfish UAP is one of the strangest
Speaker 3: looking unidentified that I've ever seen. But all throughout history,
Speaker 3: this is one of the shapes that comes up. In fact,
Speaker 3: I just put up an article on my ex just
Speaker 3: an old newspaper from you know, I think nineteen fifty
Speaker 3: two or something like that whatever the date is, and
Speaker 3: it was saying of the same morphology, the same shape. Well,
Speaker 3: this was an object, an incursion of that object of
Speaker 3: unknown origin through the United States Joint Operations Base in Iraq,
Speaker 3: So it's kind of like a secret base within a base.
Speaker 3: And the object was designated UAP, and.
Speaker 2: It was not us, it was by them. They called
Speaker 2: it that.
Speaker 3: Right exactly. That's the reason why we thought it was
Speaker 3: important for public good. They did designate a UAP. To
Speaker 3: this day, it still designated UAP actually officially from what
Speaker 3: I'm told on all the servers where they went and
Speaker 3: found it after we reported on it and told where
Speaker 3: it was, and they uploaded at one point four gigabyte
Speaker 3: high resolution of it crossing the base. Now they didn't
Speaker 3: upload the entire video, which I find to be very interesting.
Speaker 3: But let me just tell you the object moved through
Speaker 3: a sensitive military installation. It eventually it traversed over a
Speaker 3: body of water where everybody that's seen the full video
Speaker 3: will tell you that it actuated a controlled descent without
Speaker 3: changing thermal signature, submerged into the water, and the people
Speaker 3: tasked with filming it sat over that area and about
Speaker 3: seventeen minutes later the thing pops up stiff, emerges from
Speaker 3: the water, and then shoots off forty five re angle
Speaker 3: at an extreme speed. Maybe that's what they didn't want
Speaker 3: people to see. I don't know, you have to ask them.
Speaker 3: We gave them every chance to put it out. But
Speaker 3: beyond the optical scope of this thing and its performance
Speaker 3: and its capability, it was designated UAP and it was
Speaker 3: kind of like hell that the base, the original disc
Speaker 3: was confiscated under arm guard without signature by who they
Speaker 3: called the client, which was an agency. It is the
Speaker 3: first time ever that it was gone in and taken
Speaker 3: without sign out, without signature. That's not protocol. But what
Speaker 3: was interesting is when they were filming this and trying
Speaker 3: to track it, there was a live feed up into
Speaker 3: the command center, so they actually sent people out with
Speaker 3: night vision or IR goggles and it was invisible to
Speaker 3: the night vision. Nobody could see it, but they had
Speaker 3: it right there on the thermal. So this thing displayed
Speaker 3: some kind of low observability, this rapid movement, the ability
Speaker 3: to be trans medium. I really wish the world could
Speaker 3: see that footage because it's game changing. Just to be
Speaker 3: able to observe these capabilities. Some people that were there,
Speaker 3: think it was jamming the targeting capability of the weapons platform.
Speaker 3: It's an optical platform, like an aerostat that's like hanging
Speaker 3: in the sky on tethers, very stable footage. It was
Speaker 3: just so compelling. You and I looked at it, didn't
Speaker 3: know what to think. We dug in for years. We
Speaker 3: found corroboration. One other guy came forward actually and said
Speaker 3: that he saw parts of it when he was at
Speaker 3: the base, So that's pretty cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's spectacular. It's so weird. I remember the reaction
Speaker 2: when I first saw it, and every time I've seen
Speaker 2: it since, how strange it is. And of course as
Speaker 2: soon as we put it out we tried to be
Speaker 2: really careful about it. We ask a lot of people
Speaker 2: who know, who should have been in a position to
Speaker 2: know that if it had ever been entered into the record,
Speaker 2: and it had not. Now you know, I know. The
Speaker 2: immediate reaction from the usual crowd, the usual suspects is well,
Speaker 2: that's a smudge, No, it's bird poop on the lens.
Speaker 2: Then that was balloons. Its balloons from a Muslim celebration
Speaker 2: or a wedding, and it floats through the It's no
Speaker 2: big deal. There are all kinds of things that were
Speaker 2: thrown out there. The most recent thing, after we put
Speaker 2: it out at the beginning of this year, is that
Speaker 2: people who claim that they worked for the UAP task
Speaker 2: FORRSE had already ruled it out. They've explained it. It's
Speaker 2: not not anything interesting, it's not a UAP. And then
Speaker 2: somebody who also claims to work for the UAP Task
Speaker 2: Force vouches for the other person, and so I guess
Speaker 2: that's completely explained at this point, right, It's not a UAP.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, So that's absolute horsecrap. And the way
Speaker 3: that we're going to get to the bottom of that
Speaker 3: is that you and I know, the first time anybody
Speaker 3: associated with the UAPTF was when they saw it was
Speaker 3: when we showed it to them in a hotel room,
Speaker 3: and we showed it to them because we were releasing it,
Speaker 3: and it was never part of any of the assets
Speaker 3: looked at by UAPTF. A lot of people claim they
Speaker 3: worked at UAPTF, but really there's just this thing called
Speaker 3: our space, which is a community on a classified server,
Speaker 3: and they look at videos and they go through them
Speaker 3: and summer analysts some are not. But that was a
Speaker 3: bold faced lie I heard about that. I think it
Speaker 3: went a little further and they said something like they
Speaker 3: knew the source of the leak for that one. As journalists,
Speaker 3: I mean, I'll tell you, we had to make sure
Speaker 3: for sure that this was something that was a legitimate asset.
Speaker 3: You know that this wasn't We were not being faith
Speaker 3: but we showed it to them after UAPTF concluded, they
Speaker 3: never had the footage. So it puzzles me why there'd
Speaker 3: be this campaign, this Ford media campaign to say that
Speaker 3: it's been resolved, they know who leaked it, won't go
Speaker 3: arrest that person. Are you kidding me? That's a crime, right.
Speaker 3: It's so bizarre to me. It's disinformation and it's organized.
Speaker 2: You know, there are only a few names for sure
Speaker 2: that we know who were directly involved with UAP Task Force.
Speaker 2: Jay Stratton was the head of it. He's the guy
Speaker 2: who created it. He's the guy that hired all the
Speaker 2: other people.
Speaker 3: We know.
Speaker 2: He's come forward. He's going to come forward in a
Speaker 2: much broader way in the coming year. Travis Taylor was
Speaker 2: his chief scientist. We were with them in Huntsville, Alabama
Speaker 2: when Travis admitted that that was his job. So, you know,
Speaker 2: we do know, people who actually did foreshore on the
Speaker 2: record work for the UAP Task Force since then, and
Speaker 2: they've told us, Look, there are maybe thousands of analysts
Speaker 2: throughout the federal government who may have seen this image
Speaker 2: or that image as part of their regular job, but
Speaker 2: there's only a small number of people who worked actually
Speaker 2: worked for the task Force that have a meeting every week.
Speaker 2: Some of the people who've come forward and said, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: I worked for the Task Force and we explained that
Speaker 2: video way did not in fact work for the task Force.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, And so you know, look, there's a lot
Speaker 3: of great people contributing to the UAP issue, and it's
Speaker 3: really good and when you kind of outsource and get
Speaker 3: a lot of analysts looking at stuff. But what we're
Speaker 3: talking about is a bold faced lie. We're talking about
Speaker 3: somebody that comes out and they say that they work
Speaker 3: for the Task Force, and you know, whatever people could
Speaker 3: argue in what capacity that is they never saw this video.
Speaker 3: The only weigh that ERRA or even UAPTF saw it
Speaker 3: because we showed it to them or told them where
Speaker 3: to go get it. I will tell you something, people
Speaker 3: don't know. All the people, all my contacts who have
Speaker 3: looked they have said that. Now the UAP, sorry the
Speaker 3: Jellyfish UAP, has been uploaded at one point four gigabytes
Speaker 3: full video, clear as day. Those animals that have looked
Speaker 3: at it now way later, right way later. It's not balloons.
Speaker 3: If you know what balloons look like to do thermal Okay, great,
Speaker 3: I don't know what it is, but it's not balloons.
Speaker 3: But when they posted it, they did not post the
Speaker 3: full video. They only showed it transiting the base. I
Speaker 3: will say one other thing. I hear there's a warning.
Speaker 3: Now think about this. There's this little community in the
Speaker 3: intelligence community, and you list that video along with a
Speaker 3: couple others underneath the year review, but you leave there's
Speaker 3: there's like a half page written there, and it really
Speaker 3: sounds to me like the people that have read it
Speaker 3: sounds like a warning within the intelligence community. It's putting
Speaker 3: everybody that went to Arrow, which if Arrow asked them
Speaker 3: to come, it says those people can't be trusted on
Speaker 3: summarizing those people can't be trusted anymore because they broke
Speaker 3: their NDAs. Now, why would Tim Phillips of Arrow post
Speaker 3: all of that which I just said, and it was
Speaker 3: him through the official Arrow account? Why would you post
Speaker 3: all that, and then you have a half page saying
Speaker 3: anybody that went to Arrow can no longer be trusted
Speaker 3: with these, you know, national secrets because they broke their nbas.
Speaker 3: That feels to me like a warning, a diabolical warning
Speaker 3: within the intelligence community to not step forward and raise
Speaker 3: their hand, doesn't it to you, George?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's sinister on multiple levels. Number One,
Speaker 2: Arrow puts out a call, Look, hey, we're here to
Speaker 2: gather information and do a real investigation. All you people
Speaker 2: who are whistleblowers or first hand witnesses or work in
Speaker 2: these secret programs, come forward to us, tell us what
Speaker 2: you know, and we'll take it seriously. And of course
Speaker 2: we know people who did that, and their testimony was buried.
Speaker 2: It goes nowhere. The Arrow report comes out dismisses all
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 1: It makes it.
Speaker 2: Seem like that was a counter intelligence operation, a way
Speaker 2: to identify who is a whistleblower who has information, and
Speaker 2: then none only to not use that information to give
Speaker 2: it credibility, but use the fact that they testified as
Speaker 2: an intimidation tactic.
Speaker 3: That's precisely what it appears to be. And in fact,
Speaker 3: I have people on record who you will be seeing
Speaker 3: within the next month who had that exact experience.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I included, of course, the jellyfish video in this Netflix
Speaker 2: series that we did investigation Alien, and it really it
Speaker 2: touched the nerve all over the world. It was, you know,
Speaker 2: trans streamed one hundred and ninety countries and gosh, you
Speaker 2: can't believe the responses we got. But you know, you
Speaker 2: and I went through the process. We explained how we
Speaker 2: had gone through screening it and trying to make sure
Speaker 2: it's legit. And in that show we speak directly to
Speaker 2: a key person who had seen it before. You know,
Speaker 2: I wonder if these folks who came forward saying, oh,
Speaker 2: we've identified the source, we're hoping that we would go
Speaker 2: ahead and reach out to somebody on our phones or
Speaker 2: computers so they could track it and figure out who
Speaker 2: may have been involved in leaking it.
Speaker 3: I mean, just look at how ridiculous the statement is.
Speaker 3: And if you just open your eyes to that, then
Speaker 3: it's going to make a little more sense. You can
Speaker 3: say you saw something, but it was never within your
Speaker 3: community's assets, and that's provable fact. Just I bet you
Speaker 3: if you put Jay Stratton under oh, he would tell
Speaker 3: you the truth which is that they never had it,
Speaker 3: they never saw it wasn't part of the assets they
Speaker 3: were looking at, and that was after the UAPTF was done.
Speaker 3: That's what he told us. And he's always been a
Speaker 3: straight shooter. So that's first of all. And second of all,
Speaker 3: why would you claim that you know the source of
Speaker 3: the leak unless you were dating people journalists, So that's
Speaker 3: very bizarre. I could have jumped on the news right
Speaker 3: there and shut all of that down, and I thought
Speaker 3: better of it. Wanted to see who would buy that nonsense.
Speaker 2: We only have like a minute left though. We didn't
Speaker 2: even get the drones. We'll do that at our last
Speaker 2: hour in between calls. Are you encouraged by statements made
Speaker 2: by some of the Trump appointees we're going to be
Speaker 2: in positions of power going forward, that they're going to
Speaker 2: take this seriously, that some kind of an announcement might
Speaker 2: be coming.
Speaker 1: What do you think?
Speaker 3: I mean, Look, it's great, it's just lip service.
Speaker 1: Though.
Speaker 3: This was never going to be something that people just
Speaker 3: roll over and talk about. This is the most closely
Speaker 3: guarded secret on planet Earth. This is recognized as higher
Speaker 3: importance than weapons of mass destruction. And you and I
Speaker 3: know that, George, So no, Look, everybody can say anything.
Speaker 3: What we need is people to come forward firsthand whistleblowers,
Speaker 3: and we need a process where they can do that properly.
Speaker 3: And if that doesn't work hard way works for me,
Speaker 3: then that's going to be through journalism. And I'll tell
Speaker 3: you there are other whistleblers coming forward. You know, when
Speaker 3: you talk about things like crash, your triebles, you talk
Speaker 3: about things where people at firsthand experience. I know for
Speaker 3: a fact that some of that's going to be coming
Speaker 3: so easy way or hard way. I think the new administration,
Speaker 3: as long as they protect journalism, as long as they
Speaker 3: protect the rights of whistleblowers, then we're going to learn
Speaker 3: the truth about UFOs. That would be the easier way.
Speaker 1: Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
Speaker 1: one a m. Eastern and go to Coast to coastam
Speaker 1: dot com for more