Speaker 1: Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: And welcome back to George Nori and Stephen Bassett from
Speaker 2: the Paradigm Research Group. Steven, you mentioned Lou Alexandro and
Speaker 2: Christopher Mellon. Are they big players in this disclosure puzzle.
Speaker 3: They are very important to the process, the disclosure process underway.
Speaker 3: The two of them, along with Gary Nolan and seven
Speaker 3: others are the ones that came forward in two thousand
Speaker 3: and seventeen as part of the Two the Stars Academy
Speaker 3: of Arts of Times. But the other seven have kind
Speaker 3: of stayed in the background, though they they've said some
Speaker 3: things from time to time. But it's these three Lou,
Speaker 3: Gary and Christopher who have been carrying the heavy water
Speaker 3: and in the three areas that I talked about. And
Speaker 3: if you'll indulge me for a second, George, I want
Speaker 3: to reiterate what I said just before the break is
Speaker 3: the most important thing I'm going to say tonight, and
Speaker 3: that is this what is going on. It's not the
Speaker 3: United States government doing all it can now to finally
Speaker 3: try to understand this phenomena. No, not at all. It's
Speaker 3: not about the phenomena. People haven't need to know for
Speaker 3: seven decades. What is going on now is a process
Speaker 3: within certain constraints and protocols to get out from under
Speaker 3: the truth embargo by in a public way doing all
Speaker 3: the things that should have been done and will be
Speaker 3: done that will get the government and the nation to
Speaker 3: the post disclosure world a minimum amount of pain, suffering
Speaker 3: and damage. That is what is going on, and that's
Speaker 3: why it's very confusing to a lot of people, particularly
Speaker 3: if you know something about the phenomena or even in
Speaker 3: the modern era, or if you know about the history,
Speaker 3: and to give an example of how this connection or
Speaker 3: this disconnector what I'm trying to point out is that
Speaker 3: back in two thou and eight in at press conference
Speaker 3: after one of my ex conferences, edgar Mitchell at doctor
Speaker 3: edgar Mitchell, who spoke its podium at the press conference
Speaker 3: in the National Press Club and said there's an extra
Speaker 3: trustrial presence. In twenty sixteen, Robert Bigelow went on fifteen
Speaker 3: minutes and said there's an extraterrestrial presence here. Conferenceman Timbershev
Speaker 3: of Tennessee says there's an extra trustrial presence here about
Speaker 3: every other week, just a couple of days ago at
Speaker 3: the salt Icon extras conference, a big deal in New York,
Speaker 3: Gary Nolan, doctor Gary Nolan, said there's an extrustrial presence here,
Speaker 3: So expect more people like that, people of high conference
Speaker 3: to come forward and say that. But you're going to
Speaker 3: hear something else. And Gary basically says this, there's an
Speaker 3: extra trustrial presence here and the government has known it
Speaker 3: all along, or known it since the nineteen forties. You're
Speaker 3: going to hear more people saying that. And that's important.
Speaker 3: And the reason that I'm saying is important why because
Speaker 3: we want the truth embargo to end, and we recognize
Speaker 3: that it's not like you could just suddenly pro press
Speaker 3: conference and say, guess what, it's all been true. Too
Speaker 3: many moving parts, too many entities and institutions, have too
Speaker 3: much history. It's got to be done in an organized,
Speaker 3: in a public way, which is exactly what is happening,
Speaker 3: all right. That doesn't mean that the public has to
Speaker 3: be fooled by that. In other words, what I want,
Speaker 3: and I think you're going to see happening, is the
Speaker 3: public getting to a position where it understands that what
Speaker 3: is happening is not exactly what it seems. That it's
Speaker 3: somewhat of a I don't know how to put it.
Speaker 3: It's like almost a ritual or a protocol. But in
Speaker 3: other words, the government it knows, but they need to
Speaker 3: go through this so they can confirm it to us
Speaker 3: so we can really get on with the post disclosure world.
Speaker 3: It's okay for people to have those two things in
Speaker 3: their head at the same time. That's the point I
Speaker 3: wanted to get across.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a big point. But will the government ever
Speaker 2: explain why they held back all these years?
Speaker 3: Oh? Yeah, yeah. After the confirmation comes from the President
Speaker 3: the next probably within twenty four hours, the questions will begin.
Speaker 3: They will be intense, and they will be coming from
Speaker 3: every direction, and they'll go on for months and years.
Speaker 3: But one of the very first questions is going to
Speaker 3: be asked by some top journalist of the Secretary of
Speaker 3: Defense to the President or whoever is that, when did
Speaker 3: the United States government know that this phenomenon is not here?
Speaker 3: And the answer will be nineteen forty seven, forty five,
Speaker 3: forty six, And people are going to go, really, well,
Speaker 3: why did you tell us in national security? We had
Speaker 3: very good reasons why this had to be contained and
Speaker 3: not out in the public domain. Uh, and we're not
Speaker 3: going to apologize for that. There's a lot of things
Speaker 3: we do for national security and people go okay, the
Speaker 3: millennials go okay, not a problem. So but all of
Speaker 3: this is to try to mitigate how difficult it is
Speaker 3: going to be to answer that question. And there are
Speaker 3: a lot other questions. I mean, so easy. I could
Speaker 3: go on and on the tough questions they're going to
Speaker 3: have to face, and I appreciate that, but yeah, if
Speaker 3: you if you want to serve government, you got to
Speaker 3: you gotta handle the tough questions if you.
Speaker 2: Can't get another job, Steven. There is one ufologist who's
Speaker 2: a darn good one who stands aside from most other ufologists,
Speaker 2: and that's David Jacobs, who believes the UFO presence is
Speaker 2: not a good one. Where does where does he stand
Speaker 2: compared to other people?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well yeah I wouldn't. I'm trying to see that
Speaker 3: the craseypologists eventually go away, just as UFO is going away.
Speaker 3: We need new language. It makes it easier for people
Speaker 3: to address, to speak to the issue without having to
Speaker 3: be touched by all the ridicules and demeaning that that
Speaker 3: you've covered it for the decades because of the truth
Speaker 3: in Barbo. He is a contact researcher and a professor
Speaker 3: of history. He is in I think the minority in
Speaker 3: terms of the degree of negativity that he ascribes to
Speaker 3: the ET presence. But be sure that there are things
Speaker 3: that extra trustors are doing which is going to be
Speaker 3: reviewed post disclosure, discussed post disclosures, and some of that
Speaker 3: is problematic. Does that mean that the overall outcome is
Speaker 3: going to be terrible?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: No, And I'll be getting into this. Oh I should
Speaker 3: mention what about to just touch on a little bit here,
Speaker 3: I'm going to go way deeper in in ten days
Speaker 3: at a conference in any and Well, it's contact in
Speaker 3: the desert.
Speaker 2: I'll be there. I'll see you there.
Speaker 3: You'll be there. I'll be there, and I'm going to
Speaker 3: be taking probably I think I have about two to
Speaker 3: three hours of questions I'll be able to take, uh,
Speaker 3: to try to get into this. But the questions they're
Speaker 3: going to have to answer, uh include it was the
Speaker 3: United States government where the contact is taking place, in
Speaker 3: which ets were doing directly with humans without their consent? Yeah, wow,
Speaker 3: uh you knew? Yeah, Well why did you do something
Speaker 3: about it? There's nothing we could do. Another question, do
Speaker 3: you have any technology that you have been working on
Speaker 3: and re engineering that has been developed? It's within the
Speaker 3: unknowledged special access programs that could if we're in the
Speaker 3: public domain being very useful to us. Answer yes. Now,
Speaker 3: you may say, why don't they just answer no. The
Speaker 3: reason is simple. This isn't nineteen sixty nine. Is this
Speaker 3: is twenty twenty three. Right, there's somewhere between one and
Speaker 3: three million.
Speaker 2: Podcasts, and we know that there are.
Speaker 3: Five six million cell phones with cameras, global communications, social media.
Speaker 3: Everything the government does now could be broken down to
Speaker 3: the letter to the syllables. Any attempt to lie now
Speaker 3: is just literally destroyed within within hours, and the public's
Speaker 3: willingness to put up with any more lives is is
Speaker 3: not there. And so I think they know this, and
Speaker 3: so once confirmation takes place, there is no reason to
Speaker 3: lie anymore. They may say that has to remain classified.
Speaker 3: I cannot discuss that of concocting a lie simply because
Speaker 3: the question is tough would be a colossal blunder. And
Speaker 3: on what I'm seeing is they're not going to do that.
Speaker 3: But again, these tough questions are why they're having to
Speaker 3: go through this right, to do this right, and to
Speaker 3: make it transparent and involved the Congress and involve the
Speaker 3: DoD and sent up these ended so that when those
Speaker 3: tough questions come, they won't look quite as foolish and
Speaker 3: as vulnerable as is if they did not go through
Speaker 3: this process. Is it easy no? Is it fun no?
Speaker 3: Is it frustrating?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: But when you're dealing with what will be the most
Speaker 3: profound event in human history, with consequences for every single
Speaker 3: human being on the planet, in every country, and it's
Speaker 3: possible that our president may be the one that ends
Speaker 3: this embargo and confirms it. Clearly, this is something that
Speaker 3: has to be treated with a great deal of care,
Speaker 3: sophistication and forethought, and you're seeing that unfold. I'm happy
Speaker 3: with the process. I hope David Jacobs is not correct
Speaker 3: in his thinking that the hybrid concept, which is another
Speaker 3: tough question I'm going to have to deal with. Do
Speaker 3: you know that hybrid entities are being created by the
Speaker 3: EPs government? Answer yes, that the cyber program is not
Speaker 3: about replacing humans.
Speaker 2: They'll have too other.
Speaker 3: Things happen that well. I know we're going to talk
Speaker 3: about tonight and we're talking about a contact in the
Speaker 3: desert that essentially defends or at least puts that that
Speaker 3: that thinking I came off to the side some of
Speaker 3: the most important stuff of all, And we'll obviously get
Speaker 3: into that. But yeah, David, David's views have got to
Speaker 3: be considered, and that possibility can never be ruled out.
Speaker 3: But first we've got to get to the post disclosure
Speaker 3: world so we can have real conversations about the real
Speaker 3: information and we can all make a judgment.
Speaker 2: Are you saying these hearings that are eminent? Is this
Speaker 2: coming from inside sources you know? Or what? What? Why
Speaker 2: do you know this?
Speaker 3: You know it because I follow the news, as you know,
Speaker 3: I chronicle all the news on the subjectors. I've got
Speaker 3: thirteen thousand articles linked on my site right now. I've
Speaker 3: linked five thousands since twenty seventeen. I'm following all these developments.
Speaker 3: Most people don't have the time for that, so I
Speaker 3: have a pretty good sense of the big picture. Plus,
Speaker 3: we have several public sources that have confirmed that nearly
Speaker 3: a dozen or more witnesses have already been interviewed by AEROS.
Speaker 3: Bob Salliss made that clear, but he's not the only one. Now,
Speaker 3: the witnesses they're interviewing are just the right ones. They're
Speaker 3: interviewing the nuclear weapons tampering witnesses, they're interviewing pilots, they're
Speaker 3: interviewing military people that have specific information about very very
Speaker 3: important events. And there is no more important event, no
Speaker 3: more important thing regarding the extraterrustrial presence on this planet
Speaker 3: in the modern era, than a shutting down of our
Speaker 3: nuclear missiles. And I'll be going into that deep as
Speaker 3: contact in the desert. That is the one thing that
Speaker 3: will should be heavily attendantive as we move forward, not
Speaker 3: only the disclosure process but in the post disclosure world.
Speaker 3: Why did they turn off our nuclear weapons? And that
Speaker 3: gets into a very interesting area. Ye, but for me,
Speaker 3: it's a very positive thing.
Speaker 2: What are they trying to prove by doing that? Steven?
Speaker 3: The simple answer, here's the simple answer. The nuclear weapons
Speaker 3: tampering is the phrase I use. Others use other things.
Speaker 3: But the turning off of nuclear weapons in the United
Speaker 3: States and the Soviet Unions on many occasions, including at
Speaker 3: least two instances where they set them the missile vent
Speaker 3: to launch mode follow which can't be.
Speaker 2: Done right, It's almost impossible. It should be impossible.
Speaker 3: Well, it went out, the key being turned. All that
Speaker 3: scared the hell out of obviously the flight crews, both
Speaker 3: in the Kovie Union and the United States. These all
Speaker 3: started happening after the Cuban missile crisis. A lot of
Speaker 3: people haven't thought about that.
Speaker 1: I realized it.
Speaker 3: So we had a Cuban missile crisis. I sat there
Speaker 3: in front of the television thirteen days. It was at
Speaker 3: eighteen days thirteen, and it's scary as hell. And we
Speaker 3: came a lot closer to a nuclear event in that
Speaker 3: in that crisis, one could take away from the news
Speaker 3: we've learned since then how close we came. A couple
Speaker 3: of years later, suddenly these crafts are turning up over
Speaker 3: an ICBM light and turning the missiles off. Most of
Speaker 3: the witnesses, certainly about Zallas and others, believe this is
Speaker 3: a simple message, what in the hell are you doing
Speaker 3: with these weapons? Are you crazy?
Speaker 2: And we can shut them off anytime we want.
Speaker 3: Well, we can shut them off anytime we want, sure,
Speaker 3: but they they and they've done it a number of times,
Speaker 3: but then they stopped, and we always turn them back on.
Speaker 3: So the message is that we can shut them off
Speaker 3: anytime we want. The message is we're letting you know
Speaker 3: that in terms of us, anybody in your government or
Speaker 3: the Soviet government that is making the case we've got
Speaker 3: to keep the news. We've got to keep at least
Speaker 3: twenty thousand, and of course it's in the sixties. We
Speaker 3: were on our way to eighty six thousand nukes by
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety five. Is that if you're keeping them because
Speaker 3: you think you might need them to deal with us,
Speaker 3: you're wasting your money and your time. But just turn
Speaker 3: them off. So that's not an excuse. You've got to
Speaker 3: make your decision. Do you really want your civilization to
Speaker 3: live under mutual search destruction on a daily basis forever?
Speaker 3: Is what is your game plan here? But I think
Speaker 3: there's even more to it than that. So this will
Speaker 3: be the key initial testimony that is going to take
Speaker 3: place in front of that first hearing, which I think
Speaker 3: will be descended until hearing Maybee Brothers, and it's going
Speaker 3: to be my I'm blowing and that's what's going to
Speaker 3: get people's attention. Bringing off the nuclear weapons is one
Speaker 3: hundred times more significant than somebody seeing a tictack.
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