Speaker 1: Now here's a highlight from coast to coast AM on
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio pis sharp.
Speaker 2: Before the break, I was expressing sympathy for the Pentagon
Speaker 2: to some degree in that right after World War II,
Speaker 2: these things appear in our skies, they fly circles around
Speaker 2: our best technology, They appear and disappear, They mess with
Speaker 2: our nuclear weapons programs, and it must have been pretty frightening.
Speaker 2: And I can understand maybe the Pentagon, maybe the presidents
Speaker 2: in that time didn't want to release this information because
Speaker 2: they didn't really know what's going on. I suspect we
Speaker 2: still really don't know what's going on. That there aren't
Speaker 2: many people, if any, that know the ultimate answer to
Speaker 2: what's going on. But over the decades, our military, our
Speaker 2: governments lied to the public so much that they painted
Speaker 2: themselves into a corner, and once the lies stacked up
Speaker 2: to the ceiling, they just couldn't admit that they'd been
Speaker 2: dishonest all this time. Now their attempts to make them
Speaker 2: fess up. And I wonder if you have a sense
Speaker 2: of whether the keepers of the secrets are I need
Speaker 2: to give in, or whether they're going to fight this
Speaker 2: tooth and nail every step of the way, especially this
Speaker 2: part about giving up the crash retrieval stuff and exposing
Speaker 2: reverse engineering programs.
Speaker 3: Well, if we listened to David Grash, this date back
Speaker 3: to nineteen twenty three when a craft crashed on Italian soil.
Speaker 3: I recently reported this story for the Daily Mail because
Speaker 3: we found new testimony from someone whose great great grandfather
Speaker 3: was a mayor in the local town nearby where the
Speaker 3: crash happened. And that person said, as the story goes,
Speaker 3: there are also two occupants in that craft that had
Speaker 3: blonde hair. And if we're to believe the story, that
Speaker 3: craft was taken to the United States perhaps after the
Speaker 3: Second World War, and in terms of the seat keepers, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I from my understanding, I think, you know, I think
Speaker 3: we could, perhaps, let's say, expect more and more people
Speaker 3: to start using those whistleblower protections coming forward to Congress.
Speaker 3: I think we can expect more and more of those
Speaker 3: people to come forward. And also i'd point out as
Speaker 3: well that you know, the great journalist Michael Shellenberger reported
Speaker 3: that excuse me, sorry, that back in the that's back
Speaker 3: in twenty ten. A defense contractor, a major aerospace corporation,
Speaker 3: was trying to get this out in terms of getting
Speaker 3: the craft studied by more people, basically scientists and engineers,
Speaker 3: and very very rudely they were told no. So I
Speaker 3: think that may have been luckied, let's say, and I
Speaker 3: think there is I think there are secret keepers that
Speaker 3: have wanted this out for quite a long time now,
Speaker 3: and they may have even played a crucial part in
Speaker 3: getting us to where we are right now.
Speaker 2: I'd go so far as saying, you know, you've been
Speaker 2: in contact with Lockheed back and forth for weeks. I
Speaker 2: believe you told Jeremy and I and you know there's
Speaker 2: you get a mixed reaction from them. They kick it
Speaker 2: back and forth. They played this game of patty Cake
Speaker 2: where you ask the DD and they tell you to
Speaker 2: ask Arrow, and you ask Arrow and they, you know,
Speaker 2: they defer you to Lockheed, and Lockheed kicks you back
Speaker 2: to Arrow. Kind of a thing. That's the games that
Speaker 2: you've been dealing with, and try to get to the
Speaker 2: bottom of.
Speaker 3: This, right, Yes, correct. So I've been in conversation with
Speaker 3: Lockey Marketing for the past few weeks now because if
Speaker 3: they do have illegal programs relating to UAP, that is
Speaker 3: a material risk to shareholders that they would perhaps have
Speaker 3: to disclose under sec corporate scope disclosure laws. I asked
Speaker 3: them about that and they basically referred me to the
Speaker 3: Department of Defense. So they want the US Department's Defense
Speaker 3: to ask answer questions about them with perhaps we're holding
Speaker 3: stuff from their shareholders. I don't quite understand how that works. However,
Speaker 3: I did manage to get a line from them saying
Speaker 3: that we do comply with all regulatory requirements. But I'm
Speaker 3: getting some very very odd responses from Lockey. Let's say,
Speaker 3: although all credits to Lockey, because you know, I have
Speaker 3: asked the tel Bae Systems, nor for Grumman among others
Speaker 3: as well, and all fail to respond. So perhaps off
Speaker 3: to Locke for at least responding and engaging with me.
Speaker 2: You'd think that if they had that technology yet, they
Speaker 2: had an intact saucer from somewhere else, non human, other planets,
Speaker 2: other dimensions, whatever it is, and even if they haven't
Speaker 2: figured out how they work, just possessing that technology would
Speaker 2: be incredible, valuable. I don't even think you could put
Speaker 2: a dollar figure on it because of the promise of
Speaker 2: what it could represent. I can see people in a
Speaker 2: company like that being unwilling to give it up. No
Speaker 2: matter what the legislation might say.
Speaker 3: That's correct, that's correct. But also you could make the
Speaker 3: argument as well that the best engineers at the moment
Speaker 3: in the industry are perhaps going to SpaceX and call
Speaker 3: the companies, let's say, that are attracting you know, generation generation.
Speaker 3: I think it's ZAD, isn't it, and millennials, and perhaps
Speaker 3: Lockheed isn't getting the best talent anymore, so perhaps it
Speaker 3: may perhaps disclosure to a certain extent, may actually help
Speaker 3: them and bolster recruitment. This is a whole bunch of bargains,
Speaker 3: but also at state as well that you know, if
Speaker 3: the government can take these crafts from Lockheed Martin and
Speaker 3: then you know, you can imagine that there must be
Speaker 3: some compensation relating to that, and author you can imagine
Speaker 3: as well, there must be some tender process. The US
Speaker 3: government can't just take craft from such organizations and just say, okay,
Speaker 3: we're just going to keep them there. No, there need
Speaker 3: to be some kind of tendering process. So you can
Speaker 3: imagine that you know, other companies have hand had access
Speaker 3: to these perhaps radiance that say, may be tendering for
Speaker 3: such craft to actually study them. But I also would
Speaker 3: stay as well, I think it's a vite of importance
Speaker 3: to protect Lockie to a certain extent, because you know,
Speaker 3: without Lockheed, if it's well in one day, Lockeed, I mean,
Speaker 3: that would be the defenses of the Western Allied countries
Speaker 3: put in jeopardy. So that's a vite to importance as well.
Speaker 3: So it needs to be done very very carefully.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, Lockeed Martin is critical to our national security.
Speaker 2: For sure. You know, we're almost through the looking glass
Speaker 2: here with this Humor Amendment, because for decades, this whole
Speaker 2: idea has been dismissed some kind of UFO folklore. I mean,
Speaker 2: I've been reporting stories about Area fifty one for thirty
Speaker 2: four years, taking a lot of crap about those reports.
Speaker 2: But now it doesn't look so crazy and roswell. You know,
Speaker 2: people have investigated that even longer. The granddaddy of crash
Speaker 2: retrieval stories in a sense, right, Patterson Hangar eighteen, all
Speaker 2: dismissed as nonsense, there's no evidence for it. Suddenly the
Speaker 2: entire playing field has flipped on its head because of
Speaker 2: language in that proposed amendment that Senator Schumer signed off
Speaker 2: on that you say the White House also agreed on
Speaker 2: talking about non human technology about you know, implying crash
Speaker 2: retrievals and maybe bodies. I mean, wow, it's an astonishing moment,
Speaker 2: Absolutely astonishing, absolutely.
Speaker 3: And also it's not astonishing as well that the chair
Speaker 3: of the House Intelligence Committee, who happens to represent right
Speaker 3: Paston Air Force Bace, that that committee has no UAP
Speaker 3: language in its version of the Intelligent Authorization app and that,
Speaker 3: you know, chairperson the committee who represents the right Paston
Speaker 3: Air Force Base has gone a live TV to downplay
Speaker 3: this whole UAP thing. Isn't that really Isn't that really strange?
Speaker 3: And I've got a photograph of Mike Turner, that's his name,
Speaker 3: with General McAslan, who a lot of people would suggest
Speaker 3: has a lot to do with getting this whole disclosure
Speaker 3: effort started. And I would also just point out one
Speaker 3: more thing as well. I think that let's say, I
Speaker 3: think the rumors are circulating amongst staff members at right
Speaker 3: Past and Air Force Base, so there may be some
Speaker 3: bodies stored in some freezers somewhere. That wouldn't surprise me.
Speaker 2: Those kind of stories have been around a long time.
Speaker 2: I'm sure it'll be nice to get a look at
Speaker 2: them or at least some pictures of them. You have
Speaker 2: to admit, I think you would agree with the assessment
Speaker 2: that Dave Gresh is responsible for moving this ball down
Speaker 2: the field, that his testama coming out. You know it's
Speaker 2: been delivered behind closed doors under oath for a long time.
Speaker 2: We know that Sean Kirkpatrick, ahead of Arrow, is aware
Speaker 2: of it. And yet after Dave Grush's testimony is known,
Speaker 2: mister Kirkpatrick, doctor Kirkpatrick says, I've seen no credible evidence
Speaker 2: that any of this stuff is real that we have,
Speaker 2: you know, non human technology somewhere. Obviously, Senator Schumer sees
Speaker 2: things differently, and he hinted it in many cases that
Speaker 2: there are many witnesses who've come forward who've shared similar information.
Speaker 2: Is that your understanding, Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 3: Many individuals have come forward, perhaps people that are that
Speaker 3: are known naturally to the American people as well. I
Speaker 3: mean we're talking high proofar people from understanding who have
Speaker 3: no incentive to lie, let's say. And I would also
Speaker 3: point out as well, in terms of the DoD's responses
Speaker 3: on this, the Arrow having verified that anything has been
Speaker 3: found of extra Treasury origin. So I managed to confirm
Speaker 3: with Susan goth the penticin spokesperson that that also covers
Speaker 3: non human origin. However, what I don't know yet I
Speaker 3: have asked this question is whether this term also includes
Speaker 3: and covers unknown origin. And it's very funny that the
Speaker 3: term unknown origin is covered and defined in this new legislation,
Speaker 3: so that technologies of unknown origin, So it's any materials
Speaker 3: or muti materials ejector crashed, every mechanisms, machinery, equipment, assemblies
Speaker 3: or sub assemblies, engineering models or processes, damage or impact
Speaker 3: aerospaceed vehicles, and damage or impact ocean service undersea craft
Speaker 3: associated with uap oncorporating science and technology that lacks prosaic
Speaker 3: attribution or known means of human manufacture. And I would
Speaker 3: also point out a key term as well, used in
Speaker 3: the Pentican's jargon of its response, let's say is verifiable.
Speaker 3: Basically you're verified. So let's just say that your doctor
Speaker 3: Saun Kirkpatrick, that you find a programmed that it's been
Speaker 3: you know, made aware, you'd be made aware of for
Speaker 3: a whistleblower, and you do find, you know, stuff that
Speaker 3: may be of non human origin. Well, doctor Sean Kirkpatrick
Speaker 3: can't just say well so, and so tells me, it's
Speaker 3: sort of non human origin, you'll have to verify that independently,
Speaker 3: and how do you actually prove that it's extraterrestal for
Speaker 3: example as well? Right, it's yeah, So these are questions
Speaker 3: and these are things that depends can comphide behind as
Speaker 3: well when providing their public responses.
Speaker 2: Tell me this, does this legislation apply to just regular
Speaker 2: everyday people individuals? So you know, we've heard stories about
Speaker 2: folks even recently, going out to what they think was
Speaker 2: the rash Well Roswell crash site and finding little bits
Speaker 2: and pieces of seemingly anomalous material. Doctor Gary Nolan has
Speaker 2: talked about having several samples that have been undergoing analysis
Speaker 2: for a while. Jacques Belat has said the same. You
Speaker 2: got to figure there might be military folks or former
Speaker 2: defense contractors retirees who've stashed bits and pieces here and there.
Speaker 2: Would individual citizens be required to clop it up. If
Speaker 2: you've got something that's weird, you got to give it
Speaker 2: to your government.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, Well, let's just say that individual citizens have
Speaker 3: played a major role in getting as to where we are.
Speaker 3: You know, you know, big shout out to yourself and
Speaker 3: Jeremy Corbell who have been immense help for me. And yes,
Speaker 3: in terms of the Intelligence Authorization Act language, which has
Speaker 3: been drafted by the Senate Intelligence Committee, it uses the
Speaker 3: terms of persons in terms of the amnesty language relating
Speaker 3: to AP materials. So I would say that it may
Speaker 3: be a good idea to actually, you know, maybe call
Speaker 3: your lawyer if you do hold such materials, to get
Speaker 3: advice on this and how to come forward and what
Speaker 3: the potential repercussions could be if you fail to do so.
Speaker 3: Once this legislation passes.
Speaker 2: You touched on this briefly, but you think it will
Speaker 2: pass in the form that Schumer has proposed.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't like to say I don't like
Speaker 3: to approachings in a black and white way by saying
Speaker 3: yes or no. But I would say I'm probably about
Speaker 3: eighty per cent certain it will whenever you get these
Speaker 3: amendments and whatnot. Some of the language falls by the
Speaker 3: wayside a lot of times. So we'll get excited during
Speaker 3: the summer this language has been included, but come December,
Speaker 3: once the House and the Senate have to basically come
Speaker 3: together and say act you know whose version you know
Speaker 3: is going to be included within the National Defense Authorisation
Speaker 3: out to Integence Authorization Act. They have to make compromises, negotiations.
Speaker 3: Sometimes that means that some language does fall by the wayside.
Speaker 3: But I would state that this whige has a very
Speaker 3: very good chance in past in terms of what Schum
Speaker 3: has proposed. He is the he is the Senate majority leader.
Speaker 3: And also from my understanding as well, like we said,
Speaker 3: you know, it seems as though there has what there
Speaker 3: has and I've had that confirm being coordination with White House.
Speaker 3: So you know, Democrats all have cover now in terms
Speaker 3: of actually speaking out about this because you know, the
Speaker 3: guys at the top said it's okay, and they're actually
Speaker 3: on the case themselves. So I would say there's a
Speaker 3: very very good chance. And as you mentioned before, there
Speaker 3: is bypassed and supports as well. This is not just
Speaker 3: a Democrat issue, This is not just a Republican issue.
Speaker 3: This is a bypass is an issue. And isn't it
Speaker 3: amazing the times that we live in at the moment
Speaker 3: with all the divides and whatnot on all the culture wars,
Speaker 3: that on this very one topic, it seems that both
Speaker 3: Republicans and Democrats are coming together. It's simply amazing.
Speaker 2: I've seen comments. People write this on Twitter and it's
Speaker 2: it's pretty poignant, They will say, isn't it amazing that
Speaker 2: we're on the verge of what might be a time
Speaker 2: when you know, you could say to your kids, I
Speaker 2: lived on the planet when we thought humans were the
Speaker 2: only intelligence here or were the top of the food chain,
Speaker 2: and now we know that's not true, and which would
Speaker 2: be a pretty astonishing change to sweep over the planet.
Speaker 2: You have a quote from Senator Schumer where he says
Speaker 2: in your article, where he says, the American public has
Speaker 2: a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non
Speaker 2: human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena astonishing verbiage. There is there
Speaker 2: anything that you have heard in any of your reporting
Speaker 2: that maybe you feel the public should not know something
Speaker 2: that would be so upsetting, that would change the world
Speaker 2: in such a tectonic level, that maybe it shouldn't come out.
Speaker 3: I think that, Look, once we can confirm for shures
Speaker 3: that these programs exists across exist, then we're going to
Speaker 3: have to move on to another conversation about the occupants,
Speaker 3: about the intelligences themselves. You know, and I believe there
Speaker 3: are multiple intelligences visiting this earth and I think that
Speaker 3: might be a very very uncomfortable conversation to have, you know,
Speaker 3: because you have reports that some craft have just been
Speaker 3: found with the doors open, that no one there intact,
Speaker 3: and it seems that the occupants have left, so where
Speaker 3: did they go? Also we have reports as well of
Speaker 3: an instant that happened at Holoman Air Force Base which
Speaker 3: was actually filmed in terms of a UAP or craft
Speaker 3: landing and let's just say non new you know, aliens
Speaker 3: basically getting out of the craft and engaging with US
Speaker 3: Air Force offices. So you had to ask to yourself
Speaker 3: if that is correct, if that does exist, that footagially
Speaker 3: did happen? What's happened without communication? Was any where any agreement?
Speaker 3: Its contact being kept? If that contact has been kept,
Speaker 3: who with? Who are they? What do they want? What
Speaker 3: is their agenda? And I think more uncomfortably as well,
Speaker 3: you know, your friend Robert Bigelow said that you know,
Speaker 3: they may be living amongst us, and I think that
Speaker 3: might be rather uncomfortable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, even if we cross the threshold to
Speaker 2: learn about non human technologies and crash saucers, reverse engineering bodies,
Speaker 2: we still really don't know. I don't know anyone who
Speaker 2: does know, and I've been pretty far up the food chain.
Speaker 2: I don't know anyone who knows who they are, where
Speaker 2: they're from, why they're here, or for sure what their
Speaker 2: interest is in us.
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