Speaker 1: Hey, Brent, how you doing doing?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 3: And do you think we should talk about these latest tranches?
Speaker 2: I'd rather not. The word throws me. I just don't
Speaker 2: I've never understood what it means exactly.
Speaker 1: I look that up. I googled it.
Speaker 3: They say that a tranch is a this is what
Speaker 3: they say a portion, a slice, or a division of
Speaker 3: a larger hole. But basically I think they're saying it's
Speaker 3: finance or business.
Speaker 2: Okay, but so why do we use it to describe
Speaker 2: a UFO dump of documents, videos, photos, all that stuff.
Speaker 3: That's an excellent question. Most people I know, I don't
Speaker 3: know about your experience. Most people I know call it
Speaker 3: the UFO dump. Did you see the stuff from the
Speaker 3: UFO dump?
Speaker 2: Yes, I think, if I'm not mistaken, I remember when
Speaker 2: the first tranch came out. I looked and where you
Speaker 2: go as to war dot gov backslash UFO, which sounds
Speaker 2: a little ponderous.
Speaker 3: At ponderous, I think it's a forward slash UFO coming
Speaker 3: it war is a little strange. I personally think we
Speaker 3: should try to get that UFO dump dot com if
Speaker 3: we can, we should. Yes, so let's look into that. Hey, so, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's been a busy time. I don't know what you've
Speaker 3: been up to you. He looks like you're traveling. What's
Speaker 3: going on?
Speaker 2: I am traveling, and in fact I'm actually right down
Speaker 2: the hall in your house. I haven't told you that yet.
Speaker 1: But you've gotten done.
Speaker 3: He had this beautiful artifice all set up, and now
Speaker 3: everyone knows it's just a sham.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, so I am traveling, but I think you're
Speaker 2: doing much more interesting things than I am. You were
Speaker 2: just on Doctor Phil with Chris Mellan.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was a trip. And in fact, this is
Speaker 3: the actual outfit I wore on Doctor Phil. So I'm
Speaker 3: wearing it again for good.
Speaker 1: Luck for us, because it was a pretty good show.
Speaker 3: And Phil, when we did it, had been claiming accurately
Speaker 3: that he had been given access to this tranch of documents.
Speaker 2: Early, so number four, the fourth tranch.
Speaker 3: The fourth transch and he was talking about exclusivity and
Speaker 3: all of that stuff. And yeah, I guess the only
Speaker 3: thing that was interesting was that his people, who producers,
Speaker 3: had given me thirty pages of show notes ahead of time.
Speaker 1: To take a look at thirty pages.
Speaker 3: It was I actually like our show notes. I didn't
Speaker 3: even get through all of them before the show started.
Speaker 3: It was just an overwhelming amount. But I feel good
Speaker 3: it wasn't overwhelming just to me, because after the show,
Speaker 3: Phil said that he had no actually says it in
Speaker 3: the show, which people. By the way, if you go
Speaker 3: to art site Hollywood UFOs dot com, you can actually
Speaker 3: go listen to his show. But he said that he
Speaker 3: had of these thirty notes, gotten through about three pages
Speaker 3: of them, which sometimes is actually like our show, right.
Speaker 1: We've done that too, show.
Speaker 2: That's true.
Speaker 1: Damn, we had fifty five pages.
Speaker 3: I don't remember doing any of this stuff, but yeah,
Speaker 3: so so wild.
Speaker 2: Well what was the big takeaway? Did you guys make
Speaker 2: any news or break any news on the show?
Speaker 3: First, I would say, because Phil can be a controversial
Speaker 3: character these days, he seemed like a very nice man
Speaker 3: to me. I've been on his show twice, the first
Speaker 3: time with Louel Azondo. He's very friendly. But I think
Speaker 3: the difference between the last time we did that show
Speaker 3: and this time is that he's extremely into this UFO thing.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: He's all about UFOs and UAP and I don't know
Speaker 3: that it's making news exactly, but man, this guy came
Speaker 3: out of the gates saying the government's been lying to
Speaker 3: us for seventy nine years, really hard charging we've been
Speaker 3: lied to. We shouldn't be taking it. And it was
Speaker 3: interesting to hear him make that comment. Now you said, though,
Speaker 3: do we make any news? Not maybe on the air,
Speaker 3: Although I do think it was a good show. I
Speaker 3: thought between Chris Mellan and I and Phil setting up
Speaker 3: these questions, we had a chance to do basic catch
Speaker 3: up UFO one oh one kind of thing for people
Speaker 3: that are new to the subject, which I think is great.
Speaker 3: There's positive value to all that. Here's the news we made.
Speaker 3: But I didn't actually learn about it till off camera,
Speaker 3: so we didn't make it on camera. But I said
Speaker 3: to him afterwards, you got this stuff exclusively and all that.
Speaker 3: Doctor Phil tell me about that, and he talked about
Speaker 3: how he actually received the materials. But the highlight for me, Brent,
Speaker 3: as he says, and he got a note from President Trump.
Speaker 3: And that was kind of news to me that there's
Speaker 3: an actual note in the thing and so and it
Speaker 3: said it said, have some fun with this.
Speaker 2: Have some fun with this. Okay. Now, if Trump wrote
Speaker 2: that in a sharpie, is that an executive order? Now?
Speaker 3: I take it as an executive order. I think if
Speaker 3: you and I want to be patriotic Americans at this
Speaker 3: time and get with the program, he's told us to
Speaker 3: have some fun with it. So I think that's probably
Speaker 3: what we should be doing. And by the way, though,
Speaker 3: I do think what's interesting about that if you provide
Speaker 3: exclusive access and whether people argue about whether that's actually
Speaker 3: the right word or whatever, But if you get a
Speaker 3: little bit early and you get a note from the President,
Speaker 3: that's not nothing. And so I wonder if somebody in
Speaker 3: the White House, whether it's Trump or one of his people,
Speaker 3: is actually trying to set Doctor Phillip is the voice
Speaker 3: of disclosure or something like, somebody who could actually be
Speaker 3: at the calming influence whether we have catastrophic disclosure, someone
Speaker 3: who can help walk us through this whole thing. That's
Speaker 3: you've used the phrase as many do ontological shock. If
Speaker 3: there's ontological shock, maybe we need a tour guide through it.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's what they're saying.
Speaker 2: I'll bet that is the thinking. I would like to
Speaker 2: counter that thinking with an opinion that I actually I
Speaker 2: like doctor phil He's a fun person to listen to.
Speaker 2: He seems very smart. But I think he also by
Speaker 2: virtue of him being essentially hand picked by Trump and
Speaker 2: given exclusive access. He's, whether he wants to be or not,
Speaker 2: a polarizing figure in our political landscape. And I think
Speaker 2: what we need, if we're going to have a voice
Speaker 2: of disclosure is somebody that can speak to everyone and
Speaker 2: is an accepted, respected, and trusted voice to not just
Speaker 2: our country but to the world. And again, much as
Speaker 2: I admire doctor Phil, I'm not sure he meets that qualification.
Speaker 1: He doesn't.
Speaker 3: He's polarizing right now. It doesn't mean that he doesn't
Speaker 3: have a large audience. Still, they're interested in him, and
Speaker 3: that he's probably a good voice for those people that
Speaker 3: are willing to accept him in that role. But if
Speaker 3: you look on x or any or Reddit or any
Speaker 3: of the places, he's a guy that people have opinions
Speaker 3: about the fact that he treated me nicely on the air,
Speaker 3: notwithstanding that's just it's almost irrelevant. But he's probably no
Speaker 3: more the voice of all disclosure for all people than
Speaker 3: Kid Rock is the voice of new music for all people.
Speaker 3: It's just someone that Trump likes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, But so what we need, what I would
Speaker 2: look for is somebody who's a little bit more above
Speaker 2: the fray, somebody that is would be a trusted voice
Speaker 2: again internationally. Now, ordinarily i'd go with somebody like Tom Hanks,
Speaker 2: but unfortunately Tom Hanks there's a lot of conspiracy theories
Speaker 2: swirling around him. Is there anybody in the pop culture
Speaker 2: sphere that you can think of that would fit the bill?
Speaker 3: You'd have to throw out Steven Spielberg's name. He's going
Speaker 3: for the last right before Disclosure Day. In the run up,
Speaker 3: he certainly did dozens, if not hundreds, of interviews where
Speaker 3: he was trying to be the voice of the people. Hey,
Speaker 3: I've been studying this for a while. I think this
Speaker 3: is all true. Let me be your tour guide by
Speaker 3: allowing you to see Disclosure Day. So you could say
Speaker 3: that Spielberg was auditioning. Now, whether he passed the audition
Speaker 3: or not, I don't know what's your take.
Speaker 2: I would say polarizing, at least within the UFO community.
Speaker 2: I feel like a lot of people love the film
Speaker 2: and a lot of people didn't for various reasons. And
Speaker 2: so I think Spielberg's a good candidate. I put him
Speaker 2: up on the board, but I still would say he's
Speaker 2: not the perfect candidate.
Speaker 1: Okay, we should probably.
Speaker 3: Rule out or rule in the idea that a politician
Speaker 3: might be that person, right, But the problem, it seems
Speaker 3: to me is Republicans wouldn't support a Democrat, and Democrats
Speaker 3: wouldn't support a Republican in that role unless they were
Speaker 3: extremely special. So then you've got to say, it's not
Speaker 3: somebody out of nowhere. It would have to be somebody
Speaker 3: who's already been speaking on this topic in the public
Speaker 3: square right now on the Republican side of the bench.
Speaker 3: That's what burchat Luna and the guy that was just
Speaker 3: on Jesse Michael's show right after us Burlison, Eric Burlison. Yes, okay,
Speaker 3: So these are all people who are outspoken and generally speaking,
Speaker 3: I like what they're outspoken about. I think that they
Speaker 3: are speaking to a certain segment of the population if
Speaker 3: nothing else. But they are all Republicans and aren't likely
Speaker 3: to work for the Democrats as the voice of hope
Speaker 3: for the future.
Speaker 1: So probably not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And if you jump over the fence to the
Speaker 2: Democratic side, who do we got Schumer?
Speaker 1: Yeah, we do.
Speaker 3: Schumer has been outspoken, he's in this, but let's face it,
Speaker 3: he's not mister Charisma. He certainly is controversial. So yeah,
Speaker 3: we've got to rule him out too, So I guess
Speaker 3: I got to rest my case here. No politicians can
Speaker 3: be considered for the global ambassador of disclosure.
Speaker 2: Okay, the music sector, right, there's some big international names there.
Speaker 2: Let's go down the list. Bruce Springsteen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, unfortunately Bruce, because he endorsed Trump's opponent.
Speaker 1: That's not going to write.
Speaker 2: Taylor Swift did oh?
Speaker 1: Did o?
Speaker 2: Beyonce did oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Okay, so you've got that, You've got it. No, I
Speaker 3: thought you were. I thought you were going to say
Speaker 3: I got it. Will Smith? What about Will Smith? Everybody
Speaker 3: likes Will Smith.
Speaker 2: That did not jump to mind unless unless with Will Smith.
Speaker 2: Unless what we need is our voice of disclosure to
Speaker 2: go smack the aliens in the face when they land.
Speaker 3: As we said, we still don't know exactly what is
Speaker 3: being disclosed? What before we move beyond that? Though celebrities
Speaker 3: are interesting, But is there anybody in the news business,
Speaker 3: Because if you were thinking back to the sixties, you'd
Speaker 3: have to say, Walter Cronkuid clearly could have been a
Speaker 3: consensus candidate in the last century right to tell everybody
Speaker 3: what was going on? Could a newsperson be that person?
Speaker 1: Today?
Speaker 2: All the big news outlets are again polarizing. It's pick
Speaker 2: a side, but in the news, I don't know, are
Speaker 2: you nominating yourself?
Speaker 1: No? And if I was, my wife would say no, okay.
Speaker 3: And besides, I think we're talking about a globally important
Speaker 3: person of some kind, and that we've put that in
Speaker 3: the back of our minds the other day and I'm
Speaker 3: still drawing a blank.
Speaker 2: I think I have somebody, and I think it's going
Speaker 2: to be someone that has a special appeal to you,
Speaker 2: knowing your interests, and it's somebody who I'm racking my brain.
Speaker 2: I can't think of any way that he's politicized himself
Speaker 2: in a way that would take him out of the running.
Speaker 2: But he's somebody that is hugely famous, I think, beloved
Speaker 2: by most of the world. I don't know anything that
Speaker 2: you can put a knock against him, and he transcends
Speaker 2: all generations.
Speaker 3: I am on the edge of my chair, literally on
Speaker 3: the edge of my chair right now. My mind is
Speaker 3: racing because you just said it might be somebody that
Speaker 3: I would support and know I don't know.
Speaker 2: Hit me, Sir Paul McCartney.
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, okay, I'm sitting with that for a second.
Speaker 3: Here all kidding aside. I kind of like it. Think
Speaker 3: about it. Here's a guy, Paul McCartney, over the years
Speaker 3: has always been so polite and cheeky and ironic that
Speaker 3: he's everybody's friend. He's been wonderful in interviews, He's been
Speaker 3: around forever. Everybody likes his concerts, they like his music,
Speaker 3: and he's a sir. So that's pretty cool. You don't listen.
Speaker 3: You mentioned obviously I am a huge Beatles fan. So
Speaker 3: is my friend George Nap by the way, so from
Speaker 3: the UFO community, we both though yes on I did
Speaker 3: write that book once there was a way about what
Speaker 3: if the Beatles never broke up? And the only thing
Speaker 3: I ever turned up that I felt was political during
Speaker 3: that time period is he wrote a song about the
Speaker 3: Irish conflict with Britain. But that seems like old news
Speaker 3: right now. I don't think that's going to keep him
Speaker 3: from anything. I don't recall any political overtly political statements
Speaker 3: the guys made.
Speaker 1: He might be perfect well.
Speaker 2: And you mentioned he could write a song for disclosure.
Speaker 2: This could be the new we are the world. And
Speaker 2: by the way, who better than Sir Paul to come
Speaker 2: up with something that rhymes with tranches.
Speaker 3: Listen if he did, If anybody could do that, Brent,
Speaker 3: Sir Paul could do that.
Speaker 1: I like that on so many levels.
Speaker 3: I guess we should just tell our friends in MI
Speaker 3: six and the CIA, not that you and I have
Speaker 3: any friends in such organizations. So we're speaking metaphorically there.
Speaker 3: Maybe if Britain and the US intelligence agencies could get
Speaker 3: together and agree on Sir Paul, they could brief the
Speaker 3: hell out of him and he could be that guy. Honestly, Again,
Speaker 3: if Sir Paul sat down and said, hey, I didn't
Speaker 3: see this coming for myself, but I've been read in
Speaker 3: and here's what I've learned. Here's what I've seen. Imagine
Speaker 3: imagine showing Sir Paul McCartney a craft or a body,
Speaker 3: or letting him talk to a live creature.
Speaker 1: Oh my god.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm digging this, but I'm.
Speaker 1: Buying that album.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you that I'm buying that album. Hey, everybody,
Speaker 3: Bryce here, be sure to tune in every Thursday when
Speaker 3: you can get a brand new episode of Sound, Light
Speaker 3: and Frequency. It's available wherever you get your podcasts. Hope
Speaker 3: you enjoyed our little bonus feature here. We'll be doing
Speaker 3: more of these in the future as part of our
Speaker 3: relentless global campaign for podcast domination