Breakdown: Chaos, Hearings & New UFO Whistleblowers

This is a message from sponsor Intuit TurboTax. You've sent so many emails to your tax pro and nothing. It feels like you're chasing updates, but now your taxes are done for you by a TurboTax expert. So you actually know what's happening. You can match with an expert and just hand off all your tax stuff to them right in the app. So instead of guessing, you can feel confident you're TurboTax experts on it. Now this is taxes. Intuit TurboTax. Visit TurboTax.com to learn more. Only available with TurboTax experts. Real-time updates, only in iOS mobile app. ¿Quieres mejor internet? Cox Internet de 300 megas tiene las velocidades rápidas y confiables que buscas. Perfecto para streaming y gaming y trabajar desde casa. Todo por solo $45 al mes cuando agregas Cox Mobile. Incluye equipo de Wi-Fi y garantía de precio de dos años en tu plan. No esperes. Cámbiate hoy a Cox. Requiere Cox Mobile Gigan Limited. Garantía de precio no incluye impuestos y cargos. Velocidad de datos móviles se reduce después de 20 gigas al mes. Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy and joining me for a special breakdown to wade through the boggy, murky, swampy waters of the UFO world right now. As things go a little bit batshit crazy. I've got Pavel Ibarra, the host of the Secoactivo Podcast YouTube channel Wonder Show. Pavel, welcome mate. How are you? Good man. It's a shit show, isn't it? It is. Literally the words I used on some of the platforms to ask folks ahead of this to share their thoughts or questions and just saying that it is a shit show at the minute. The UFO world and if this is one of those shows where you're looking for us to dive into the past and what happened 10, 15, 20 years ago, it's not going to be that one. And it's very much the hearing now because we are speeding towards what looks like hearings happening on the 9th of September that were delayed from April, May, June and July. But it looks like we are getting those hearings finally. What they mean to people, Pavel? I think we'll kind of start there, to be honest. I think mean different things. A couple of years ago when we first had wind of upcoming UFO hearings, it was exciting. It was intriguing what was going to happen, who was going to come forward. And since then we've had a few. And I think there's a rather mixed reception as they've went along, maybe to lessening impacts each time, potentially. I think maybe the Grush hearing for most seems to be the one that stands out in people's minds. And we've never quite hit the heights of that again. What do you think about that? I think the first hearing with Grush kind of took everybody by surprise. Because there's a lot of people from the side that is trying to keep this a secret that wasn't expecting Grush. And he came out on NewsNation and then came out at the hearing, said all those things. And that kind of set the tone for what the back and forth would be between both sides. And it was kind of obvious that it was going to be more diluted, the subsequent hearings. And it happened in November. November, it was pretty disappointing to me because, for example, Matthew Brown can be part of the hearings. And I think he's a credible witness for whatever he saw in that program. And now things are getting even more complicated, even though there's a lot more people that came forward this year alone. So it was expected, but there's a lot of confusion on who's a first-hander, who's not a first-hander, who's coming up, what you can do. Personally, I think, and by this point, I think many think the same way. This whole hearings thing is a major distraction, in my opinion. And I think that the political theater is going strong with stuff like this, the Epstein files, and all that. So I was talking to Alan Levine last week, and he's a very seasoned former APRO researcher. And he told me that what he thinks could work and it should work is for people who are citizens to call on their senators, to ask them to just release the information that David Grush allegedly gave them, and all the testimony, and all the material. If they get enough pressure, that can happen. And people are not doing it because they're distracted with the hearing. Where to start then? Right, so you mentioned the who. I don't think we have to go over the other hearings too much. They've been talked about ad nauseum at this point, and it's probably best to look forward. I want to start off just reading a statement that Representative Eric Burleson had made on an X space, or a Twitter space for the old school kids among us who still remember Twitter and the Bluebird. Pavel, I know you're more of an X space guy than I am. I have attended very few, yours being one of the only ones I've ever went on, I think, back in the day. But Burleson made a comment, and I'm going to read it, folks, as it was said by Representative Eric Burleson when I wrote this and posted it online, as did many other folks, Pavel, people were kind of slating the way it was written out, but this is literally how he spoke it, folks. Okay, so I won't do the impression. He said, So to give you an idea who we've got, one individual is a former U.S. Air Force veteran who can, is going to speak to five UAP incidents during his time that he witnessed and that he investigated. You've got another individual who is a Navy officer who witnessed UAP events firsthand, and then got another U.S. Air Force officer who witnessed firsthand events. So we've got, and I'm not going to give their names, but those are the individuals that we've been working on. It's we often have people trying to get, you know, that have already come out publicly, and I think that a lot of people want, some people want those, but I think that what's better is if we bring forward some new perspectives and people that have not come forward until this moment, some fresh witnesses. So that's kind of what we are working on. So for a start, Pavel, when you hear that, three individuals at first, all firsthand witnesses, and I want to start there. For you, what constitutes a firsthand witness? Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for, because a firsthand witness could be an observer only. Yep. And that's a firsthand witness. You can observe the program, like Immaculate Constellation documents, or you can have a sighting. But I think that what people really want is hands-on firsthand witnesses who have handled materials or biologics. Presumably, what we all expected was at least one scientist. We got none. Yep. It seems like we have more military personnel. The first one that he described, though, if you are following the topic, it's kind of evident that it may be one of the people that are already very public. So, but yeah, that's what I think the people want, somebody with hands-on experience. And apparently, the only one who's trying to do that, according to what he says, is Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp. And according to what he said recently, they're not allowing them. And these legacy program people don't want to come forward because there are not enough protections for them. So we're going to have to conform with what they give us. I don't know if that's enough, but that's what we get, I guess. Yeah, my concern is what you say around it being a sighting and someone coming forward to say, I saw lights in the sky and they moved really strangely. Another time, we were observing something on radar and it shot off at incredible speed. And we report, and it's the same kind of stuff we have heard over and over again. And for me, yeah, firsthand has to be hands-on with biological material or crashed craft. And I don't mean tiny fragments of metal that like we've seen in little test tubes and things like that, you know, like dental fillings. We need to be seeing, you know, folks who have handled substantial amounts of material. And I just, it's almost like we're being set up that that's not going to happen. The expectations are largely being tempered. And in that case, the hearings aren't for the UFO community. But even then, is that going to whet the public appetite? Because I think, again, it doesn't sound like we're going to get anything better than what we had with David Grush. It's because Grush, that was both for the UFO community and for the general public, because it was the first time ever that anybody was talking about this so publicly, because we know that Greer already had hearings in his day. And he did talk about pretty wild stuff. But this felt, the Grush hearing felt like a more official kind of hearing. And it had a lot more media coverage. Then anything after that, it's exactly what we need, what you just described. And it doesn't seem like we're getting it. So, yeah, it's going to be for the general public. And it's probably going to attract a lot more people that weren't on the topic. But the UFO community is probably not going to be happy about the result of this one if we don't get these first-hand, hands-on people. I think it's difficult anyway to please the UFO community. You'll know that as well as anyone. In terms of names, though, do you think... I've written down some names that I wouldn't be shocked if we seen. But again, I don't know how folks would feel about them. One of the big ones you always see mentioned online is Jay Stratton, former head of the UAP Task Force. He seems to be the guy or one of the guys who have always got some kind of connection to anything that's gone on in the background of any substance in the last 20 years in the UFO topic. He's been in briefings. He's been part of the programs. He's chipped in with drafts of legislation, all that kind of stuff. How would you feel about Stratton coming forward? Is he someone that should be there? I don't know if he would do it. I don't even know if a subpoena would work on him because I don't know how much classified information he actually knows. The little I know about him is from the books, from whatever George Knapp says about him, from whatever Joe Mergia says about him because Mergia also reports a lot about him. But it seems like most of his experiences, and I may be wrong here, come from his visits to Skinwalker Ranch. And I don't know if the congresspeople and those who are trying to get witnesses on the stand consider Skinwalker Ranch a very credible source because it's a history channel show for starters, and it's always been shrouded in a lot of different narratives and all of the stories that you hear from that place, some of them are too fantastical. And I would say that, for example, I don't know if Burleson, probably he would entertain it, but a lot of people from the Congress, from the UAP caucus, when they hear something like a werewolf or stuff like that linked to Jay Stratton, I don't know if they would accept that really. Right. That's the issue then for me, Pavel, is one, I would strongly suggest that Stratton has far more experiences, a lot more tangible than what we've heard publicly. I think he is associated publicly with a lot of the Skinwalker stuff, especially the Dino Beaver comments, which seem to ring for a lot of folks. And no matter how serious a guy you are and what you may have had access to, if you come forward and stand in testimony and mention the Dino Beaver stuff, or even he may want to avoid that, but it just takes someone from Congress with a gripe or a grudge to go, you know, let me ask you about the Dino Beavers that have been seen at Skinwalker Ranch. That's a credibility killer in the eyes of the public. Same with the dire wolf stuff and things climbing in and out of portals or just conversations that, again, some people won't like to hear this, but are best kept away from those types of settings at the minute. And I would worry, yeah, that some of that stuff would come up in a hearing and, like you say, you start to associate it with a TV show, regardless of the science that is being done there that may get lost in amongst the entertainment side of things with it. Yeah, I'm wary of the Stratton one, but I wonder, is it similar to Lou Elizondo, where each passing hearing, folks wanted Elizondo to take the stand? And I think it was one of those things that had to happen just to get it done. And I wonder if Stratton would be a good one to take the stand. But then, is there an unfortunate optic that his book is going to be due for release? I don't think around the time of the hearing, I don't think we've got a release date for it. I imagine it's going to be well into next year. But again, it then can look like to anyone in the public trying to take this seriously, oh, this guy's just looking to sell a book. Like, I say that fully aware, my book is over my shoulder, Pavel. I say that with full awareness. Sorry, folks. Yeah, but you're not testifying in Congress. Ah, well, you don't know that. Big difference. If you don't know that, I could be one of these witnesses. I would pick Lekatsky instead of Jay Stratton, if you ask me. Because some of the statements he made on one of the books are very interesting. And it seems like he did have hands-on experience. So he would be like at the top of my list instead of Jay. I think that also the whole spat with Elizondo is not helping Jay's case. And I think that that needs to be resolved completely. And until that is resolved completely, I don't know if I would want to go public with anything. Because the bad optics is a constant problem in the UFO community and in the UFO topic. And you see someone who comes out with claims and all that. And if you see some stuff that they did that does affect their credibility or the optics, that becomes more difficult to become trustworthy, you know, for stuff so massive as this topic. And I think that's a major issue that I know that there's a lot of people that don't want to go in the gutter and not talk about this stuff. But it is happening. And it's conflicts that need to be resolved. And the less people address them, the longer it's going to take for them to be resolved. They need to be addressed and they need to be taken care of maturely, I would say. Yeah, I think the statements you're talking about from the book, and I just had to double check. It's got a really long-winded title. But it's the initial revelations is the short version with Lekatsky, Colm Kelleher and George Knapp. It was the follow-up to Skinwalkers at the Pentagon. And I'm guessing it's the statement around Lekatsky being involved in a conversation where they talk about having a craft, which they couldn't access for a long time, when they finally did gain access to the inside of it. It was bigger on the inside than it was on the outside, very Doctor Who style. Again, I don't know how much publicly he could go into that. But again, if he could even tease some level of, I can tell you more, but in a classified setting, I don't know. So, yeah, Lekatsky could be a good one. Again, you mentioned people who are far more public, who may or may not come forward. Jake Barber might be an interesting one. James Fowler, who was one of the co-founders of Skywatcher. It's a little bit of a murky story in this whole episode. It's around the murkiness of the conversation at the minute. And folks, apologies if I get this wrong. Pavel, you can correct me. Jake Barber and co., they started Skywatcher, but James Fowler was already doing some of the work through whichever means before Barber and co. got involved. And that's why there was a bit of confusion around this whole, we've been doing this five years. And it was like, no, no, James Fowler has been doing what he's been doing for five years. Skywatcher then came along, became part of it. James Fowler, though, was quite a big part of Skywatcher, has just gotten a contract back in the US government. And Skywatcher's put out a statement around that, wishing them all the best. You know, they're consolidating their data, updates to come soon. But a lot of folks are very wary of what this does to Skywatcher. Not only from a reputation point of view, a credibility point of view, but their claims of, you know, potential disclosure by the end of the year through themselves. So, two questions there on Jake Barber as a witness, but also the Skywatcher situation with James Fowler moving on. Yeah, Jake Barber has repeatedly stated that he already gave statements to the Senate Armed Services Committee. I don't think he's even willing to go forward on a hearing. He also thinks, like Allen, that the hearings are a waste of time. He thinks that the information is already there and it can be released. The Senate just needs to be pushed somehow. I think that's what Jake Barber's position was the last time I checked. I don't know if it has changed. Probably, maybe. I don't know. But that's the stance right now. And with Fowler, I think that, I don't know if you remember when he was interviewed by Jesse Michaels. They were talking about potentially releasing some of the methods that he uses to identify these objects and record them and all that stuff. And Fowler said something along the lines of, I am waiting for the government to tell me to stop. Yeah. Or something like that. And it seems like it just happened. And they told him to stop and threw money at him. And now he's out. He has his contract. And this is something that is also happening with another individual who's not part of the government right now. But I think that Skywatcher is going to have to do a lot to live up to the promises that they made. Because they sounded like promises. And I really have lowest expectations of what they could deliver, especially with everything going on right now. Was the dog whistle technology James Fowler's? That's unclear. They haven't been transparent with that. They just said it's their secret sauce. I got that feeling, Cavill, that it was Fowler. And I just wonder, is it his ball? And he's going to go, I need to take this. You know, my mum's calling me now for dinner. I have to go home. And Jake Barber and Cor are out there with her psionic assets. And they no longer have their dog whistle. But again, that's the kind of stuff that we could do with knowing. But I've said before, realistically, we aren't shareholders in Skywatcher. They are not a publicly traded company. They are privately funded. They don't have to come and give us this information. However, I think the more they do, the better that could be for them, certainly. I don't know. I think we have to kind of wait and see on that one. The third episode was due to be released, which I believe is going to be around the psionic aspect of things. And we wait and see what's going to come from that. But yeah, so Jake Barber then, potentially, I know for you, maybe he's shared. He's done a two and a half hour interview with Ross Coulter, which maybe he's shared all he can share or wants to share. You know, he went quite deep, to be fair to him. So I don't think he would excite me. But there have been far less exciting witnesses already at previous hearings that I would have rather heard from Jake Barber again. Matthew Brown, you mentioned before, Matthew Brown came forward, Immaculate Constellation author. He had found that programme. Was it a war game? Was it not? All that conversation's been had. Corbell and Nat brought him forward. I thought we may have heard more from Matthew Brown before now. Is that with a view to him perhaps appearing at the hearings? I think Jeremy Corbell online has stated it's not his position to say whether Matthew Brown will come forward as a witness or not. Maybe he's holding his cards close to his chest. I'm sure Jeremy will be sitting in front row regardless. But what's your take on Matthew Brown coming forward? Would you want to see that? I would. Because from that tweet alone that he made where he called out Elon Musk and all that, that already gave up a bunch of names of classified stuff, potentially a bunch of companies that are potentially involved in a lot of this. So he seems to know quite a lot more. But I don't know how much he can say because I would imagine that he caused quite a stir with his three-part interview and then that tweet. I think the tweet was what probably, if it was me, I would have gone hiding and not make a single public statement after that, man. And that's exactly what he has done. He has just like occasionally tweeted some things. He's liked some of my tweets, though, which I found really cool. But, yeah, he would be a great addition to the whole list. And I don't know if he will be. I hope so. I hope so, really. But I don't know, man. He's really too quiet right now. Yeah, I had a brief exchange with him on the old ex just to kind of say hi and such. And he acknowledged it. But, yeah, he's certainly stayed low, stayed quiet. I don't even know if his account is still active anymore. I was just double checking. As of now, it might be gone. But, yeah, so. No, he's there. Oh, is he still there? Yeah, he's still there. Okay, cool. So, yeah, he made some pretty out there statements. He came across, I think most folk mentioned, as a very normal guy. When he spoke to Corbell and Knapp, he was pretty nervous in a way that made him seem more realistic. But, yeah, I'm not too sure. In terms of this coming forward, then, if we get a disappointing rollout of bog standard witnesses, and when I say bog standard, no disrespect, I imagine there'll be highly credible folks with decent positions within the military, within government, with, you know, all that kind of stuff, within aerospace. Where do we go from there, then? Are these hearings, I think it was either Lester Nary or Bright, I think Brian Bender, journalist, when I spoke to Brian Bender, and he thought the hearings were at least good for holding the politicians' feet to the fire just to keep the subject there. And they may not be having the biggest impact, but it's keeping it in public view. And is that better, Pavel, than them not having them at all? It is until a point, because there comes a point when you feel like you're just chasing your tail, and that will get people disinterested in the topic. I think that, yeah, holding politicians' feet to the fire is important, but people don't seem to ask senators, like, pretty much anything. They only, like, try to push congresspeople, representatives of the House. But I think that they need to push more senators, especially from the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I don't think this is going through to people, that they need to do that. They can. They just got to call their office and push them to release the information. Whatever Jake Barber gave them, they have it all. Whatever anybody who went to them and got in either a skiff or an unclassified setting, they have that. So if they get enough pressure, they have to release it, because they want constituents. They want your votes. So people need to realize how powerful they really are if they do act together en masse and push their politicians. I'm going to read you some statements from my listeners. I asked them around the Burleson's comments, around the witnesses, around the hearings, just to gauge, you know, the atmosphere around it and how people feel. So David said, Personally, I don't want to sit through another hearing where people say they've seen unexplainable things in the sky or their mate told them something. We need people who have worked at or in facilities that have seen or handled exotic materials or seen the bodies. Otherwise, it's just chatter, conjecture or wishful thinking. The bodies are the key that unlocks Pandora's box, not craft or an esoteric piece of material. I wonder on that, though, Pavel, Grush has talked about biologics. Grush talked about pilots and bodies. You know, he was asked about that. I think it was, was it Nancy Mace who asked about that at the time? And it still got the public's attention for a fleeting moment and then was gone. I don't know how much someone can say publicly, even if they did get the scientist in. And I've often mentioned, Pavel, you know, if we get the Brent Spiner scientist from Independence Day who has literally been underground for 10 years at Area 51 working on the bodies, they're still only going to be able to say so much in a public setting, aren't they? Yeah. And something that I think could also work so they can talk about this, because if anybody has been trying to prevent people from going into a SCIF, it's because they must have some information that is classified. And if they get in there and talk about classified information, they jeopardize themselves. So I don't know if this would work because I'm not very savvy in American law, but do you think it might be possible that maybe either the president or another organism within politics in America could give these people full immunity so they can just come forward and talk about this stuff? I was always, I always wondered about that. Do you think that may be possible? Yeah. I mean, again, there'll be people legally speaking, shouting at us just now, Pavel, but I'm in the same boat as you, but surely you could completely, I mean, I had someone ask me around the NDAs to say that if the NDAs have been covering up criminal activity, then doesn't that make the NDA potentially null and void? Again, can the president or whoever just completely, I don't want to bring this up, but, you know, could the president pardon people? You know, tell us what you know, and then I'll just give you a pardon. I think this president has famously pardoned people before. Most presidents do. And especially in this topic, yeah, I imagine there would be ways around it. I'd love to hear it. I'd love to see it, but I don't know if the appetite's there from a presidential level. Yeah, and it feels like they're posturing, a lot of them, the people from the cabinet, they say, oh, I'm interested. Oh, yeah, I want to know about that. Nothing happens. How interested are they really? They just, yeah, they just make statements just to, yeah, for the people to see. That's it. Yeah. A few more statements from listeners. Joe said, this is good. It would be better if they were genuine insiders who could shed light on the purported program. Shelley said, I'll wait until I've heard what they have to say. Wallace said, if this is what we're getting, can we please, please, please not have another hearing? Three more people who saw some vague lights in the sky, only to be told they didn't see anything. Kind of feels like deja vu in the 70s. Johnix said, I've not seen a UFO or anything or any beings and I'm not telepathic. But at this point, I'm convinced all of these phenomena based on the testimonies of others. David Grushy's testimony in Congress was significant at a time when I find myself in a mindset to listen and take it seriously. While ever the consensus is still to ignore, debunk and mock, even the Pope, even the President of America couldn't be taken seriously on this topic. We here believe we are ready to know what's going on. But in my experience in the UK, debunking is an instinct and almost no one thinks it's aliens visiting the earth would affect our lives in any way. Thus, I still think we're doing the groundwork as regards to this topic. Don't think that's unfair. I think the UK is a little bit more sceptical on the topic all round. I think even if I manage to get, if I get asked to do any media appearances, stuff like that, they're always a little bit trepidatious. Similar to what you have said, Pavel, where the politicians can sound interested, you get presenters on the TV, on the news. They're listening, but they're not intently listening. And they're very quick to move on to the next news story, just as quick as they've heard it. What is your take in general on Eric Burleson and how the focus from Tim Burchett seems to have shifted to Burleson in terms of the head of the UFO conversation from a political point of view? So, first, I want to mention something from that comment that said debunking is an instinct. That's very interesting. I think it should be for most of the stuff that we see in this field tends out to be either prosaic or bullshit. So, I think that's a good place to try and remain to see if you can find it. But you also have to remain open-minded because when something you cannot explain, I think it deserves more investigation. As it pertains to Burleson, I have mixed feelings about him because I see him very involved and I do applaud him for that. He's going on every single podcast, regardless of political affiliation or religious belief or whatever. He went to Mexico, he visited Jaime Maussan, he sat next to Stephen Greer, he's done everything. And that I do applaud him for, but I also think that he has a lot of people from different narratives whispering in his ears. And that can be really distracting. So, I would just ask, I guess, it's okay to go on podcasts and talk about giants and Nephilim and angels and the religious aspect of this whole thing. But as long as you remain, I guess, open that anything could be possible, not just that, I'm okay with whatever you want to do. It is not good optics, though, because the more scientific minds don't agree with him going on these podcasts that talk about the more biblical aspect of this. But I guess that's the best we get right now, him and Luna. Luna is a little more chaotic with her statements and her appearances, and she kind of doesn't seem like she knows everything that she's talking about. It comes across as that. In the Joe Rogan interview, she did sound like she didn't know a lot of what she was discussing. She was just like speaking. She was trying to repeat a lot of things she's heard from experts or read online. Spitting out talking points she was doing. And Burchett was an interesting one to me because he kind of backed off a little bit. But I've always had a theory that him, Matt Gaetz, Luna, and Burleson probably already saw some stuff that moved their worldview quite significantly. And I think that may be one of the reasons Burleson specifically is so dead set on trying to find out what's going on. And I can't hate on that in any way, honestly, regardless of his beliefs. Because he says he's skeptical. I don't think he's that skeptical. I think he probably already thinks he knows what's going on. But it's okay to say it in public that he's skeptical. But his actions kind of speak otherwise a little bit. That's just my opinion. I don't know what you think. I think one of the reasons he's came to the fore is I think Tim Burchett, the last time I spoke to him on the podcast, he was rather dejected. I think it was just after the hearing where Schellenberger had put the Immaculate Constellation into the hearing. But then we had the whole situation where it was Corbell who'd brought it along. Obviously, we now know through Matthew Brown, the page, the introduction page had been left off of the letter. And then Burchett was really frustrated with that. I think it was the next morning I spoke to Tim in his office. And again, folks, I literally, if folks wonder about how these things come about, I had contacted the staffer who was helping Tim, Congressman Burchett, sorry, and at very short notice, he was like, yes, he's available. Do you want to speak to him in the next, it was like an hour. He was literally just out the gym in the morning, jumped into his office to speak to me for 10 minutes before he went about his day. And that's how those kind of come about sometimes. All very chaotic. I think I was in the middle of a dog walk, which I had to cut short to run home and record. But he was really dejected and people picked up on that. He seemed to think that they don't have the power and the influence to do what they want to do. And even then, that can differ from congressman to congresswoman to congressman, depending on their level of political sway, power, influence, where they're at in their career, how they're seen. And for whatever reason, Burleson seems to have surprised me that he's gotten so involved when I thought he would perhaps go the other way. Totally agree on Luna. I'm all for the topic ultimately being kept in the public eye. I don't think the Joe Rogan interview with her was a train wreck by any means. But I do think it sounded like you have just read Diana Pasilka or been told that. You have just read Richard Dolan or seen that online. You have been talking to Stephen Greer or seen that documentary. And it was like as if she'd crammed for an exam the night before. And we've all been, I remember university and college and school, studying the night before for an exam. I hadn't studied for for six months before and I should have. And I just had chunks of information in my head that I tried to cram into one question to get as many marks as I could. And it's not quite flowing. It's not quite coherent. But some of it's right. Other parts of it are a little bit mixed up and don't quite need to be where they are. But they're there. And I got that feeling with Luna. I said that on the roundup I'd done recently, Pavel, that it did sound like a lot of chunks and interesting. But she kept wanting to bring it back to the books of the Bible, I remember. She mentioned that a few times. Like, we should come back to that. We should come back to that. It was like, it's something I find interesting. So let me talk about it rather than it fitting the flow of the conversation naturally. And that can go one of two ways with people. But I think at last check, it's well over a million, perhaps two million views on YouTube now. That particular episode. Great for content. Huge. And let's be fair. Rogan's pretty good with this stuff at pulling the information out. And he doesn't shirk away from asking the hard questions either. He doesn't care. He's not getting cancelled or I guess not coming back on. He did disappoint me when he spoke about remote viewing because he doesn't seem very well versed on it. And if you're not well versed on something that ethereal, probably you shouldn't talk about it. That really did disappoint me. He did say on it though, he did say to try and look on the bright side, you know, that it was fascinating that they managed to find the coordinates of a, I think it was, was it the Ingo Swan remote viewing of when they found the location of a top secret cabin, that was the cabin he was looking for, but it actually was the facility behind it. Sorry, I'm bastardising the details there. But yeah, he's got an interest, but perhaps Luna was diving all over the place with so much, it's hard to kind of hone in on there. On that whole Luna-Louis Lizondo situation, Pavel, I've not spoken about it with anyone yet. I just want to get your take on how you feel that drama looked online where Luna on the show on Rogan commented about the skiff flu situation. And for folks unaware, she was basically, I don't think this is unfair to say, Pavel, she was getting at Elizondo, Grush and Christopher Mellon were meant to be in a skiff. She says they got skiff flu, basically shout out of being in a skiff and cancelled on them. Didn't name them, but that's who she was talking about. Elizondo took it personally, got online, had a bit of a retort. Luna then got back at him. They had a back and forward on X, which looks immature. I've heard you, Pavel, talking about adults in the room on one of your recent podcasts as well. It didn't have a great look. We've mentioned optics multiple times. It's one of my favourite words on this podcast. And for a sitting congresswoman and a former counterintelligence agent, former head of ATIP, sorry, to be having that out on social media in front of thousands of people didn't look great, regardless who was right or wrong. The truth's probably somewhere in the middle. Yeah, it was a bit of a mess. And then you put Ivan in the mix with his inflammatory statements, and that really sent it into a different orbit, the whole drama. I think this kind of stuff is what makes those who are trying to keep these things secret just smile and sit back and enjoy the show. That's what I think. And I don't know if it's by default or by design, but this stuff just keeps happening. And it's really funny whenever something big or potentially big is coming, like the hearing, for example, or the legislation that was just trying to be reintroduced, something like this always happens pertaining to drama and to, yeah, the mess. And I really can't say much more about it. I know what's going on. The subpoena probably will go out against Lou. Now Ivan is accusing Grush of stuff. He said Grush and Neil are the worst people. Is that the comment? Something like that, yeah. Yeah, and basically he's insinuating that Grush is like very controlling and telling people what to do, what not to do. So putting Grush in a really bad light or trying to, and the people that are like against Lou Alessandro kind of think that this is like a considered effort to just spread more misinformation from a counterintelligence standpoint. I have no dog in the game. I just know that, for example, Lou has already made a couple of mistakes that made me lose trust and made a lot of people lose trust. And I just can't take him as seriously as I probably used to in the past. And on the other side, I also see, for example, that there's a lot of people from either Grush or Nell or Jay Stratton that are also not forthcoming with what they do. They put NDAs in enforced. They don't talk about stuff purposely. Whenever they go to conventions, they ask for whatever they talk about there to not be public. They just hide information like that. And I think that's completely unfair. It just makes it look really bad. So currently, I honestly don't know who to trust out of the people that are trying to put this forward because that movie Age of Disclosure, for example, that really screams to me as the arms race sort of talking point being at the center of it all. And I just don't like that. I don't like that mentality of just perpetuating conflict and war and division amongst countries. And I think so far, that's what I gather. That's what I think they're doing. And I just don't agree. I can't be on board with it. So it's really difficult to know who I can trust. And when it comes to politicians, I trust no politician at all. I never have. And I never will, I don't think. So, yeah, it has been quite the spectacle. Very disappointing. I try to remember when I get disappointed with any group or individual or an act of an individual that at play here, and I think it's something I've learned over the last kind of four or five years in my personal life, in my private life, my work life, this podcast being my personal and work life, whatever it is, strange situation. I try and look at the big picture quite often because you can get sucked into small kind of macro level little isolated moments or situations. And I try and take a step back sometimes and go, look, at the end of the day, there are almost definitely some very scary people in charge or overseeing this whole conversation, not that they can completely control it, but they have decades and decades of experience, cover-ups, psychological warfare, and they're in charge of gatekeeping some very dangerous, dark, terrifying secrets. The least of which is, are we alone, yes or no, but all the connotations that perhaps come with that that we hear about and what the impacts are for that on society. And then if you think, if you can try and sit back and almost give yourself that as a mantra that that's what this is, then when you drill down to these two people arguing about should you have attended this meeting or not, how huge is that in the grand scheme of the overall topic here? And an individual, you mentioned Lou Elizondo making mistakes, I've covered them on the podcast, whether he holds up a photograph or not of an irrigation field and whether his messaging was mixed or poorly communicated, whether he was given bad advice, whether Luna on Rogan talks in ways she shouldn't, whether any journalist puts out information that comes to be wrong or they can't burn a source or they choose not to burn a source or it's a bit, trust me, bro, it shouldn't put people off the subject at whole or at large because people are having incredible experiences, having incredible sightings, both personal, both profound, it spans decades, there's a bigger topic here, if there was nothing to cover up and there was nothing to see, you wouldn't see the pushback that we're seeing on this. Yeah, it's not ideal, yes things are a bit of a shit show like we said, but I think, are we in that kind of awkward moment before the storm? And I've got some comments we'll get to from listeners, Pavel, for both of us some questions, but some folks are still quite content that we're actually making progress, that perhaps we are getting somewhere and that maybe the folks in power see this as a bit of a rattling at the door, you know? So, yeah. It's possible though, but I just find it really strange that some of the people involved in the disclosure movement, the new one, they don't seem, they seem like they know some stuff that they're not sharing, and I get that some of that stuff may be classified, but it does kind of feel like some other of that stuff is not classified, and you're just waiting for the right moment to release it. I think that's kind of bullshit. I don't know why they do this, this timing of stuff, but, yeah, I would say that we are way ahead compared to pre-2017, you know? I get that. And probably I'm guilty of being a little bit impatient at times because I only got fully into this topic in 2019 or so. And I've spoken to more seasoned researchers who have been doing this for decades, and they do tell me that before 2017 there was nothing like this. So, yeah, in that sense I do agree, but there's also a lot of questions that I just have with all of the people involved, mostly the ones who are pro-government, that they seem to be steering this towards a very specific outcome. And I don't know if that will be beneficial for everybody. I know it will be beneficial for the United States government. That for them sure will be, but there's a lot of people from within the UFO research and community who were here way before these new players arrived that don't agree with the way things are going, and they've always thought that there's something fishy going on. And I don't know. There may be something, so we have to look into it, you know? Yeah. Before we go on to finish on some listener questions and thoughts, Pavel, you yourself are one of those, you know, you've got that journalistic background, you've been doing some digging yourself, and you were speaking to a new whistleblower. You have just put a video out. We're recording this about an hour or so after you've released a new video that I've not fully had the chance to catch up on yet. Do you want to just share the story of the kind of work you've done, the research that's gone into it, and kind of what's happened? Yeah. Well, this guy, his name is Michael. I initially released a video of him with a pseudonym, which is the Civilian Axelrod. I thought it was a nice play in words with the two previous Axelrods that have already been out. This guy, initially, the information was kind of weird because he wasn't giving it all away for me to understand fully what was going on. But he did show me email exchanges and direct messaging exchanges with people from Congress and the Senate. And I double-checked with other people that I know are acquainted with people at the Senate and Congress, and they said, yeah, that's real. So I decided to move on with the story. And initially, he released a statement where he explains the reason he decided to not go completely public with the information that he has. He was a little vague. He said that he had a sighting in 2003, which is before the Tic Tac encounter with the Nimitz, and that he potentially had video and material from something that he found. But it wasn't clear what he was really doing. He claimed to be a businessman. And on Sunday, Representative Burleson spoke about him because my friend Craig Oliver from the Escape Velocity Medium account and from the Magenta project, he asked him a question during that space. And Burleson confirmed that this guy is indeed real, that he is dealing with people in Congress, that he was going in classified settings and talking about this. And he also said that there was this component to the story that prevented them from going forward quickly because he was apparently trying to get a government contract of some sorts. And that's why Tim Phillips, for example, accused this guy of trying to extort the government. And according to the information that I had, that was cleared. He wasn't accused of anything. They investigated the case and he was cleared. And Burleson did confirm that he did see a video and a photo that really did surprise him that he was like... And he showed this video and photo to some people within the defense industry who deal with classified aircraft all the time. And they were surprised that this guy apparently has a method to... Like a tracking system to identify these craft and take pictures and videos of them really close up. So the thing is, the recent statement that he gave to me gave me all that clarity that I needed. So this guy in 2003 had an accidental sighting that he took video of of a triangular craft in the fields of Wichita. And he took video of it, close up. Since then, he has developed... He became sort of like a UFO hunter of sorts. Kind of like the Tedesco's, kind of like James Fowler, I would guess. And he developed a system that also has a high rate of accuracy where he can record these things. He can take pictures of these things and attract these things. But he's not using psionics or anything like that. It's completely nuts and bolts. And this system is what he attempt... Over the last couple of years or so, he has been attempting to sell to the defense industry and to the government. And this is what made congresspeople and even senators, I would guess, hesitant to deal with him because he's trying to get a payday. Because he's been working at this for a long time. After the accidental sighting, he claims to have recorded many more videos that are really up close and taken many more photos of different sightings that he tracked with this radar system. The details of how the radar system works and all that, he didn't divulge yet. But it is an interesting case. I do not agree with a lot of what he says about trying to enact superiority in the United States over the other countries. I think that perpetuates conflict and war, which is something that we don't need more of right now. And I do say that in my video, that I don't like the way this guy is tackling everything he's trying to do because it's very clear that he's looking for a payday. He may have really good evidence, according to Burleson, but he's trying to go through their system so he can beat it. He wants to go through a polygraph. He wants to testify, but only if there's a polygraph involved. And he will release whatever evidence he has, but only if he gets into this polygraph. Now, when it comes to his payday, he's trying now to get it somewhere else, not just through the government. And that's why he got a little bit overwhelmed when a lot of people from the UFO media started trying to get him on the show, on their shows. And he kept saying no. And he also doesn't think that what he saw and what he's recording is alien or NHI. He thinks that's just really advanced human technology. And he's like very dead set on that. So that is another reason why he's being so secretive about it because potentially whatever he's recording with this new system that he has could be really classified stuff. And that's why he's like also, wait, I'm not going fully forward with this because I don't know if I could get in trouble or not. He claims that he had threats from China. Like, it's a really interesting case. The first civilian who goes into a skiff to talk about these things, as far as I'm concerned. So that's also a first, really interesting. Is this by any chance the guy who was meant to come forward who was associated with Ivan Hanel? Yes, that's the same guy. That's the same guy, yeah. Because when I spoke to Ivan, he mentioned a businessman. That's the same guy. Okay, cool. I know Ivan had said he doesn't expect him to go forward. Ivan talked about it on your show. I know that the guys from the Disclosure Tonight show, also on July 7th, they came out with the very first story about him. But yeah, it's the same guy. I know that there's a lot of issues with him being associated with Ivan, especially lately, with everything that's been happening. And I do address that at the beginning of my video because I also don't agree with everything that's happening with Ivan and Lou and Luna. I just think that this case should be separated from that case. And Michael also didn't like what happened. He thought it was just a little bit too much noise for whatever he's trying to do. But yeah, it's the same guy. It's a strange one, though, because like you say, as soon as you mention money, and the guy's being open, isn't he, about, you know, I want my payoff for this. The angle that he's quite adamant, this is not alien, and this is advanced human technology, it's almost goading the government or a private contractor into, I can film your stuff, or I've found, I've stumbled across the frequency you guys are using. I've found, for how I've done it, and I'm showing you, it's borderline bribing, bribing them, almost. I probably have to watch what you say there legally, but given what we're talking about, I imagine it's fine. But yeah, he's kind of like, I know what you're doing. So pay me, and I'll stop. And he mentions, he also mentions that, in this statement, that he has like, bigger offers that he's rejecting, because he's trying to protect national security. But then, why do you mention these offers, dude? It's like, you're putting yourself out for auction, almost. That's not a good look, in my opinion. But I mean, and I told him, because he was like, you don't have to go easy on me. I know you won't agree with a lot of what I'm saying, and I'm like, yeah, you're damn right I don't. This looks bad. It does. Even if it's true, it doesn't look good. No. But do you know what? It raises an interesting conversation, perhaps one for another day, Pavel, it'd be great to have you back to chat through. But the idea that as, let's take this at face value, and there's a truth to what the guy's saying. As civilians, technology gets better when you can have folks like, you mentioned, Gerald and John Tedesco, kitting themselves out on an Ecto-1, but for UFOs. The more citizen science that's happening, the more technology becomes accessible to the masses, the more AI makes it easy for idiots like me to be able to produce shows like this, and even beyond, and get into the realms of capabilities and skills that you used to have to study for years and years and years to master, we can now crudely reproduce. And do you get to a point, I mentioned a couple of years ago, speaking to Dan a few times, that you're going to get to a point where Elon Musk is putting Kanye West on the moon for commercial space tourism. What are they going to see? What are they going to do? And are we getting into those realms where the government and private contractors need to do something because the public will catch up? Yeah. And also you can add the tech bros that are also trying to get in the game clearly. So that also adds a whole new level to this thing. But yeah, it's exciting though, isn't it? Because now it seems like it's way more difficult to just bury something or put it under the rug if it comes out from a citizen because in the past with no internet, with not such massive coverage of communication, it was easier to just either take someone's credibility or even worse, make them disappear or something like that. Now it's not that easy. Now there's more people coming out and even Jake Barber said in his interview with Clocus that they were just one of many different groups that were doing this through different means and different techniques and all that. So I like this, honestly. Even if this guy's case is not looking good because of what he's trying to do, I would encourage more civilian researchers and inventors to just go public and see what they can get and share the data that they have because that's what's going to make this truly open source in my opinion. Yeah, it reminds me of it used to be easy to hide small things or big things. You know, you can make them go away but now it's easier to just really throw a lot more bullshit out there. Like the end of Batman and Robin, I'm going to give a spoiler here for a movie that's getting on 30 years old but, you know, Two-Face throws his coin up and rather than try and catch the coin or interfere with the coin, Batman just throws a whole bag of coins up in there and Two-Face doesn't know which coin to go for and that seems to be the easiest way to do it now especially with online social media. You just throw lots of bullshit out there. And Pavel, tomorrow you could post the best UFO footage of all time online. You could just throw a whole load of other stuff out there with bullshit researchers and other channels being sent, great videos that all are easily debunked and yours just gets lost in the shuffle. It's just another coin up in there. And it's really unfortunate that this guy seems to allude that the video taken in 2003, that's the video that is classified now because apparently that's what he brought to the skiff. And that's unfortunate. I was hoping that that wasn't the case and that was the video that he could release. But he said that the video that he can release apparently is 4K from 2019 and further and closer to this date. And that's unfortunate because today we live in an AI world and it's just much easier to debunk. But a video from 2003, that's not that easy, that you can trace that. And if that's classified, that's so unfortunate. Yeah, 100%. Let's dive into some listener questions, Pavel, to finish off. It's been really good with your time, mate, so I appreciate it. That is all for part one. Part two will be out in the next couple of days. You can listen to this episode already in full, ad-free and with no sponsors for less than the price of a coffee. If you head on over to Patreon or Apple, you can subscribe to the podcast for less than the price of a coffee or take up the two weeks free trial that are available on those platforms. You can head on over to Spotify and search That UFO Podcast Premium and get access to this episode in full. No adverts, no sponsorships and also with some extra bonus content as well. Thanks for listening, folks.