Inside the Whistleblower Fight: Jordan Flowers on the Real Battle for UAP Disclosure

Instagram teen accounts have automatic protections for what teens see and who can contact them, plus time management tools. And Instagram will continue adding built-in safety features to help create age-appropriate experiences. Learn more about teen accounts and Instagram's ongoing work to protect teens online at instagram.com slash teenaccounts. Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. That's software overload. Odoo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business. Whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. Greenlight Family Shield is there for that first paycheck. When teens are excited and risks aren't obvious yet. As teens start earning, they're learning fast, but they're still new to spotting fraud. Greenlight helps them save, spend, and invest responsibly while monitoring for identity theft and suspicious activity. With alerts, credit monitoring, and up to $1 million in identity theft coverage, parents get real peace of mind as their teens gain independence. Don't wait. Try Greenlight risk-free today at greenlight.com slash scam. This podcast is sponsored by Nurture Life. Hey, it's Danielle Fishel from Podmeats World, and as a mom to two growing boys, I know how chaotic mealtime can get. No matter how confident I am with what I'm serving them, my kids will always find a way to call the meal gross or stinky or yuck. It's true. They can be wildly picky about new foods. And with my busy schedule, I don't have the time to become America's next top chef. And so that's why I love Nurture Life. It's a meal delivery service that actually caters to kids, ideal for ages eight months to eight years, fully cooked and ready to serve in just one minute. It's the problem solver I've been praying for. It's the top meal delivery service for babies, toddlers, and kids. And everything is designed by registered dietitians. So you can sleep safe knowing your kids are getting the protein, veggies, and nutrients they need while still eating favorites like mac and cheese, spaghetti and meatballs, and so much more. Plus, it's allergy friendly, which we know is clutch. And when it comes to options, Nurture Life has you covered. There's more than 50 nutritious meals and snacks on their menu, from soft finger foods for babies and toddlers to balanced kids meals for when they get older. Nurture Life does the cooking, they deliver it straight to your door, and then you might even have time to eat something for yourself. So now is the time to head to NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D and use code POD for 50% off your first order, plus free shipping. That's right, 50% off plus free shipping. Once again, that's NurtureLife.com slash POD and make sure you use promo code P-O-D. Even if you aren't a parent with young kids, you might have parent friends who struggle with mealtime. Make sure to share our code P-O-D with them. Remember, put your little ones first with healthy meals from Nurture Life. That website, one more time, is NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D pod. It's tax time, y'all. If you want to file free, this next one's for you. Now taxes is so free. Love that jam. Up next, commercials. Into a TurboTax free edition. See if you qualify at TurboTax.com slash free. No schedules except for earned income tax credit, child tax credit, student loan interest, and Schedule 1A. Hi, everyone, and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. Today's guest is Jordan Flowers. He is the Executive Director of the Disclosure Foundation, formerly known as the UEP Disclosure Fund, an organization now operating as a non-profit think tank, legal resource, and public education hub working to advance transparency, policy reform, and credible discourse around UEP. Jordan didn't come from the UEP world or UFO world originally. As you will find out, like many folks, his entry point was a 2017 New York Times article. He has a decade of experience on Wall Street, specializing in operational and financial restructuring, followed by strategic work at McKinsey & Company. He has been a part of multiple entrepreneurial ventures, passion projects, and he realized during the COVID time, he had a skill set that the UEP community rarely benefits from structured problem solving, financial acumen, organizational leadership, and coalition building as well. And today he applies that background full time to Disclosure Foundation's core mission, policy research, legal work, and education and public engagement. Really looked forward to this interview. I'm glad to have Jordan on. He has not done many of these interviews. So please sit back, enjoy the interview, folks, and I'll speak to you soon. And welcome to the podcast, Jordan Flowers. Jordan, welcome. Hey, Andy. Thank you so much for having me today. I really appreciate it. And at the outset, I wanted to say that your show and your voice was one of the first that I listened to in this space. And so that had a big impact on me and kept my interest alive. And so I just want to say thank you for that. Oh, no, thank you. Very nice of you to say that, unprompted and not being paid. So thank you so much, Jordan. That's appreciated. Doesn't mean I'm going to go easier on the questions, but no, I would never do that anyway. It's good to have you on. I know just in speaking to you briefly there, you've not done many interviews before. And that was even something for me when I was looking into a bit of research. And I know about the UEPDF that we're going to discuss and the changes. I know I've spoken to several members of it in the past. You are a little bit more elusive. But we're going to learn about you today. So do you want to give a little bit of a background, Jordan, as to who is Jordan Flowers and what's brought him into the UFO world? Yeah, sure. Happy to talk about it. I was one of these people that read the 2017 New York Times article and sort of had a reflexive reaction that, oh, my God, you know, there's a there there. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm convinced that the truth is interesting. And it was looking at, hey, who wrote this article? And Leslie Kane. OK, who is that? Has she written any books? Yes. And then I read her book, UFOs, I think generals and government officials go on the record. And that was a real moment of like cognitive dissonance for me that there's you're sort of taught to believe that there's not a huge fact base for this topic and you're conditioned to believe it's not true. And to be confronted with that was fascinating and that developed my intellectual interest. I started reading more books and, you know, sort of went down the rabbit hole, as they say, became very interested. And, you know, I was sort of happy to be someone who is just intellectually learning about the topic for a while. And then I said, hey, I've got like a unique skill set. It doesn't seem to be heavily represented in the community. Is there a way that I can I can add value with my background? And I was fortunate enough to be in a place in my career where I could where I could do that. So I started I started networking, meeting folks. I've really tried to over index on in-person conversations. I just think it's incredibly important in those relationships. So that's sort of how I've how I've come into the space. You asked a little bit about background. So I went I worked for about 10 years on Wall Street after college. I went to business school combination of like investing roles and finance roles. My specialty was sort of operational and financial restructuring. So turning around businesses. I did that. I also did that in the consulting world as well. So I worked at a consulting firm called McKinsey and sort of built more of an operational skill set and started to get a little bit more entrepreneurial, did some entrepreneurial things during COVID, did some passion projects and created more space for myself to engage with this topic. And now it's the way I spend the majority of my professional time. So I'm delighted to be here and to be able to contribute. I just hope that I'm adding value. You know? Yeah, no, I'm sure you will. And a lot to talk about. I mentioned in the introduction, obviously, the UEP Disclosure Fund, now the UEP Disclosure Foundation. But just before we get to that, you mentioned 2017, that New York Times article. It's a jumping on point for so many people involved in the conversation. I wonder, before that, what was your take? If someone spoke to you 2000, 2005, 2010, and asked you about the UFO topic, what would your take have been? Yeah, I mean, I think I've always been very open-minded. And I have always been interested in reading about the nature of consciousness, about sort of, I'm not a physics person, but, you know, lay people's like physics books and understanding those, just being fascinated with the frontiers of human knowledge. And interestingly and surprisingly to me, this subject really abuts a lot of those things, like the nature of consciousness, the nature of the universe. It kept me intellectually fascinated, and that's one of the reasons that that sort of sustains my interest. So I think I would have been able to have those conversations, like, in good faith and be open-minded, which I think it's sort of proven by reading the New York Times article. But I just didn't pay much mind, you know? And when that came out, I was really, yeah, I think there's a term for it now. It's like a 2017 baby, is what I've heard other people call it. So that was my, yeah, my entry point. Awesome. And have you ever had any sightings of your own before or after 2017? Nothing that I can say is, like, is definitive. You know, you learn more about the topic and you start to sort of review your experiences with that lens on. There's a few things where, like, oh, that's interesting. But nothing I would say that's definitive, I guess, if that makes sense. Yeah, that's fair. I've had a few times, and I live in quite a low-light pollution area in the northeast of England. And I've said before on the podcast, when I'm walking the dog, my head's always in the clouds. I'm always looking up to see if it's a clear evening. And now and again, you get lights going across the sky. I'm very aware how often there's satellites flying about. But now and again, you get something it looks like it might be slowing, speeding up, turning a little bit. You know, that piques your interest. But still, like yourself, it's nothing I could go, I've just seen a UFO. And I would come on and talk about it. I saw a light in the sky. It could have been any number of things. But yeah, I appreciate that. So to talk about it. It is really interesting that when you simply pay more attention, you do see more surprising things. I've been really surprised at, you know, just sky watching with the kids that you see a lot more. You think shooting stars never happen and you actually dedicate some time and energy to focusing on it. And, you know, you see some interesting things. It kind of reminds me of like Avi Loeb's general take on this is that we should be upwind minded. We should be looking at the sky and learning everything we can with an open mind. Yeah. Yeah, if you go on a cruise and spend all your time in the cabin and then say you've not seen a dolphin the whole time you've been there, yet the folks have spent all their time out on deck, binoculars, camera phones, are seeing dolphins. That's not on them to prove that to you. You've spent all your time stuck inside. And I think that's the same when it comes to UFOs. The issue is we now have, and I'll just wave it for the folks on YouTube, we have these, you know, iPhones and Samsungs. All other types are available, of course. But we've got these smartphones now that take up so much of our attention that especially now when you're out walking or out with people, your head's almost always looking down the way rather than up, which is part of the problem, I think, when it comes to this topic. And it really, for me, answers that whole question around why, when everyone's walking about with a smartphone, do we not have 4K videos of UFOs and amazing pictures? Because no one's looking up at the sky, largely, to do that and take those pictures and see that. So, yeah, I think it's one of those things. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and a bit of a cycle. But listen, UAP Disclosure Fund and the foundation, we're going to talk about that now. People may have missed earlier conversations I've had with Yuan Fung, I've had with Lester Nari, and we've talked about that there. But what I'd love for you to do, Jordan, can you walk us through that kind of brief history of the UAP Disclosure Fund and now why the rebranding? Yeah, absolutely. Happy to. So our organization originally started as a 501c4 nonprofit called the UAP Disclosure Fund and originally intended to focus on advocacy work, even like politicking and sort of similar to like a political action fund, if that makes sense. And as the organization has evolved in looking at the nature of the work that we did and the team we've managed to build and how our mission has evolved, we thought it was appropriate to rebrand to the Disclosure Foundation. The Disclosure Foundation, I think, it has a broader remit. We have three core lines of activity, lines of effort. So policy research, like a think tank element, a legal component that includes everything from whistleblower, consultation, representation. Attorney-client privilege is an incredibly powerful tool to use in this topic. We do FOIA requests, FOIA litigation. And then there's an education component, that's the third component, and that's speaking to the public. That's, you could be doing podcasts, you could be doing interviews. I did an interview recently here for the local CBS affiliate in Connecticut. And I was really impressed by how seriously they took the subject. They seem educated. They seem to not, you know, I was worried that they were going to cue the X-Files music and, you know, have a terrible CGI graphic. And they were very serious and very sober about the topic, which I appreciated. And then we also do, on the education front, do things like at Yale University this week, we have an event where we're going to have some speakers like Dylan Guthrie, a national security expert and lawyer, Kirk McConnell, and Arady Estevez as well. Your listeners may know who those folks are. So that was really a core part of the transition was to have that broader remit. I think the UAP Disclosure Fund, it sent some of the wrong messages for people that, you know, sort of didn't have context for what like a political action fund is. It was like, oh, a fund, you know, can you invest in our project? And it's like, well, that's not really what it does, but I see why it's confusing. And then I think broadly generating a name like Disclosure away from like specifically UAP, I thought was important. One of the things that we really want to do that's on our initiative list is having a symposium next year where we bring in academics. We really want to like expand the audience. We talk about that a lot inside the organization, expanding the audience to the general public and into, you know, whether it's Wall Street or academia, bringing in new voices, folks that will sort of attack the questions that this subject brings up, but have a fresh perspective. I think that's really important. So we want to, and across disciplinary effort, whether it's physics or philosophy or religion or biology, national security, whatever it is, that was another aspect of having a broader remit that we thought was really important. Yeah, you've touched on it there. There's often a hesitancy online, especially for your average person when they see a new organization in the UFO space looking to raise money or either a fund is mentioned or a target goal is mentioned, any kind of capital, whether that's supporting individuals, events, research. And how do you go about addressing that concern from the get go? Obviously, that conversation must have happened when the name was even brought forward, you know, fund because you've seen recently a lot of folks looking to, actually, let me ask you that first and I'm going to come on to a follow up on that. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you're drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. Sure. So the question being just reaction to fund and the perception of fundraising. Yeah, and expecting that reaction. Yeah. Yeah. I've always struggled to understand why, I struggled to understand that. So in my mind, I mean, one of my goals was like getting involved in this subject was to maximize impact, right? And if you're going to maximize impact, you need to have economies of scale. And in order to generate economies of scale, you need capital in order to do that. In order to get capital, you need a solid plan. And in order to have a solid plan, you need really talented professionals across, you know, experts across like disciplines. Whether it's business or law or politics or science, it's really important. I've never understood the logic of, in this space at least, of you need to have zero money for what you do. You know, that's always been surprising to me. But I think that, you know, another aspect of that is that, you know, we have like a very limited budget. No one on our team, we're all volunteers. No one on our team gets paid. Well, I would, you know, we would love to raise money and have like full-time employees. We're not there right now. But I think it's important to know that everything we've been able to accomplish with folks has been like on a volunteer basis. And we have really, really talented and really dedicated people involved in our organization. I'm very grateful for that. Especially in the last year or so, we've seen several groups or individuals attempt to raise funds with the aim to support whistleblowers. And for you, looking at that from the outside and what the UAPDF is trying to do, would it make more sense to combine efforts? It almost seems that there's a duplication of efforts across the field. And is that something you've perhaps explored? Yeah, I would love to have collaborative efforts for, I mean, not just with other organizations, but collaborative efforts with Congress to try and address this issue. I think that the, you know, we could talk more deeply about whistleblowers, bringing whistleblowers forward. That conversation has been, we've tried to apply a very like sort of structured thinking and structured problem solving to the whistleblower perspective and conversation. You know, to answer your specific question, yes, I think like collaborative efforts would be great in that regard with potentially with Congress as well. Like, can we get Congress to enact some sort of a restitution fund for whistleblowers that come forward? I think there's three primary areas of difficulty with respect to the breaking down the problem of whistleblowers. There's the, there's like the legal question of, will you be prosecuted or, you know, go to jail? There's the, will there be retaliation? Could I lose my security clearance? And then there's a question of, you know, could I be like physically harmed, right? And retaliation in that form. And I think what we've tried to do as an organization, you know, on, along the lines of our like think tank and policy research line of effort, we've created a policy brief that discusses this. And the policy brief, essentially, we've tried to dissect this problem. And a lot of what we've heard being discussed is, is really like narrative. It's not, it's not an argument based on like data or the law. We wanted to take that problem and say, if we apply like our legal skill set here, what are, what's the perspective? And our research indicates, and folks can find this policy memo on our website at disclosure.org, are the, the policy memo indicates that no one has ever been prosecuted for telling Congress the truth. No one has ever been prosecuted for going to Congress, making a protected disclosure in a secure environment. And I think that's really important for folks to understand. And I, there's a lot of different thoughts out there, but sort of breaking the problem down into that legal component. And then there's the retaliation component is really important. And I would love to engage further in discussion with other organizations, with other whistleblowers that come out, with other legal experts on how we can refine that analysis. Um, but then moving towards the retaliation, uh, part of the problem that is, that is very real. And I don't mean to be flippant about the, the risks that are faced, right? Like our legal analysis is just like, there's no, there's no indication that there would be prosecution from, you know, from making a protected disclosure to Congress. Would there be, uh, potential administrative terrorism, removing security clearances, a challenge to your livelihood through loss of income? Yes. And that's exactly where I think it's important to talk about, um, restitution funds for, for whistleblowers. And if that's, um, you know, if that's through legislatively, uh, through Congress, um, something that could be, um, I don't know, administered by the Department of Justice or some independent entity, that's great. If there is a collaborative effort amongst organizations, uh, great, but the disclosure foundation absolutely has the intention of raising funds to try and support whistleblowers in that way, because that's really important. There, um, I think if folks are comfortable with their, uh, with the prosecution angle and folks can get comfortable with it, uh, despite any, uh, retaliation, uh, in the form of, you know, getting fired, ruining your career, that they would be protected. I think there's a good number of people that would, they would come forward in that context. And then of course, with respect to the, you know, the claims of potential physical harm, I think everyone has to make their own judgment about what risks. They're, they're willing to take, um, uh, from that angle too, but I hope that, I hope that answers the question. Um, it's a little bit more broad, but that is how we see, you know, a restitution funds for whistleblowers, I think being applicable here and how it fits into our organization. Yeah, no, let's, let's break it down a little bit then and go into whistleblowers. What kind of legal support does the foundation offer to whistleblowers when it comes to UAP? Uh, and is there a criteria for deciding when to engage? Because we are in an age, I think the last 12 to 18 months where more and more whistleblowers, quote unquote, because there's sometimes an argument around what as a whistleblower and what, what isn't, but is it a criteria as to, to when to engage in that conversation? Yeah, so one thing that I'm proud of is that, and, and this is another aspect of, of, of rebranding to the Disclosure Foundation. You know, we accomplished something that I don't think has been accomplished in the space before, which is effectively a, a merger, a combination of efforts with a group of attorneys. Um, the organization was called, uh, the Disclosure Advocacy Group, it was a group of attorneys that, um, were engaged in all the things I listed, FOIA, whistleblower representation, and, uh, in consultation. Um, and we managed to accomplish bringing more people under the umbrella because they saw the advantage of being inside an organization, like building credibility, having expertise, and really focusing on the work. Um, you know, you know, you asked, uh, at what point does it, what do they offer and at what point does it make sense to engage? I would say engage at any time, like reach out to us, you know, contact at disclosure.org. If you, uh, are a whistleblower, don't hesitate, reach out. We can consult with, that would be, you know, distributed. We have a team of lawyers. We would review that. That would go to, uh, the team. We, uh, think of who is the best person to engage with that particular request. You can have an initial consultation and then also potential full, like representation, um, pro bono with one of these, uh, one of these attorneys. So I, I think that's really important for people to know that, that, that help is there. And I would really encourage folks as a first step to, uh, to get legal representation, to protect yourself, to make sure you have the advantage of attorney-client privilege because this area is, there are risks and it is fraught and having help in that regard is really, really important. Have people approached you with UEP-related information? And if so, what sort of challenges come with supporting them? Um, I imagine you've mentioned some, there are classification issues, retaliation, credibility concerns has to come into it. And if you can't discuss specifics of individuals, can you discuss generally around that? Yeah, absolutely. I, I, I can't discuss like specific individuals that, that we've worked with, um, but absolutely can discuss that if there are, uh, if there's information that, uh, like a whistleblower wants to be relayed to Congress, I mean, that is a primary job of ours is having strong relationships on Capitol Hill. You know, there's the House Oversight Committee, um, they've had several hearings, um, having a strong relationship with those offices and others to get the information where it needs to go and to enable those conversations. It's incredibly important. Um, it's interesting. What, I mean, one thing we've noticed recently is even if you get the information to one place, the mobility of that information seems to be strangely limited. And one of the things we're learning is that, you, you know, you can't assume that if the information goes to one place that it'll automatically make it, you know, to the next step or the next step or the next step. And we have to continue to, to stay on that, uh, which we do. Um, but yeah, I think that's, that's an example of how that's, of how that's worked for us. And we've, um, and we scheduled a congressional briefing on May 1st, um, and had a few representatives there. And we also, um, uh, helped organize a meeting in a skiff with members of Congress and folks that wanted to discuss. So, you know, that's one example of how, you know, we try to be effective in the space. It seems if I put myself in the shoes of a whistleblower and I'm seeing all this stuff happening, I'm seeing Grush come forward. I'm seeing a Jason Sands, Lenville Logan, Sarah Gam, these other whistleblowers, um, Dylan Borland, of course, Matthew Brown. And I'm, I'm going to forget them. I can't name them all. However, I decide I want to, I'm going to wake up tomorrow and I'm going to share my story. I want to speak to Congress. It seems like I've got multiple avenues to do that at the moment. I could get in touch with the UAPDF. I could speak to Danny Sheehan, New Paradigm Institute. I could try and get in touch with Ross Coulter. I could speak to Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp, who seem to be a real primary source for getting folks to Congress. Is, in your opinion, that a good thing that I've got multiple avenues to go and have those conversations? Or is there a compartmentalization that we always talk about with a UFO topic when it comes to even trying to share your story that could be perhaps a negative? Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, I think there's been great efforts from all the folks that you've, all the folks that you mentioned. Like, we have good relationships there. I would simply say, like, the objective is to protect yourself with respect to, like, legal representation with whoever you end up engaging with, that understand, like, what your rights are, what your risks are, take advantage of interior client privilege, have those conversations. There's a functional difference between, I think, you know, having representation and then going into the media and discussing that information. And there's a different function to speaking with journalists as well. Like, if I were a whistleblower before I spoke with anyone, I would want to have, like, make sure I have a proper assessment of the risks, ideally hire a lawyer, and get that consultation and perspective so that I can navigate that. And ultimately, for the purpose of, like, maximizing impact, that doesn't mean you shouldn't speak with the media. I mean, I think these people should. I just think these are different. There's a functional difference between doing these things, between journalism and the law and the media. Are there individuals who, maybe I've rhymed off some of their names, maybe I haven't, that are now out there in the public, that have been media-facing, that have gone through the UEP Disclosure Fund? Um, yes, I think I can, I think I can answer that. I have to be very careful there. But, yeah, I mean, we've spoken to, I don't think it's a surprise that we've spoken to people, like, in the space. And, like, engagement is at various levels. But, yes, I think it's okay to say that. Yeah, I appreciate from a privacy point of view, you're not going to name names, given what you're talking about. But I think that's what I'm trying to get at is, and like we're mentioning earlier, we're really trying to let people know, or I'm not, I'm giving you the opportunity to let people know what the UEPDF does, what it does well, and why it's so important. And I think that can be lost. Do you feel there's almost a lack of, let me use as an example, if, I'm just going to pick a name here. If Dylan Borland goes through the UEPDF, you're not shouting about that online, you're not telling everyone you've spoken to, whistleblower Dylan Borland, you won't talk about the support that's been offered, the legal help that's been offered, and how much money that's cost. There's almost a lack of anyone knowing what the work is you're doing, and why you're doing it, and how effective it's been. However, Dylan Borland, then say he uses your services, he gets in touch with Corbell and Knapp, he then shares that story, he ends up in front of Congress. Now, Jeremy and George get their plaudits for bringing Dylan Borland forward in a public way. There's almost an element, no, would that not frustrate a UEPDF, that you are doing work, you're being questioned, you're asking folks for money, you're asking for support. They don't get to see the work you do, and the work that's going on, because of the nature of what you're doing. Is that a frustration, and is that close to reality? That's a great question. I mean, our goal is not to be out in the media and doing that. Our goal is to do the right thing, to have impact, and I guess I would say that if you're good at what you do, like that skill set, word of that skill set travels to others, and others know to reach out to you, there's a network effect there. And we're very happy to operate that way at the Disclosure Foundation. We have a team of folks that are extremely dedicated, and if someone else wants to go out in the media and make a presentation, I think that's great, as long as that's what the whistleblower wants. But we're very focused on doing the work, and I think our reputation at the Disclosure Foundation is incredibly high for where we stand in this space. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. This podcast is sponsored by Nurture Life. Hey, it's Danielle Fishel from Podmeats World. And as a mom to two growing boys, I know how chaotic mealtime can get. No matter how confident I am with what I'm serving them, my kids will always find a way to call the meal gross, or stinky, or yuck. It's true. They can be wildly picky about new foods. And with my busy schedule, I don't have the time to become America's next top chef. And so that's why I love Nurture Life. It's a meal delivery service that actually caters to kids, ideal for ages eight months to eight years. Fully cooked and ready to serve in just one minute. It's the problem solver I've been praying for. It's the top meal delivery service for babies, toddlers, and kids. And everything is designed by registered dietitians. So you can sleep safe knowing your kids are getting the protein, veggies, and nutrients they need. While still eating favorites like mac and cheese, spaghetti and meatballs, and so much more. Plus, it's allergy friendly, which we know is clutch. And when it comes to options, Nurture Life has you covered. There's more than 50 nutritious meals and snacks on their menu. From soft finger foods for babies and toddlers to balanced kids' meals for when they get older. Nurture Life does the cooking. They deliver it straight to your door. And then you might even have time to eat something for yourself. So now is the time to head to NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D. And use code POD for 50% off your first order. Plus free shipping. That's right. 50% off plus free shipping. Once again, that's NurtureLife.com slash POD. And make sure you use promo code P-O-D. Even if you aren't a parent with young kids, you might have parent friends who struggle with mealtime. Make sure to share our code P-O-D with them. Remember, put your little ones first with healthy meals from Nurture Life. That website, one more time, is NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D POD. That's good to hear. And we've got to talk about this. The release of Age of Disclosure is due this Friday, 21st of November on Amazon Prime. Do you think that documentary will encourage more whistleblowers to come forward, potentially to organizations like yourself? I certainly hope so. I think that documentary has the potential to, you know, really like a rising tide lifts all boats with respect to the topic, to piercing the general public consciousness in a little bit more, a deeper way. And again, like expanding the audience, right? Like we may have a more expanded audience than we've ever had. And that's great for many reasons. I mean, one that, you know, is incredibly important is building political capital with politicians to talk about this. So, you know, part of our job at the Disclosure Foundation is also like working with Congress to generate ideas, review policy, and to try and put these things forth. But if there's no political capital generated for that, then the likelihood of getting things passed or getting things, you know, getting ideas through is limited. I think this documentary has the potential for really big impact in that way and for whistleblowers to come forward, to send a message that, you know, the politics of the moment favor transparency and disclosure. So we see that as having the potential for incredible momentum and wanting to seize the opportunity to say, hey, you know, can we have, let's get more whistleblowers in, let's have more hearings, let's develop, let's actually collaborate on problem solving. This is a really complicated, difficult and fraught topic that requires serious attention and problem solving capabilities and let's engage with our leaders on that. And I've been delighted that they've been open to that, you know, collaborative problem solving as well. Have you seen the documentary yourself yet? I have not. I've not seen the documentary yet. No. Me neither. It's been one that's been very hard to come by. I know there seems to be a lot of influential folks have seen it. So they are very much going down the marketing route of the mainstream with this, which is totally their call. I know when it comes to stuff like this, a lot of folks tend to get advanced previews, screeners in the UFO community and whatnot. They've not done that this time, it seems. It seems to be high ranking politicians, major media folks. And what I'm hopeful of, and I've said this, is there seems to be a lot of really high profile social media presences that are talking really positively about this. My concern is working for a major company. I know when a new product is about to be launched, they will use influencers to promote said product before it's launched to build a hype. And then I know from recent experience, again, with said major company, that once said product launched and was a bit of a flop, those same influencers are no longer bound to promote it. Like literally day of release, they stop. And I worry that there's a lot of hype and it doesn't get followed through on with these folks. And that's just a bit of a personal concern of mine. But it seems to be building a lot of mainstream attention, a lot of press, which I'm very hopeful of, stat being said, I can't really say much more, obviously, neither can you, until we see the documentary. However, as part of this whole whistleblower angle, we've seen significant pushback on whistleblowers. The attacks on David Grush continued long after he spoke out, even as recently as the last couple of days. I'm not going to go into naming journalists and what they've said and everything. People may or may not know what I'm talking about, but it's pretty prevalent online. Other whistleblowers I've spoken to, Jordan, recently have told me personally the retaliation they themselves and their families have faced. And I wonder, what's your perspective on that? Not only attacks on them, but families going through that as well. And what does the Disclosure Foundation, what are you able to do to even try to help from that respect? Yeah, that's a great question. And it's, yeah, it is deeply, deeply sad that people who have served our country in such honorable ways and are ultimately trying to do something honorable by speaking about this subject would not only have, you know, potentially have their careers impacted, but their families impacted as well. It's, it's disgusting. It's a moral abomination and, um, and deeply, deeply sad. Um, and, uh, certainly we want to help however we, however we can with that, whether it's, you know, again, our engagement with Congress, where, whether it's direct representation of these folks to help navigate those challenges, what are their rights, um, helping to avoid bear traps, is there potential defamation there, like that could be pursued? And you, I mean, uh, that, that's really towing the line for a lot of folks, um, on the defamation front, I think, um, or, or even just harassment, which is it, which is a different, uh, um, I think perspective. And certainly we would, we have the capability to, to look into that, to investigate and to try and take advantage and defend folks, you know, however, however we can, just like in any other, in any other topic. I mean, that is, that is a function of what like the support should be from any, from any lawyer, from any representative. On the website, it talks about providing evidence-based insights for policymakers and the public. Now you've touched on those policies you've been involved in. And for you, this is a big hot potato for a lot of folks on social media, but what qualifies as evidence in your view and what sort of standards do you apply to ensure rigor to that? Oh, it's a great question. Yeah. What, what qualifies as evidence? Um, you know, I think it, it, it means different things in different contexts, whether you're in a court of law or the, the, uh, you know, court of public opinion, um, or, or in science, right? I mean, I would just say by way of example, um, one of the things that that could specifically refer to is like the, the whistleblower policy document for protected disclosures that we wrote. Um, this is a, um, you know, I would describe evidence for this particular paper as being, we have, we have legal citations. We have done legal research, uh, analysis-based there's data there, there's statutes, there's, uh, legal reasoning, there's logic involved. That is something that like we bring to the table that I've, I think fits underneath that description. Um, I think evidence-based science, I I've been delighted that, uh, with, uh, Beatrice's paper on the, on the transience that that's an incredible, uh, example of, of evidence, right? And I think if I remember correctly, the, um, you know, the, the data has a, you know, a P value or an error rate that's like six sigma or no, so I'm sorry, 20 sigma, I think in some, uh, some ways of looking at it, which is like 20 standard deviations means that there's just a wildly, wildly high probability that like what she's describing is, is accurate. Um, but you know, I, I hope that's a good answer and it's how we try to, um, to base our, our policies, whether it's, you know, on a scientific level, on a, on a legal level, or, or otherwise. No, it's a great example to mention as well, that the work of Dr. Beatrice Villareal, um, that, that transient stuff, I think for some folks on surface can look a little dry, but when you, when you give a moment to actually look at what they're saying, there, there's, there's something there you can break down in 280 characters or whatever it is now on X to the public to say, this is why this is important. This is why this is actually very cool and really could be some of the best evidence we have for UFOs, UAP, whatever you want to call them out there. What's unfortunate, I think is at the time this has come out, something I imagine that's probably got hundreds, if not thousands of times more airtime as people banging on about three. bi-atlas being an alien mothership, that is getting a lot of content, that is getting a lot of clicks and views. And it's really, for me, detracting, even, I don't know if you've seen, but since my last interview, Jordan, to, to speaking with you today, a video dropped online of a guy who claimed to have found like an alien cylinder. And I don't know if you saw this, that he was drilling into this object and then a blue orb appears and he, he falls on the floor. The camera goes dark, he has some kind of seizure and folks are saying the guy died because of the drilling. He was drilling into something alien. I don't want to say very clearly it was bollocks from the get-go, but that guy today has come out, confirmed it was all a hoax. He is not dead and has now monetized his YouTube channel that has got hundreds of thousands of views. And it's like, there's the work of Abitris Villareal. There's some real serious science being done. But look over here, you've got guys getting, you know, all these views off of nonsense. People claiming 3i Atlas is doing things that they either don't understand. And again, coming from someone who is not a physicist or an astrobiologist or an astrophysicist or whatever you want to call it. People are claiming things the object isn't doing or they're, they're manipulating what they're seeing online to make it sound like it's more interesting than it is. And that for me is a massive frustration. And honestly, Jordan, I don't even know where I'm going with this point, but just because you've raised the work of Abitris and the standards of evidence, it must be so difficult. Let me ask you this. If you were approaching a member of Congress tomorrow, you've got a meeting and they say to you, Jordan, you know, what are we talking about here? You're talking aliens. You're talking flying saucers. What's your line that you would use to, to engage that conversation as to what you think and how do you have a level headed conversation with them? It's a great question. Um, yeah. And I was just thinking back about also your question of evidence and, you know, how people will say, oh, there's, uh, you know, stories or, or anecdotes and, and not evidence. I mean, I think, you know, eyewitness evidence is, you know, actually evidence like in court. And so, you know, there's, uh, uh, there's a broad interpretation there. And, um, but yeah, going, going back to your question about what, what would we say? So, I mean, we are literally actively doing that right now. Um, and the, you know, what's surprising Andy is that when we go to Capitol Hill and the door closes, um, uh, zero percent of the time has anyone said, oh my God, is any of this real, like, we think this is all a big nothing burger. Um, and instead it's, we know there's something there. What do we do about it and how do we navigate this? Um, those conversations are, are quite serious and, uh, and sober. Um, and so there's not, I'm grateful that we're at a point where what you just described doesn't seem to happen as much. I think precisely because like the nature of evidence, the, the fact pattern, the fact basis, the evidence basis has become so big and people, uh, so big that it's undeniable in many ways. Um, and so that's been one of the delights of, of doing this work is seeing the topic being, being taken seriously in those rooms. Is there any work being done by the Disclosure Foundation now or in the future where you're looking to work with models overseas or entities overseas outside of the United States? Um, not, not, not at the present moment, I believe. Um, you know, we have to be, we want, we want to be very careful, um, about subjecting ourselves to like foreign influence. Uh, this is, uh, you know, we had, we had an opportunity to come up, um, with something and there was a, a non-US citizen involved and we did a little bit of work and figured that this was probably, it wasn't worth the risk. So we try and be very, uh, careful about how we, how we engage there, um, because of how sensitive these topics are. Yeah, that, that's fair. So looking at the future and kind of forecasting ahead here, what are you seeing as the biggest challenges or obstacles that will face the foundation, be that funding, credibility, government cooperation, classification barriers, what, what's standing in your way? Yeah, it's a great question. I think, I think truly finding a path forward for, for whistleblowers that works is incredibly important. And, uh, again, working on that on all fronts with, uh, with Congress, like with inside our organization for potential funding, other organizations, um, I think that is critical. You know, we, we, we often talk about like, you know, what is on our, what is on our wish list. There's, you know, different forms of legislation. There's expansive, um, whistleblower protection legislation that I think we'd like to see put forward. Um, and there are, uh, various transparency efforts that we'd like to see. You know, we've provided to some of these committees, you know, um, or we've helped facilitate them getting, um, documents for the, we know they're sitting on a lot of like videos and evidence that's not, uh, probably not even classified that they could be distributing and they're not. Um, so like the classification efforts, like, uh, getting some of those things out, finding a path to getting those out, I think is important. Um, and then yeah, expanding the audience with these like conferences and sort of academic and intellectual engagement, I think is important. Uh, one way we're trying to do that also is by engaging, uh, like financial institutions on, on wall street, you know, there's the sort of centers of power, there's, there's Congress, there's Silicon Valley, there's, um, wall street and like having credible conversations with people at these organizations to say, Hey, there's, there's real data and real risks here that you should be, um, paying attention to. I mean, if your job is to like invest money in the markets, um, there's lots of ways that this could significantly impact the markets. Like there's lots of opportunities and there's lots of risks to mitigate. And how do you, how do you think through that? And so trying to like set up those conversations and it's, it's another, I think it's another positive indication that the stigma for this is really, is really changing because people are, people are open to that. I mean, we are, we are having those conversations and I know those conversations are being had in Silicon Valley as well. Uh, so I think it's expanding the, the audience in a credible way is it's a big challenge, but it's, um, incredibly important. Yeah. That conversation around even like disruptive technologies that may come into market, I think would be a huge one. We hear that there are multiple aerospace or private contractors who are probably sitting on thousands of patents for technologies they cannot release until perhaps information goes public. That would be really interesting. The sort of things that, you know, Richard Dolan, Bryce Zabel talk about in after disclosure, that idea of what comes next. And I've joked before about even things like insurance policies, what happens to your insurance policy, your home insurance, the day after disclosure, all that kind of stuff that, that, that may come into things, um, it feels a little bit like these conversations we know are happening in the background. You're seeing, you're having these conversations. I think a really good example of some of that private money would be Skywatcher, where we know that through the SALT foundation, the SALT conference, um, with Alex Clocus, that with Gary Nola and with Carl Nell being in attendance a year apart, Alex Clocus and other individuals, I believe have put their money into Skywatcher with Jake Barber and co. So there's a really good example of, it's not public facing. They don't have to answer to the public. They do speak to the public. They do make presentations. There are videos online, but it's private money backing, backing a private venture around you AP. And there will be other examples of that. No doubt we don't know, but it still feels like a big line of dominoes has been set up and we're still waiting on someone just pushing that first one to have that knock on effect and their hands are still on the domino. And is that how it feels to you that we're, we're really close to something, but it's just not quite started yet or has it started and we don't realize it? That's a great, it's a great question. I would say that the, like that, that is the work I think for us that it is like setting those things up and having the conversations to like build political capital. We, whether it's, you know, we're very close or a few steps away. What I'm very confident about is that it's going to require a lot of hard work to disaggregate this and problem solve this and to find, to find a path forward that works. And that's really what we are trying to do. And yes, there's other, like you said, there's other private entities that are trying to take an angle on that, but we are absolutely focused on, you know, being a nonprofit, like focusing on our mission and on our values in order to advance the conversation. If in one year's time, I've got you back on, Jordan, and I ask you, you know, tell me about a big win that's happened in the last year for the Disclosure Foundation, what would you be hoping to sit there and talk about? I would say we, we've managed to have a wildly successful symposium that expands the critical thinking around the subject across disciplines. I would say another key metric for us is getting in front of every single member of Congress, whether it's the House, whether it's the Senate, getting in front of the various committees in order to have these conversations. I would say that having a, some form of a restitution fund or some way to take care of whistleblowers set up would be, again, collaborative effort or whatever, whatever path forward that looks like, having that set up would be, would be a success. Um, and I think continuing to, um, expand our policy briefs, I think continuing on the education front, um, for various universities, uh, being able to speak at these, whether it's, we've spoken at, at, you know, leading, uh, academic institutions like Yale and Princeton. And, you know, obviously there's been conversations at Stanford and Harvard with Gary and Avi, um, continuing to expand the conversations in those academic institutions, I think would also be a great success metric. Here, here's a question that's very much breaking news. Okay. So literally as we record this, the New York Times is reporting that the House has overwhelmingly passed a bill seeking the release of the Epstein files. The vote was 427 to 1, and it's saying that now puts pressure on the Senate to take up the legislation to demand the Justice Department release all files related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. I don't think I have to go on in this podcast. It's not about UFOs, what the whole Epstein situation is. There's one where it seems that things are really one-sided, 427 to 1. Why is the Epstein vote so one-sided, yet it still seems we're struggling to get things like the UAP Disclosure Act through the House, through the Senate, and it's getting, if indeed anything does get through, it's really, I don't want to say inconsequential, because that's perhaps unfair to the work that's been done a couple of years ago, but it's not the big heavy-hitting at pieces of legislation. Yeah, it's great, and I was just going to say that, I think there was some really positive movement that happened, right? Danny Sheehan pulled me up on that, because just after the first one, I was like, Danny, it's failed to get through, and he was like, no, no, it hasn't. The big parts, then he went into great detail about what did go through, but I appreciate it can be little victories. Yeah, absolutely. We are, you know, is the, this is an example, right? Is the scope of what was trying to be accomplished, was it too much? Are there, I don't have the answers here, but this is, I think, like, problem solving needs to be done. Are there other approaches where we can, like, attack a specific issue, for example, like expanding whistleblower protection, that would be much more palatable for, to get that, uh, whatever it was, 400 and, uh, 400 and whatever to one, to one vote. Um, I, that is hard work that needs to be done for us to, for us to figure that out. Um, but I take that as a, you know, that, that vote you just described is, I think that's great news. I think it underscores again, this comment about, like, the politics now favoring transparency and disclosure and that massively creating more political capital for, uh, our leaders to try and pursue, um, and having, having more hearings. I didn't say that earlier, but that would be another great way to leverage the documentary that's coming out to try and build more political capital. So you get, um, you get votes exactly, you know, with those numbers. Here's some listener questions to finish off, Jordan, because you've been really good with your time and appreciate everything you've gone into as well. Um, Philip asks, so why can't an organization like the Disclosure Foundation file a defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal? Philip says he believes a public fund raider to support such a lawsuit would gain massive backing and really put pressure on the executives involved. Yeah, I think that's a great, a great question. You know, has the, I don't think that the Wall Street Journal has defamed, um, the Disclosure Foundation, at least not to my knowledge. Not the foundation, I don't think, but just in terms of the disclosure movement and some of the articles that went out that were perhaps, and I think this may be the answer to the question that it's not strictly defamation necessarily, but when they've had articles go out that has talked, talked down about whistleblowers, they've talked down about the disclosure process. Um, I don't even know, does that go into things more like slander or whatnot? Sure. I mean, are there, we've had conversations like that internally that like, at what level does this reach, uh, harassment? At what level does this reach defamation? You know, there's, there's different sort of criteria for reaching that bar. Um, you know, and if we need to pursue that, I think we're, we have the capability to do that, uh, specifically with respect to the wall street journal, they had an article, um, that came, that came out, uh, what was that a couple of months ago and man, their own sources were saying that they got the angle wrong and like muddled the concepts. And so what we tried to do as a, as a first step was to, you know, I don't think there's defamation in that specifically, but as an example of what we do, we wrote a, in, uh, in tandem with chairman of the board, Chris Mellon, we wrote a detailed response email and posted, we sent it to, uh, to the editors. We posted it on our website that walked through in like very fine detail, exactly, uh, what was misrepresented, uh, misconstrued and sort of strangely when their own sources were disagreeing with how this, um, uh, how it was represented, they still refuse to, uh, issue a correction or, or, or update. Um, and that's, that's, that's their prerogative, but I think it shows, um, we were really disappointed by that, but we felt good about the clarity and the detail and the credibility that we had in that response for the things that they got wrong. And we've also been to, been able to, um, take, uh, work product like that into the halls of Congress and say, you know, this is sort of like what we're up against here. There's, this is complicated. And here's an example of like why you may get things, why the media may get things wrong and how we need to help educate around this and clarify the details. Um, so I hope that that, uh, hope that answers the question. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you're drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload, no more juggling logins, just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process, so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. It does, and that's good to hear that you've gave an example of how that's been used to take that into Congress, to use as almost fuel to be able to say, look, this is why this is important. Here's what the mainstream is getting wrong. Whether it's deliberate, which I think is what Philip's getting that there with that article, or it's not deliberate, and it's a lack of education, it almost feels like there's a layer of stigmatization, which is still there, which allows the mainstream to get away with its UFOs. And I'll use a crass example here, but I can't remember where it was I was speaking, and I don't think it was with Whitley Strieber on one of the interviews. It may have been, or someone referencing it. But in the world, if you were going to bring up the topic of male rape, then there aren't many avenues you could have that discussion and have it be laughed at in 2025, unless you're talking about the Whitley Strieber encounter and the fact that he has medical documentation to say he was, you know, something basically damaged his rectum. And to this day, people still laugh at accounts like that from experiencers. But essentially, what you're talking about is a rape. And it's still laughed at when it comes to the UFO topic. But outside of that, the media wouldn't dare, you know, slander someone or affect someone by talking about that negatively. So it seems like there's still a layer of stigmatization that needs to be broken down that doesn't allow the media to get away with that. Is that fair? I think so. I mean, I've been delighted, I think I said this earlier, but the level of stigma has been reduced dramatically. You know, I do think it's morally disgusting to say that about someone or to, you know, discard their experience there. I also dislike that it's so intellectually lazy to just laugh at that and move on. Yeah. And it's something that we certainly want to hold, you know, hold ourselves to a high standard of like intellectual rigor and professional rigor and values and project those like into the space and enhance credibility. I've been fortunate that I haven't heard any comments like that, I think, at all in the conversations that I'm involved with, you know, whether it's on Capitol Hill or in academia or what have you, you know, having these conversations with serious folks, if that's unfortunately something that, you know, people say on, you know, Twitter, then, you know, I'm sad to hear that. But I've been, again, surprised and delighted that we haven't encountered things like that. Like this is taken quite seriously by serious people. And that's really good to hear. And I think I'm hoping that's what Age of Disclosure perhaps manages to bring forward a little bit more of that credibility with the names and the titles of folks attached to it. And I know from a UK perspective, I was just on a podcast here called Uncanny. Now, it's tended to be paranormal ghost stories and whatnot, but they've done an episode on the Terry Lovelace abduction, the Devil's Den. And it had a really good response. I was reading the comments of the folks who follow that because it's a really big podcast here in the UK. And there were multiple comments claiming this. They were really disappointed that Uncanny had covered. And bear in mind, it's a ghost podcast. They were really disappointed that Uncanny was covering UFOs because they weren't credible. And multiple comments saying that this case has been debunked already. Now, I asked several of those folks, just out of curiosity, where have you read that this has been debunked? Because I've spoken to Terry myself a few times and I've never seen that. To which the replies of the only person who got back to me was, I read it somewhere. And it's like, ah, so you've seen online, someone say this is nonsense and that's enough to go, this has been debunked. And I think there's still that level of public stigma there where a lot of folks, and bear in mind, people who are listening to a podcast about ghosts are talking down about the UFO topic. And I found that interesting slash not unsurprising from a UK perspective. So it's good to hear there's stuff happening in the background. Age of Disclosure, particularly, might have a bigger impact on the US than it does worldwide. Because I don't think most folks outside of the US will particularly give a lot of weight to the job titles and the political titles of the folks speaking in that documentary. Don't know whether that's fair or not. We'll find out from Friday onwards. But yeah, I still feel there is a level of stigma there that perhaps isn't encountered outside the US. Yeah, well, I hope it's a... I mean, again, I have not seen it, but the clips and the trailers that I've seen look very encouraging. And if it's positive and it advances this topic, I hope it's a worldwide success. But you know what? I would settle for it just being a smashing hit in the United States and helping to advance the conversation. What you described in the, I don't know, the beefs between groups or what have you, this is why we need leaders to talk credibly about this subject and to demonstrate leadership about the history of this, about problem solving for what the future could look like and de-stigmatizing. And I've been pleasantly surprised, again, that that's been there. I'm sure there's lots of, you know, whatever it is, Twitter beefs between shows or podcasts or whatever. But I want no part of that. And I want to try and help move the ball at a high level with leadership. Yeah, that's fair. Question from Joni. Joni says, do you or the foundation have any sense of what might ultimately be disclosed and what the consequences could be? I'll give you a little bit of follow-up to that, Jordan. Joni says she's encountered some darker possibilities that might explain why the system keeps a lid on this, though she jokes that presidents don't lose hope, so it can't be that bad. She also says she'd prefer the disclosure to happen gradually and thinks the mainstream media would happily keep offering a narrative that allows people not to look too closely if they don't want to. What's your perspective on that? Yeah, I think that, can you repeat that for me? Yeah. So the first part was around any sense of what ultimately could be disclosed and what the consequences could be. And then secondly, around the mainstream offering narratives that allow people not to look too closely. Yeah, I think that the nature of disclosure, the analogy that we've made in our work product that we've delivered really is the one that is like the nuclear, like the atomic bomb, right? This is the idea that we know how this works or that we have one, we know the physics behind it. That is a reasonable thing to talk about in the scientific community and the, you know, politically with the general public. Do we want to release the plans for exactly how to make one of those things? Probably not. But I think that's an example. You know, we could look to history for examples of like what's worked for things like that. I think that's a decent one. And it's an analogy that I think is salient for leaders to convince that, you know, we can have this discussion. I think there is also a growing sense that, you know, we're sort of in this, you know, people are very distrustful of the government, of institutions at this moment. I think specifically with respect to this topic, it's something that adds to this sort of fractured social psyche, certainly in the United States and maybe more broadly. But that, you know, a resolution on this topic, clarity, how it comes can, I think could really be like a salve to mitigate that and to actually help there be a little bit more unity amongst us for this topic. So that's certainly one of my hopes. And I think it's achievable. And Joni did ask at the first part, and I don't think you've answered it there, but have you got any sense of what might ultimately be disclosed? And I suppose I'm wondering if you're in the office of a staffer or congressman or woman, and they say, you know, cards on the table here, Jordan, what ultimately are we looking at coming out? What exactly are you expecting to come of this? What would you be saying? Yeah, I mean, I don't have specific ideas of exactly what would be disclosed. That's why I sort of mentioned the analogy, right? But if you apply that analogy to this, you know, to the topic, then it would be, you know, something to the effect of, you know, there's something here. We may not understand what it is. Maybe we do, maybe we don't. But there's something there. We need to be, you know, intellectually honest and transparent about what that is. We need to, you know, stop having our best thinkers be stovepiped and trying to address this from all angles, from not just a science and engineering perspective, but also from our religious and philosophical perspective. But yeah, I think that that is the kind of thing that would be, I think, more palatable than, you know, here's exactly how all this works, even if we knew that, which I don't know that we do. And if, and I'll push you a little bit cheekily on this, if I'm one of those congressmen and I'm sitting saying, no, that makes sense, Jordan. I appreciate it. This is interesting. But, you know, between me and you, are we talking aliens here? Are you having that conversation? Um, you know, there is, I think we have a video up on our website that, of Chris Mellon describing this and I encourage people to go watch that. And, you know, the takeaway from that is it's really hard to explain this, to explain the fact pattern in a way that doesn't have you, you know, if you're willing to hold the, you know, ET hypothesis in mind, that doesn't like tend to steer you in that, in that direction. Yeah. Um, but again, regardless of what the truth is, I think it's important for there to be a brighter light shown on that and for there to be more, more transparency. Yeah. That's incredibly fair. And final question. And this is one for the real, uh, post-disclosure connoisseur. And this is from James, who I got to meet at the Sol Foundation all too briefly. Um, so hi to James. He's been a supporter for a long time. He says, if we imagine a post-disclosure world, are there suitable replacement markets for equities and derivatives if energy costs were to drop to zero? And during the transition to the future, does it make sense to tax free energy? And I like that question because I'll just give the context for me here. I've said so many times before, there's this idea that, uh, disclosure with a capital D, let's just say to totally distract from this Epstein stuff for whatever reason, someone decides to drop all the alien info tomorrow, right? There's this idea that, oh, okay, we can now all have propulsion, uh, free propulsion, free energy, Tesla style. We're all going to fly about like the Jetsons. That's not going to be the case because whatever this propulsion method or system is, if we can replicate it on mass, you're going to have to make it. You're going to have to provide it to people. I can't see anything other than things like subscriptions for your car rather than having fuel, you know, and there'll be different qualities perhaps to it. Does that make sense to you? Yeah, I think to, to answer the question, I would love, we need, like, serious intellectual rigor applied to exactly that question. I would love to write a white paper about the, uh, potential impact to markets of that sort of technology. And what's interesting is that, so, James, reach out if, uh, you have experience in that, you know, in that industry and you, uh, you want to contribute, please reach out. It's a fantastic question. Um, and these are questions that, like, I think our leaders are asking and they want help answering. Uh, that's what we're here for. I would love to help write like a white paper like that and try to add some, add value to the conversation. Um, we can engage, my hope is we can engage, uh, serious economists and serious, uh, investors in that exact same conversation. What's interesting about it is that, that, I've been thinking a lot about this recently vis-a-vis AI. What does, you know, put UAP off to the side here. Just think about you, uh, AI. It's the same question. What does, like, if we reach the, you know, we get through the filter and we're at, uh, on the abundance, uh, part of the curve, what does that, what does that even look like? Like, what do our lives look like? What does the nature of an economy look like? What is currency even become? Um, you know, how are things fundamentally denominated? Those are even just looking at those questions, with respect to AI is really challenging and, um, but interesting and we need answers to them and we also, for the, and for the same reason we need it for AI, we need answers to those questions for this topic. Yeah, really good shout and final word over to yourself, Jordan. If someone's sitting here thinking, okay, I know a lot more about the UEP Disclosure Foundation now, I understand the goal, I understand the rebrand, what are you saying to them as a final, you know, why should people support, how can they support and how do they get on board? Yeah, sure. I would say definitely reach out to us if you have a specific skill set that you'd like to contribute. We're always looking for really talented folks to help contribute. I mean, this, this topic still needs, you know, still needs a lot of help. Um, so please reach out for financially. Yeah, I mean, if you think that our, our mission is a noble one and a viable one, then we would love financial support for sure. Um, and we would love to be able to support whistleblowers and accomplish the other aspects of our mission with that. And we, we hope to advance the ball on that. Awesome. Jordan, wonderful speaking with you. Thank you so much for your time. And I do hope that in a year's time, I could have you sitting back here and we can discuss those big ones. Me too. Me too, Andy. Thanks so much for the time. I really appreciate it. That's all for this episode of That UFO Podcast. Thank you so much for listening and watching. If you enjoyed the show, please follow, subscribe, and leave a rating or review wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps others find the show. If you're watching on YouTube, hit like, subscribe, and turn on notifications so you don't miss future episodes. You can also support the show directly and get early access, add free episodes, and bonus content on Patreon or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube memberships. All the links are over at thatufopodcast.com or in the show description below along with merchandise and more. Don't forget, you can also pick up a copy of my book, Atlas of Unidentified Flying Objects, available now in all good bookstores and through online retailers, including Amazon. Big thank you again to all of you for listening and tuning in. Until next time, keep looking up. You never know what you might see. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. This podcast is sponsored by Nurture Life. Hey, it's Danielle Fishel from Pod Meets World, and as a mom to two growing boys, I know how chaotic mealtime can get. No matter how confident I am with what I'm serving them, my kids will always find a way to call the meal gross or stinky or yuck. It's true. They can be wildly picky about new foods, and with my busy schedule, I don't have the time to become America's next top chef. And so that's why I love Nurture Life. It's a meal delivery service that actually caters to kids, ideal for ages eight months to eight years, fully cooked and ready to serve in just one minute. It's the problem solver I've been praying for. It's the top meal delivery service for babies, toddlers, and kids, and everything is designed by registered dietitians, so you can sleep safe knowing your kids are getting the protein, veggies, and nutrients they need while still eating favorites like mac and cheese, spaghetti and meatballs, and so much more. Plus, it's allergy friendly, which we know is clutch. And when it comes to options, Nurture Life has you covered. There's more than 50 nutritious meals and snacks on their menu, from soft finger foods for babies and toddlers to balanced kids' meals for when they get older. Nurture Life does the cooking, they deliver it straight to your door, and then you might even have time to eat something for yourself. So now is the time to head to NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D and use code POD for 50% off your first order, plus free shipping. That's right, 50% off, plus free shipping. Once again, that's NurtureLife.com slash POD and make sure you use promo code P-O-D. Even if you aren't a parent with young kids, you might have parent friends who struggle with mealtime. Make sure to share our code P-O-D with them. Remember, put your little ones first with healthy meals from Nurture Life. That website, one more time, is NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D pod.