Ivan Hannel on Elizondo, UFO Disclosure – and a New Insider coming forward

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. 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. Folks, Andy here. And just a quick word to say if you're listening to this podcast between the 28th of July and the 31st of July. My book, as you may know, is available to pre-order through multiple different outlets. However, if you click on the pre-order link below or the QR code on the screen if you're watching on YouTube and go to Waterstones, use code SUMMER25 and you can get 25% off the book on pre-order. So save yourself a couple of pounds, dollars, whatever your currency is. Check it out over on Waterstones. It's also reduced on sale on Amazon. So go and check that one out. Thank you so much to everyone who has. Anyway, I'll shut up now. Thanks for pre-ordering the book. Let's crack on with the show. Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy and interviews are back, folks. It's been almost a month or maybe more since my last interview. But I've got a lot planned in for this week. However, my guest today is a Yale and Northwestern law graduate with a background in civil litigation, corporate and family law. In addition to his legal career, he is active in the UFO community, contributing legal insight and strategic thinking to efforts around government transparency and the pursuit of disclosure. Welcome to the podcast, Ivan Hanel. Thanks very much. Hi, Andy. Hello to all the audience and nice to see you today. Let's have a good chat. Yeah, it'll be good and a lot to get through. And like I say, just in the introduction there, I've not done an interview now for over a month. And it's always for me being the bread and butter of this podcast. But for various reasons, things have just been a little bit crazy. But it's really good to have you on to kick off the guest interviews again. And I've watched a few of your interviews over the last couple of weeks and months, as I'm sure some folks listening or watching this have. But for anyone not familiar, Ivan, do you want to give us a little bit of your background and your own words and how far back any interest in the UFO topic goes? Sure. You know, yeah, I live in California, a bit north of San Francisco. I'm 54 years old. Grew up in Phoenix, Arizona. Went to school at Yale for college and Northwestern for law school. Actually, I didn't go into law school practice immediately. Actually, I went into education work as a consultant. I think back in the 90s, you know, there was this belief you could change the world, kind of along with the dot-com movement that was just started back then. So, you know, I worked with schools, actually teacher training for almost 15 years, traveled throughout the United States, all over the world, Asia, different places, which was really interesting. Got back into law after I got, you know, tired of traveling six to eight times a month. It was just too much, you know, to keep on doing. And, yeah, so I'm mostly a lawyer, but in terms of the UFO topic, you know, I became interested in it. I think, you know, I think, first of all, my mom was always fascinated just by the chance. Now, my mom was a little bit crazy, so I guess I threw her interest of UFOs along with, you know, her. And she was a tremendously intelligent, very smart person, a graduate of Vanderbilt in the United States, a psychologist, bilingual, bicultural, really phenomenal. My dad was equally wonderful, went to Juilliard for a bit. You know, they were both great, and they were both psychologists, for better or for worse. But my mom was the one who was interested. I remember I used to watch Leonard Nimoy's In Search Of, which is this old, old show. And so she loved UFOs and all of that stuff. I, for myself, really didn't have much of a particular interest, frankly, because of the stigma associated with it. Not that I thought it was unreasonable to believe in them. In fact, I thought it was highly probable that there either had been or were or are other species, other things going on that we certainly don't know about, which, you know, even our time on Earth in our own lifespan, as well as historically, suggests that, you know, things change and you learn things as you go on. But I did think it was somewhat improbable that I would live at the moment when it was understood, you know, what UFOs were, what is, you know, what NHI are out there. I just thought it was, you know, I analogize it as being like akin to being around at the moment of the comet of the dinosaur. You have to be, you know, you have to be kind of an unlucky dinosaur or a lucky dinosaur, depending on how you look at it, to get to that point. So I was always open to it, but I wasn't particularly, you know, doing any research, looking at the history of it. Also, I think, you know, I believe that there were fewer conspiracies than people thought. I stand corrected on that, I think. But, you know, anyway, so, you know, it was always of interest. And then I think the New York Times article, Leslie Keane, Blumenthal, you know, that prompted a more serious inquiry from me saying, well, what are these things? There's got to be more to it. These people wouldn't sacrifice their reputation and lives on something that was entirely, you know, a hoax. So I began to do a little bit of investigation, you know, and actually just began to make inroads. In fact, I think, I mean, it's hard to remember exactly, even though it wasn't too many years ago. But I think the first person I reached out to, I might have been actually Ryan Graves, and it might have been over LinkedIn. I could be wrong. But I think it was something like that. And, you know, he was doing something, you know, he's forming some, doing some work in the area with the AIAA. And I tried to help in that, met some other people, met Ted Rowe. He was, you know, he's got his own thing in UAP Med, I think. Met Danny Sheehan and met a variety of different people. And so that's where I sort of became more involved. And I think, you know, for everybody who really, you know, always wants to know about Lou, I met Lou a bit over a year ago, a little more than that. And it was just a coincidence. Somebody introduced me to him, and, you know, it turns out he had a lot of questions that kind of, you know, spanned a wide variety of legal issues from, you know, contracts, copyright, you know, you know, so many different things, congressional issues, what's the law of Congress, what's the law of whistleblowers, what do you think of this piece of legislation, you know? So his interests were really wide, and because of his curiosity and intellect, I really enjoyed talking to him. So over time, we became friends, got to know each other, and I've helped him out in a variety of things. And, you know, so he has a broad set of interests, which kind of dovetails with my thinking on things. And, you know, so that's how I got involved in this whole topic. It really was mostly just chance, although I think, you know, if I had to put a seminal moment, it would be the 2017 article, I think is what really prompted me. And then I began to look on YouTube and seeing all the people and using LinkedIn to reach out to people. And it was really just, you know, my own curiosity, I think, you know, kills the cat. So that's what happened. And was there no hesitation being a lawyer? You know, I always think when people think of, you know, professions like law, medicine, academia, academia, at certain levels, there's a prestige to those roles. And the UFO topic is one you maybe want to steer clear of, as so many have, and it's caused so many arguments. Was there no hesitation on your part in getting involved, thinking, I'm going to be the UFO lawyer or a UFO lawyer if I dip my toe in this water? So a couple of things, by the way, I'll try to stay away from cursing, but am I allowed to curse? I just don't know what the rules are. Yeah, I swear all the time. Don't worry. All right. My answer would be, you know, was there a stigma? Absolutely. So I am the chairperson of the litigation network of the Association of Corporate Counsel. So the Association of Corporate Counsel is sort of a big organization of in-house counsel around the world, actually, they have, you know, groups all throughout most countries in the world. And, you know, I can tell you that even in that group, there were people who were quite hesitant about, you know, even allowing a webinar on the topic, despite the presence of legislation in the United States passed by at least the Senate, you know, as well as other initiatives and, you know, coverage and all of that, it didn't make a difference. So frankly, many organizations are against it. I also have, you know, my original background and still somewhat my mentality is more of a plaintiff's lawyer. And even on listservs for plaintiff's lawyers, the reality is they don't want to have anything off topic, right? And they think UFOs are off topic. It's just not, it's not legal yet in that, in that, in their mind of thinking. So was there a stigma? Absolutely. But did I care? Absolutely not. You know, I think people go, you know, there still is a stigma, but I think it is getting less and less. I mean, it's hard to ignore the drones over our heads and the tremendous pace of technology and AI. You know, I analogize it and I try to tell other lawyers, it's like, you know, if I had told you 2000, you know, back in 2005 that, you know, you would have these amazing AI agents and at some point we might be getting very close to artificial general intelligence and it might become something very real in your life with robots that are, you know, moving around and there would be drones that would do all sorts of things for better or for worse. I think the average person in 2005 would have said, you're a fool, you're a dreamer, you believe in nonsense. But that is the world we're very, you know, we're right next door to opening that door. We're right there. So for all the people who are afraid because of stigma, it is real. It can be detrimental. People can think you're crazy. But, you know, as a lawyer, I know I'm a good lawyer. My adversaries know I'm a decent lawyer. You know, certainly not the best in the world, but competent enough. And so it never comes into play in that way. It's just that it's not a topic that people are really receptive to talking about. And it's a very interesting thing to speculate as to why, you know, why people are so hesitant it's sort of a deep-seated fear. I think it's, you know, anything that is fearful. It could be, you could be talking about, you know, diseases like COVID or pathologies or war or injustice. People just don't like to talk about those things because the average person and even professionals would prefer to, you know, talk about the weather and, you know, mundane things and, you know, what's happening in the local sports league or whatever it is. And that's fine. But, you know, I think that from my personality, it's, I'm more than willing to take whatever appropriate there is about this, about this topic. So I'm pushing forward. Whether other lawyers are like it or not, I really don't give a damn. So you say it was almost more by chance you got involved in the UFO topic early on. What were those kind of early times like for you? I think a lot of folks listening to this who do know your name will know you from the UFO world and representing Lou Elizondo. Was there anyone else before Lou Elizondo that was perhaps someone you were representing, giving advice to? Then you met Lou. You mentioned a few names like Danny Sheen and such that you were speaking with. And then how did that relationship with Lou come to a point that was professional? Well, I mean, I think that, no, I wasn't representing anybody in particular before Lou as like a formal client. And I do all my work pro bono, as anybody knows. So, you know, anybody's talking about grift, it's kind of the reverse. I need some grift because for all the time I've devoted to this, you know, it's always been pro bono. And frankly, that's it. With Lou, you know, as a public figure, you have all sorts of issues. You have concerns about, you know, your reputation. You have contracts that you're negotiating with, you know, book companies or looking or considering. You have events. You have, obviously, his particular interest at the time was really on trying to, you know, see how far you could push Congress and reasonably, you know, go right to the limits of his own restrictions to move things forward. So it became formal fairly quickly with Lou in terms of actually discreet legal tasks to attend to. You know, and so that's, yeah, I would say that about Lou. And I'm sorry, give me the rest of your question. I think I've failed to answer all of it. No, that's fair. Just getting into that, when did the professional relationship with Lou Elizondo begin? And we can kind of carry on from there. So when was that? If you can give us a rough timescale as to when that began. Boy, I'm terrible with dates, but I would say somewhere in, you know, March, April, May of last year, it might've been, it might've been later than that. I don't know. You know, Lou did invite me to join him. Actually, it was sort of a client meeting and a vacation for me because I hadn't been to Washington, D.C. in almost 30 years. So he said, hey, I'm going to D.C. Would you like to join me? Go to Congress. You know, walk around, mostly in the House, a little bit in the Senate, as I recall. And so I joined him on that trip. And needless to say, it was a very interesting time. And for me, it was a bit of a, I would have to admit, it was a little bit of an ontological shock to realize that at least some Congress people were taking the issue rather seriously. You know, and some of the things I heard were, were confusing. So, you know, with that said, I, I began to take the issues much more seriously as something that would, you know, as a topic worth paying attention to. You know, one thing I would like to say and just take this opportunity to is that, you know, many people throughout this entire topic want to be, you know, the UFO lawyer, the UFO advisor, the UFO whatever. They're seeking profit. They're seeking influence. They're seeking to be in the room where it happened is one terrible phrasing, but accurate. And that's not ever been my goal. I don't need the money. Not that it doesn't, you know, help. It would be nice. But I mean, it's not really. And, you know, I would, I would like to develop, you know, devote more time in the actual practice of law around the topic, which I do a fair amount of, but, you know, I also like to keep in sort of my sword sharp in regular civil litigation. So I still like being a courtroom lawyer so that I don't ever lose that ability to enforce whatever it is that I've agreed to. So to me personally, I don't want to just be so removed from the courtroom that I don't remember what it's like. But having said that, I had no particular ambition to be, you know, the UFO lawyer. Now, my ex-profile, I jokingly call myself a reptilian lawyer just to, you know, just to give some people some food for thought. But really, you know, I didn't have an ambition to be a particular person in this genre or field. Rather, I just wanted to help people who didn't seem to have the resources to help themselves. 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'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. So long as they were mostly aligned in the public interest. And, you know, when you can marry those two things, helping an individual who is being wronged while at the same time moving forward a necessary public conversation, you're doing a good thing. And in 54, I got to start, you know, investing in all the good things so that, you know, when my time comes, I'm not feeling too much heat. Well, Ivan, you're 15 years older than me, and I would say you look about 15 years younger than I do, so you're doing something right. I'm remiss to talk about Lou Elizondo too much when he's not here, but he's going to be a big topic of conversation with you and something a lot of listeners wanted to get in touch with. Before we move on to the congressional talk and the hearings, Lou has had probably a rather strange year in terms of, I think, in 2020, I started the podcast. He was quite a big name, almost elusive, because he was part of Two of the Stars Academy, and I'm going to try and get the timeline right here. Things went astray there. Lou came away from Two of the Stars Academy and made himself available for podcast interviews. He started many of those interviews apologizing for not being available, and that wasn't down to himself, it turns out. There was people at TTSA who were holding back requests when perhaps he was looking, he was more than happy to have those. So Lou had done the podcast round for a good year and a half, two years, massive on mainstream media. He was the go-to guy for news outlets, you know, to talk about this around the world. That led to, of course, the book, Eminent, behind me over my shoulder there, number one New York Times bestseller. That is no mean feat. And then, over the last year, there's been a couple of issues, actually, more so the last six months, where there's been a couple of missteps, I'm going to say, and I don't think that's unfair to say. He's no stranger to controversy, and I think that's from the beginning. Lou's been called all sorts, and I've met Lou Elizondo once, personally. Really nice, over a pub lunch. People may or may not know that from years ago on the podcast. He's been called a debunker, a disinformation agent. You know, there's people who don't like his ties to government. From the beginning, the counterintelligence aspect of his previous roles. But I need to ask then, fast forward, I suppose, to May 1st. Were you present for his appearance at the congressional briefing when he presented the photographs of the irrigation fields? Yes. Yeah, yes. I know exactly what you're talking about. Yes, I was right in, you know, two or three rows in the audience. I was. That's true. And for those who weren't aware or maybe not remember what we're talking about here, this was where Lou Elizondo had stood up and presented photographs. He said were, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ivan, from a pilot he'd received just that morning and it showed what, at a glance, from a distance, if you close one eye and scrimp with the other, looks like a large object, potentially saucer, casting a shadow on a field. Yeah. And then, but when you look closer and when folks very quickly did look closer, it's irrigation circles, irrigation crops, which are very much on the ground and just markings in a field, folks went wild over this online. You can imagine folks who are very pro-Lou Elizondo were very disappointed. People who are anti-Lou Elizondo or on the fence had a field day with that one. So it was a little bit of a, what do you want to call it, a slap in the face for pro-UFO folks at the time. What did you think of that situation and were you there to give advice before or perhaps after as to what had happened? You know, in terms of the photograph itself, I don't recall ever having seen it up until the moment he was holding it up. So I didn't really get a chance. Now, you know, I honestly, that was a very, I was exhausted, you know, so I don't remember ever seeing it. In fact, that was a question, had I ever seen it, you know, because people asked me and I was like, no, I don't remember having seen it. Now, on the other hand, you know, Lou shows, has showed me things, you know, once in a while when we were together, he showed me something on his phone and, you know, I, so that particular photograph though, I had no recollection of. And when I first saw it, I don't remember what I thought it was, but I kind of thought it was just an oil or water tank in a field. So I don't know what it turned out to be, to be honest with you. You may know better than me, but, but yeah, so I just thought it was a water tank, but you know, I understood because I, I mean, maybe it was just being in the audience and hearing his tone and all that, as opposed to seeing it on a very, I think the feed for the audio wasn't very good or the video. So, so, so, so just to let your audience know and think about it this way, you know, when you're at a concert live, it's a different sense of the presence of the person and what they're communicating than, you know, if you're watching the same concert live on a, on a TV or on a monitor, right? So just to let you know, there is that same kind of difference. So for me being there, it was extraordinarily clear that what, what Lou was saying was that there was some pilot who I think maybe through an intermediary gave him a photograph. And I don't know if he got like a printed, you know, I don't know where the printed copy came, maybe he printed it out that more, like, I don't know when that came out. I have no idea, but you know, and I believe one was color and one was not, I don't know all the details to be honest with you, but what I will say is this, I thought the point of it was to say, look, we need to resolve pictures like this. Now, obviously that one turned out to be very easily resolved. And I think that most, you know, most of these photos or videos to the extent that they can't, you know, that they can be resolved as either AI or Photoshop or, you know, a barn or a chandelier or whatever it is. My point is, is that he was using that photograph to say something more like, hey, you know, these are photographs, good or bad. We're getting them from pilots and we need to have a better way of resolving them. That includes the commercial and civilians, you know, just not even a commercial pilot, just a civilian who, you know, someplace where all the photos go, maybe AI, maybe there's analysts, but they all get resolved as best they can. Maybe there's a community, you know, a way that the community can resolve similar photos and contribute. So I think that was his point and that got lost. And I think the reason it got lost, quite frankly, and this is the part that people don't understand is because of significant issues with the schedule that had been placed on him and all of that. And some of the, some of the things, let's just leave it at that, that he was exhausted. And so he probably wasn't as clear as he should have been, right, or could have been because he's very eloquent when he wants to be. But, you know, when you're exhausted and I was exhausted, that's why I barely, you know, the whole event to me was kind of like a blur other than I do remember him showing up this photo and then I was like, okay, but I understood that the photo was almost immediately just suggestive of, hey, we get things good or bad, obviously easily debunked or, you know, unidentifiable that we need to resolve. And I think that if he had been clear in his language, rather than, it almost seemed like he was saying, no, I believe this is a UFO. I don't think he ever thought that was anything but something that was, you know, maybe unknown or maybe just obviously some sort of something in the field, but his, his wording at the time wasn't good. And I, you know, I think he accepts that. But I think his wording wasn't good because he was exhausted and that was due to other things. So suffice it to say, I understand where people think it's a misstep, but, you know, and, and, you know, we all talk, Lou and I and others. And I think that there is a hesitation to be the person to say, you know, any, any concrete statement about a photo or a video. So for example, you know, people look at the Tic Tac and recently have said, no, that's, you know, man-made and that's, you know, created tremendous controversy. Now, I don't know how you prove it's man-made versus, you know, alien or whatever it is. But, you know, the point is, is that whenever you sort of align yourself with a particular video or photo, you take the risk of eventually it turning out to be something different than you thought it was, even if you have the best of intentions. So I think that it was just a case in that particular instance, where his words and his language weren't in accord with really what he was trying to say. Although I, I understood it. I didn't think he was saying that was a photo of a UFO at all. I, I didn't get that. So it took me a while to even comprehend what the problem was. And then when people pointed out and, and, you know, they sort of said, oh, I think he's really saying this is a, you know, a new unpublished photo of a UFO. I mean, you know, there's so many problems with that too. Like, how do you know that it's actually unidentified until it's been resolved through a really, you know, a very strong process, let's say to, to exclude anything potentially conventional. And I don't, you know, a photo that you get from, you know, someone to someone else is not, you know, been vetted in any meaningful way. So, you know, I, I think his point was good that there should be, um, a process for all of these photos and videos that people take, whether they're pilots that are commercial or military or just a person on the ground with an iPhone that could be, you know, uh, systematized and, you know, probably, um, you know, secured and, and, and, you know, vetted and chain of custody and all that good stuff. But I just don't think on that day he was his best with his language. But again, I think that was pretty explicable based on, on exhaustion and some, some other things. Yeah. And there's potential that it was a good point poorly made. Like you say, it's definitely not been helped. And you alluded to this there that only a few weeks before that, there was an image released online by Lou. He purported to be a UFO over the Romanian embassy. It was something like that. And it was very clearly a reflection and a mirror of a chandelier behind someone's head. Um, and there was people still argued for this online and I am certainly no Lou Elizondo hater. I'm accused of being quite the opposite, but very much like Lou himself said from the beginning. And I was a big fan of those early interviews from Lou, you know, and I think he maybe even said this to me on multiple occasions on the podcast, you know, don't believe me, look at the data. And if you've got someone holding up data and evidence and not presenting it properly, that's going to look one way to a public, a UFO public, you know, the community. Um, do you want to come back on that? Yeah. Well, I mean, I would also point out that Lou, I mean, people misunderstand Lou's role, you know, in, in what he sees his own role as his, he, he sees, I believe I'm not going to speak for him, you know, too much out of turn, but I believe he sees himself as a person, um, trying to carry forward and bring into the mainstream, this public debate about UAP, NHI drones, uh, security up to the limits of his, uh, previous work with the government, right? So he's kind of straddling a line, but he is not the vetter of all things, UFOs. Um, I'm not saying he doesn't have a, you know, maybe some, some basis for knowing some things versus others, but I just don't think that that's his role. So when people look to Lou and unfortunately, you know, sometimes they'll say, oh, that looks, you know, people come up to him at events and say, could this be a UFO? And maybe he's so polite, you know, he doesn't want to say, boy, man, that doesn't look like a UFO at all to me, you know? So he's polite and, um, and sometimes engages, uh, in speculation, just like a normal person, you know, just like you and me saying, yeah, that could be maybe not wanting to be as negative about it. But, but, but I think I, I, I do recall a little bit that I think he was really, you know, at least as, at least after the fact, I can say, I really believe his intention was good and was really intended in that particular instance. I can't speak to the reflection of the chandelier and all of that. I don't know quite why he posted that. And again, there's a caution to be had in qualifying any photo because I don't even know how we do it. That's why I'm personally very skeptical about photos and videos, not because they might not be genuine or real, but because I don't know how much further they bring us towards the problem. The problem isn't that we don't know. I mean, the fundamental problem, or at least the, the principal problem in front of us isn't, is this a real photo of UFO or not, or UAP, whatever you want to call them. So it's, does every additional photo and video get us any farther than, than the ones that came before it? Is that, is that the roadblock to making progress on the American government and other governments beginning to publicly acknowledge that there's some phenomena going on? I certainly hope that this new work with Beatrice Villarreal does maybe present a different side of things, a different kind of photograph, you know, one's taken many decades ago before for the most part, uh, there was anything in the sky. So I think that's very interesting. Right. But again, I just don't see what talking more about a particular photo or video gets us again, I'm not against it. If you want to dedicate your time to that, that's great, but I don't think that's why we haven't gotten to big D disclosure. So I I'm sorry, that's a bit circuitous, but that's a bunch of thoughts at once. No, no, I appreciate that. And I don't think you can argue that even the staunchest debunker that Lou Elizondo hasn't brought this conversation on a level, if not multiple levels into the mainstream, because he's someone that people I know who have no knowledge or interest in the UFO subject will at least allude to that guy who worked for the US government, who, you know, so Lou, Lou is at least out there, even not in name, but by role and reputation. So, you know, he's had an impact and that has happened. Is it a case then to be made, Ivan, that anyone involved in the UFO conversation, especially public figures like Lou Elizondo, and we can throw Chris Mellon, Tom DeLonge, Stephen Greer, Gary Nolan, I'm trying to cover the gambit here, Ross Coulter, that they either need to be more careful with what they say and do, or should the public be more forgiving, recognizing that they are still human and make mistakes? What's the balance there for you as a lawyer? Well, I don't know about as a lawyer, it's a little different, you know, so I'm going to answer this more as a person. I don't believe actually that we should have that binary. That is to say that we should, you know, force public figures to be very cautious and very, you know, discreet about what they say. I understand the inclination, but no, I kind of disagree with that too. So I'm not going to go on the, you know, just because I guess I, the way I'd put it is this, it's not that they need to be forgiven. They have the right to their own speculation and we're all speculating a bit. It's not like somebody says, well, I'm going to go show you the UFO that I have. And you can see that that is, or is not a UFO. We don't have the comparable, you know, at least 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. Available to you and me to ascertain precisely what is or is not a UFO. But I guess what I'd say is that all of these public figures have the right to their own mind. We're constantly talking in UFO land about being denied information, yet we're then doing the same thing to our heroes or villains, however you want to put it, and say, no, you shouldn't say anything unless you know, no, no, no, no, you know? And I'm not for that either. I'm for just allowing people to be and to have opinions and to be wrong or incorrect, as long as their motivations are good. You know, intent is what matters. I mean, at some level, you know, you do want to have somebody, you know, get to the bottom line of things. But I think I don't see it either way. I don't think that the public figures should have to be forgiven because I don't think there's anything to be forgiven. Rather, I think they're allowed to give their opinions on things, and that will, you know, give you a measure of where they are personally on a particular topic. Likewise, I also don't think we should immediately invest so much in them that we become, you know, that they become the sole source of information and almost like a, you know, a demigod on earth. We need to treat them as we would probably wish to be treated, as well as, you know, the way we approach things, and I'm being a little bit, well, inarticulate here, frankly. But on this journey to disclosure, you know, we can't treat each other so poorly and expect that the aliens will save us. I've said this many times. You know, people are just so one-sided and angry and sort of almost, you know, jihadist about one thing or another. And then, you know, and then when we get to disclosure, oh, great, now I'm going to, my aliens are going to be my friends, or I'm going to travel on a Tic Tac to have lunch in Paris, or whatever it is they think, or I'm going to commune with the spirits, or I'm going to make a lot of money, or I'm going to be the head of the UFO people. All of these, it's disgusting to me. It's like you want, you know, they want something from the end that in the course to reach that through the journey, they're not comporting themselves in the right way. So as to people like Lou, or Gabe Crush, or Chris Mellon, or Ross Coulthart, or Jeremy Corbell, you know, they're all people. And I've met most of them, and they're nice people for the most part, right? I mean, they're decent people. They just, you know, sometimes they'll be excited. Sometimes they'll misstate something. Sometimes they don't know enough. Sometimes they can't say what they know. They're just people. So we should treat them normally. And if they make a mistake, they should be able to say, you know what, I made a mistake. I thought it might have been this, or my words weren't great, and I wish I had said it this way. And if we can just move on from that, we can actually get closer to disclosure itself. Yeah, some good points there. The argument around would people rather not have any information and not have any data and not have anything to look at and talk about. I've said before, I would rather see information and data given to us to let us decide. Personally, I think this is a good piece of evidence or not, than have people say, actually, I've made a mistake. I don't want to release anything or say anything. And I think Western society, especially, you know, I'm 39. So let's say from the mid-90s onwards, when I was aware of how the media would work, we love nothing more, especially in the UK. And I'm sure the US is the same from what I see online, than to build up a public figure. You create the public figure, but there's almost more of an appetite to tear them back down and enjoy the fall as much as you did the rise back up as well. And that can happen a lot in society these days. And I don't think the UFO community is any different in how it treats its own. Sure. Yep. Yep. My wife is always saying, you know, people love stories, right? Like they love stories. And then they love heroes and the fall of the hero and the redemption of the hero and all this stuff. And, you know, I really don't even have, I mean, as a lawyer, I'm really mostly a storyteller, particularly in trials. That's what it's story time, as I call it. But, you know, I just, I just think we got to get away from the drama as much. It doesn't mean we have to be purely analytic and looking only at the science and very, you know, cautious about what we say. It's we should just be human. You know, the more we get into this, I think more and more how much I like the idea of just being human. You know, we're so entranced by the NHI and their technology or these UAP. And then we want to, you know, almost squash what actually is valuable about us as human beings, which is that we're a bit weird and we make mistakes and we, you know, have new ideas that turn out to be wrong a lot of the time. So, you know, listen, I'm here all for the humans. That's why I'm here, not for the NHI, not for the UAP. I'm here for the humans. And, you know, I think we should allow ourselves and the people who are at the top of the thing and at the middle and at the bottom, you know, a degree of humanity. So you've said before on previous interviews, and this should be a given, that Lou Elizondo, and this is my last kind of Lou question before we move on to Congress. You'll be glad to know. Given his current or previous security clearances and your lack of clearances, he's not going to share classified information with you just because you're representing him. He's not able to do that. You wouldn't want him to do that either, I'm sure. But I'd love to know, is there anything before you knew Lou, professionally and personally, to now that has really changed with your thinking around the UFO topic? Attributable specifically to Lou? I'm not, you know, just being in that circle, things you maybe thought before, assertions you may have had around UFOs, origin, you know, what they may be, stuff to really follow, to now being like, actually given my experience and exposure to that circle, here's what I think. Well, absolutely. It's diametrically different. I mean, you know, and not just because of Lou, but because of others. But I mean, certainly Lou is one factor. But yeah, I mean, before, you know, I got involved in the topic more deeply, like I said, I was open to it, but really didn't know that there was a there there. Increasingly now, if I had to make certain public claims, which I do make to other lawyers and other people all the time, is I believe the United States has likely recovered craft of unknown origin. I believe there is a high probability that there is one or more what you would describe as non-human intelligences, whether they're artificial or biological or however you qualify that or just sort of a consciousness or, you know, who knows what they are. I think those are real. I think the United States has, you know, hidden this from the population for a variety of reasons and probably the most astounding program or series of programs that's ever been in terms of a secret project. And when people, you know, wonder about that, I say, well, you know, the day before the atomic bomb, you know, hit Hiroshima, who knew about it? You know, the day of the D-Day landing, you know, both sides had great interest in when it was going to happen. But it happened on a day that thankfully the Germans weren't quite as prepared as they could have been. And everybody knew it was about to happen. I mean, there's many things that are very surprising, you know. I could go on and on with them. So, yes, my view is there are UAP, there are NHI, there was a hidden program. I also believe to some significant probability that there was a childhood training program or testing program. I have more ideas now. I do lend to the idea that it's not just, you know, that we have made, that we have had advanced technology in the form of drones, at least with a very, I don't know how to describe it, but certainly a very new or unknown, previously unknown sort of propulsion system for perhaps decades now. And why we're continuing to hide this, I don't know. I can speculate. But yeah, my worldview has entirely changed. Certainly in my experience with Congress has maybe left it less, you know, the history textbooks, generally speaking, present, you know, the political process as one which is controversial, but sort of based on reason. I'm not going to say I really believe that anymore. It is more like, you know, kind of a, you know, just a strange place, you know, so for better or for worse. But many of the people still mean well. So I have a very different view now than before. Some of it attributable to Lou for sure. And, you know, other parts of it attributable to many different people and many things I've looked at. Yeah. Complete change. No, thank you for that. Can you just expand on the childhood training testing program? What exactly are you getting at there? So I've talked to a few individuals now. Some I talked to seemed a little bit, you know, upset. And, you know, and I get it if their allegations are true, you know, although even for them, I think it was distant in the past, you know, not, you know, but who am I to say how they should feel in the moment? But a couple of people I've talked to have given me information that makes me believe, that they were part of, you know, some government program or programs that put them under tremendous stress in very strange ways, seemingly to get them to develop some sort of conscious or psychic abilities. You know, and although that, you know, maybe to your audience it makes, you know, perfect sense, but to an average person, it sounds, you know, crazy. But, you know, you go back to the CIA dosing, you know, people in a brothel in San Francisco or with LSD, you know, and I believe there was some connection to the Unabomber there. I forget what it was exactly. Or even just more ridiculous programs. Like, I mean, you know, people don't think about it, but we actually dosed the country of Vietnam with Agent Orange. I mean, you know, it's insane to imagine that we tried to defoliate large parts of a foreign country. It makes no, it's insane. It's just completely insane. Yet people did it, right? So, you know, I think there is a high probability that there was a childhood testing program. I've heard the, I don't know who did it. I've heard certain names being bandied about. Whether those people have anything to do with it, I don't know. But, you know, I'm curious to learn more. And at this point, I just don't know. I just don't have enough. I need more witnesses. I need participants who believe they were and can provide some verification that through this gifted and talented education program or some other mechanism that they were trained, you know, by maybe psychiatrists, doctors, psychologists, you know, others during their childhood in ways that don't make sense. So I do believe there is that. I think it would be one of the key things, if it's true and we could get the group of, I hate to call them participants because it wasn't voluntary. I prefer to call them victims, but if we could get more of them together in a group and, you know, really qualify them to the limits of our ability. It's hard to do because remember, I always use analogies. It's like, you know, for the Catholic church scandal with kids, you know, back in the 60s and 70s, that was very, it was very hard to really believe that the Catholic church at the highest levels could have been involved in such a scandalous thing of moving priests around and, you know, protecting them from the authorities for their sexual abuse. But it turned out to be true. And now if you hear somebody, you know, say that they were a victim of it, you know, you know, you get people, you know, there's a lot of understanding now and, you know, whereas before there wouldn't have been. So I think something analogous is going on there that eventually we'll get to the point. I don't know that how big the program was. I don't think it was, you know, tens of thousands of participants. I could be wrong, but I think it was a number of people and we just, I just need to be in touch with them and figure out, you know, they can reach me on ProtonMail. They can post on X and I will pay them some attention. You know, some people I've heard from and didn't think that they were particularly credible, but I do listen to everybody and hear their story out. And a couple of people I met are quite credible witnesses. It's just, I need more than two. If I could get to like 10, I think that would be tremendous. And if we could get there, I think it would be devastating to the anti-disclosure folks. I think it would be a very strong indictment of them because, well, why are you doing this to kids? Right? So it would be, there would have to be some reason for it. And once we got to there, we do it. So I'm looking for, you know, people know and want to put me in touch with people who they think are reasonably qualified in the sense of having been victims of some similar program. I'm more than happy to look at it. Yeah. Yeah. I've heard similar. Maybe from some of the same folks as you, we have not discussed who those people might be bought. 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. I think one of the big reasons for disclosure that people try and think of outside of the government, and I'm putting the government loosely, you know, the government don't want us to know about aliens, the reality of non-human intelligence, the technology, etc. Why don't they just tell us? If an element of this cover-up was because they were taking children at a young age, either orphaned or missing children, whatever it may have been, and exploiting them for various reasons, for psi abilities, controlling of craft, telekinesis, contact with NHI. And those children, for various reasons, were abused in multiple ways, like we've talked about, or even potentially died because of what they were put through, that would be as big a reason to cover this up and not want it out there. Because surely once the ball starts rolling and the cover-up, you know, is exposed, if that comes out, that is the kind of thing. The public are going to be more furious about that than they are, you never told us about aliens for 50 or 60 years. I've been told, yeah, I've been told that that is the reason or one of the reasons for being cautious about disclosure. And, you know, I'm sorry, but whatever morality, you know, whatever good you might think you're doing, by hiding this part of history, to the extent it's true. Again, I don't make claims about, you know, what's a UFO or who's a victim of an abuse program. But if it is true, to the extent that anybody is claiming that there's some public benefit that over, you know, that overrides the rights of what were, you know, mostly children, children, it appears, you have lost your mind. I would like to personally burn you with fire. So, you know, I, but instead of doing that, I would like to pursue it legally, not necessarily for, I mean, you know, if there were some remuneration for these people, great. But just for the public truth, we cannot have a land, at least in the United States, a land of the free and home of the brave, if we are filled with untruth, and if we don't account for our sins, for our wrongs, and if we don't know what reality is. So, you know, I don't know who got this idea to test children in any way for psionic abilities that would cause them stress or induce stress. But I think it's insane. And, you know, I would, I would pursue that as doggedly as, you know, as, as, as, as anything. Yeah. Just before we move on to a little bit more around Congress and the handling of that, because some of that may come back into it. Using your legal brain, you talked about the, the evidence that you've seen or heard, or, you know, actually, sorry, not the evidence that you have, you believe that our NHI components being held by the U.S., you know, the stuff we've heard said by Lou and others on mainstream media now, and pilots and scientists and academics have all said this now, legal brain, legal hat on, what's the best piece of evidence you would use to present to a jury of the public to say, here's why I think this is all true? Is there one particular thing or is it the weight? You know, no, there, there is not one particular thing because, um, unfortunately I don't have, you know, I can't, you know, bring into the courtroom, uh, you know, uh, a non-human intelligence and say, see, I told you, or, you know, let's go, right. Let's go for a ride on this, uh, you know, UFO. We just found it, you know, 557 fifth, you know what I mean? Like I, I, I don't have the physical evidence, but the testimony of so many, um, former government officials, you know, the, the, the, the testimony of the, the information we've had over time, over history, certainly, uh, some of the scientific information. I, I don't think that it is one thing. Okay. Uh, but I think it is altogether, uh, suggest to me it would be almost, it is just unreasonable to, to believe that all of these sightings, all the historical drawings, all the videos, all the witnesses, uh, all the documents are simply some, uh, you know, as, uh, as Arrow would like to suggest some sort of, uh, you know, what was, you know, they, the first they said it was a sort of a group of insiders creating some sort of nonsense. Then they said, no, it was actually an intentional government program to hide conventional tech. You know, of course it was always balloons and birds. Um, so there's not a single thing, but I will say one thing that a new client of mine, uh, which we can talk about whenever you wish, um, has given me information, which I now believe for many different reasons. And, and frankly, in part, because of what Tim Phillips himself said on Mick West podcast. And that is something that I think is still slipping under the radar of most people in ufology. They don't understand how important it is what Tim Phillips inadvertently said, uh, on Mick West podcast. Uh, and, and that particular, you know, dialogue or, or part of the interview, uh, very much surprised me because it basically said that what a new client of mine, and again, I want to make it clear, it's not Lou Elizondo, uh, and he's not actually a new client. I've known him for, you know, I don't know, eight months, nine months. I don't know exactly how long, but, um, you know, that, uh, you know, what, what Tim Phillips said about him bringing what would be described, what Tim Phillips said was alien like technology, or at least, uh, that implicated, uh, some programs at the Nevada test site, which he then understood to, you know, which he said he could understand why people would think they were, you know, alien like capabilities that was an incredibly surprising, uh, admission, uh, that really qualified what I already knew to be true based on the tremendous stream of messages and both email and text between my client and SSCI and arrow. And, um, that story is going to come out. Uh, but suffice it to say, um, I do believe at this point, not, you know, not, not a hundred percent because I don't know anything for a hundred percent, but I am convinced at least by a preponderance of the evidence and thanks to Tim Phillips. Thank you, sir. Uh, good, good luck in your retirement. Um, but, uh, that there, that the United States has had some technology for at least two decades, if not longer, this predates the Nimitz, uh, which, um, can only be described because I, I know a bit about what I've heard from my client, um, which included some physical evidence and a very crazy story, which I don't know if I'll be able to tell here, but, but one day, um, uh, that, uh, basically makes me believe that for sure we've had some, uh, astounding capabilities for at least two decades, which means that even the decade before, so we're stretching the three decades, certainly this technology must've been in development, you know, during the nineties, probably presented itself in the early two thousands and has been developing ongoing ever since. Um, so, you know, that's, that's a real surprise because then the next question is, well, how did you develop this very advanced kind of propulsion? And, um, you know, I, I don't know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a wild thing. And I can only say that, you know, I have heard implications of this being blue sky technology by different people, including, um, you know, some people in the Congress. And, um, I, I'm, I'm, I, I think that this, I really wish everybody who hears this goes and rewatches about minute 42 to about minute, maybe 50, 48 of the, of Mick West, uh, thanks McQuest, uh, interview of Tim Phillips, because he, he's asked, Tim Phillips has asked a question and instead of, you know, which was really, what was it like working with the task force? And he just goes off on a complete tangent and first defames my client, says he's sort of some mental lunatic also says he's, um, uh, extorting the United States government. Neither of those are true. And then goes on actually though, to say, oh yeah, he brought in physical materials and oh yeah, that material led me to go back to area 51 at the request of the chairperson, chairman, which is probably the chairman of SSCI, which might've been Tom Cotton. And I think if it was in this year and, uh, learn a lot about some programs, which suggests an alien like capability. So if people watch and rewatch that carefully, I think that they will learn something very surprising, which is that it may be the case that, you know, the United States have had crazy technology for many decades and, uh, you know, I don't know what to make of all of that, where it came from. I don't know. That's the next question. Right. But, but people need to go back and watch that interview again. And I have a feeling that some of Tim Phillips problems might've come from some of the things he had said. Yeah. It's looking like that online that maybe some of what Tim said on various interviews has maybe not been well received in the background by, by other folks involved. And I don't think that's conspiratorial. It really does look that way from everything. And I'll, I'll say for the record, cause I even people are asking me about my interview with Tim, cause I think I had the second or third with him. Purely. I tried to get him on last year and I had to go through official, I think I had to go through the DOD and nothing came back, you know? Um, I, he was really nice before and after the interview, there was nothing suspicious. I believe his wife was in the background at one point, um, his dogs were playing in the background at one point that he was a nice guy. He was really amenable afterwards as well. And I got some of his frustration personally. I don't agree with everything he said. I do get some of it and I truly believe some of what he said, he believes not to say it's true, but I do believe he's, he's been, you know, but we don't know. Um, but it certainly looks like there's been a few missteps there as well. Um, your, your new client, is that someone we know already in the public sphere or is that someone who's not come forward? He's come forward. He's spoken with, uh, Burleson, um, Burleson contract called him a contractor. He's not a contractor. He's never been a government employee nor a government contractor. Um, he's a person of, I believe, goodwill. He's a patriot. He's a business person. He is trying to, um, and he was trying to over, over frankly, many decades, um, figure out some things that, um, an experience he had and, um, tried to, uh, approach the United States government when it became opportune to do so. Because remember back decades ago, you know, you came, you know, if you had some information to give, they'd call you a, you know, a UFO lunatic and, uh, ignore you. So there really wasn't much to be done, but he will tell his own story. And, uh, uh, I think soon enough, um, and, uh, you know, he, he did come into contact with, um, SSCI and, um, a particular Senator and, and, and era. Uh, and, you know, he has, you know, there's a lot of, there's, there's a lot of communications, right? There's a lot of emails and text messages that I've reviewed. And there certainly was meetings and skiffs and, you know, he, he, he, he was, uh, he, he, he was just trying to essentially tell, you know, help the United States understand that this fantastic technology that they have is, um, not as, uh, you know, it's, it's not as maybe secure as you think, or it's not as, um, you know, he's, they figured some things out and, um, and so in trying to share this and maybe make a business venture of it, but it wasn't, you know, I mean, Tim Phillips did a terrible thing. He, he, he said that he was trying to extort the United States government. I want to be very clear. I mean, it's absurd to even think that. And let me tell you why, you know, when you get an email from a hacker who's, you know, hacked your system, the hacker doesn't come to the FBI with its ransom note and says, hi, I'm just presenting myself to the FBI. Here's, you know, here's my note of like, you know, $10 million I'll, I'm planning on going to Hawaii, you know, overseas in five minutes, they'll arrest you right there. So the idea that somebody would present themselves and try to extort the United States government is absolutely logically crazy. And, and it makes no sense. So Tim, so I'm sorry, that's, that's bullshit. Um, and, uh, you know, so yeah, so it's a new guy. Um, he's a good person of goodwill. Uh, I think he's still trying to, to work if he can, you know, if, if the government wants, he'll certainly try to, to work with the American government and, and present what he knows. He's already presented quite a bit. Um, again, I don't, I can't qualify, you know, his technology or the information. And I've seen very frankly, little other than the communications, uh, uh, and, you know, between him and, and his group and, um, and, and, and the Senate and Arrow. But I will say it's substantial. And frankly, I think he has been the target, which people don't realize of a lot of the comments by even, you know, Senator rounds and, um, uh, certainly Tim Phillips and others. I think he is implicated. A lot of what they're saying resonates with some of the things he, he, he has going on. So, um, you know, from my point, I think he's just a good American businessman who is trying, who is trying to help. And, you know, and it, and it shows you if Arrow treated him this way, who was just trying to say, look, I've think I've made some discoveries. I don't know what this is, but you know, I, I found out certain things that are, you know, have a lot of data behind them. Um, I can only imagine what they've did to people who don't have, you know, any means and are government employees and are just, you know, without representation and, and just feeling vulnerable. You know, he, it's just, it's just horrible, you know? So, um, Tim Phillips, um, you know, I, I don't know why he got one on a campaign of a podcast, but certainly it's that stream of podcasts has seemed to have stopped or been put a stop to. And, uh, you know, he was doing a great job of telling a lot of things and they put a muzzle on him, I guess. Any time scales on when your client's going to come forward publicly? I'm hoping in the next couple of weeks, I can't give an exact timeframe, but I'm hoping in the next couple of weeks, um, you know, you never can tell maybe if the government comes and works with him, then we'll never hear from him again. Uh, I don't know. Um, but, but, but, but I think he, you know, he's not a UFO guy. He's not an NHI guy. It's not that he's not open to that, but he's just a, a business person who has a science, you know, science background along with the family background. And, um, just really came across some very unusual things and has an incredible story to tell. I think that there's a lot of, uh, uh, you might describe it as evidence to suggest that there's a lot of truth to it. And I'd like to thank, uh, Tim Phillips for, for helping, helping, um, corroborate some things, uh, inadvertently. So I, I always thank you, Tim. Good job. Well, listen, we've danced around it enough. I've mentioned Congress. I want to know again, especially you've got that legal background, uh, and you've got a fantastic way of putting that stuff across and I've appreciated that. I don't, in the nicest way, I don't feel I'm talking to a lawyer. So you're, you're dumbing it down well for me here. Um, how do you feel Congress is handling their foray into the world of UFOs? 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. Well, it would be hard for me to fully judge them because I'm not them. I'm not in their situation. I don't understand their dynamics. I'm not a politician in Congress. So I can't really say, well, based on my experience, they are an F. But I'm going to go over a strong D. I think they're doing a poor job of it. And granted, they're under handcuffs. They can't issue subpoenas. They're relatively new to Congress. Many of the people who are pro-disclosure, let's say. But, you know, I think it's not going well. And I'll give you a couple of different reasons for that. One is, you know, the legislation, my client, for example, is very opposed to the UAP Disclosure Act. Not because, you know, because for a variety of reasons I think he'll comment upon later. So just to be clear, I'm not sure that that is the right way to go. I understand it mentions NHI 24 times, and as long as the NHI people who want to commune with aliens see it in a piece of legislation, they think that, accordingly, the Congress will go ahead and do that, or someone will. I don't think you'll ever find the NHI. I personally am not rather – I'm rather curious now, given what I know about some of the Senate-side people who are in favor of the UAPDA, but who know quite a bit about my client, that I'm wondering if that's where disclosure goes to die next, along with Arrow. But – so that's speculative. I don't know. But in general, I think Congress has done a rather, you know, mediocre job about it. But I think that, for example, I see things very differently. So, for example, putting on a legal hat, the purpose of, you know, testimony, let's say congressional testimony, and I put this in a tweet. There's several purposes, but one is, for example, to develop facts in order – in support of legislation. I never understand what facts they're really trying to develop narrowly that is related to particular clauses in legislation. They don't usually tie that up very well. So I don't know what further testimony is going to do and how that's going to lead to a legislative, you know, piece of legislation, which says, based on these facts, here's the rule. I don't know where that's going. The public hearings, because they're constantly being thrown about that they're going to happen, and then they get canceled, and then you don't have the firsthand whistleblowers, and then you do, and, you know, all that stuff. I don't think it's really helped that much in terms of, let's say, increasing public interest. It has somewhat. I'm not going to say it's been worthless, but we keep getting increasingly sort of diminishing returns from additional hearings. So if it's not – you know, so we're not getting through the public hearings really what I think we might need in order to correspond with good legislation. The public interest may be waning from sort of overexposure or underexposure. I don't know where to think – go with that. The Congress, at least the task force, is not really to mind to mind. We haven't seen new faces come in and say, boy, you know, at least on the congressional side, I haven't – I don't know that there's a lot of new senators or new representatives who've made UAP, NHI their focal point or a real source of interest. I'm not saying they might not be in the background, but it hasn't really triggered a, you know, revolution where 50 other representatives and, you know, want to join this task force and, you know, all that. And so the load outcome seems to be member publicity, right? Like I have to say I think a lot of this is just all member publicity. And another thing too, I mean, they're always talking about skiffs, and I could go into that, but let me tell you, they're not – I mean, it's not a good show. And I think that the constant announcement of skiffs and cancellation and then blaming others, and this is predominantly for Representative Luna because that's what she does, you know? And I'm not a Democrat. I'm a centrist. But I will honestly say I think it's – I think this is ridiculous. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to go up and down and constantly saying we're bringing people to skiffs and then excoriating people and then making them like, oh, you know, you have skiff flu or this person canceled, but now they're back in or we – it's just the blame. It's – you know, all I could – let's just put it this way. You know, as an attorney, you look back to the historical figures, you know, the founders, or just, you know, great politicians across time. Well, I didn't see them when I was there. You mentioned the skiff flu stuff. And for folks unaware, this was when we were hearing we were going to have, I believe, David Grash, Lou Elizondo, Chris Mellon. Am I missing a name out from that? Was it those three? Perhaps someone else? Or was it Arrow as well were going to be in the skiff? It was something – there was – those names were thrown out and Representative Luna. Right, right. You mean there – yeah, there was a skiff supposed to happen on April 29th? Yes. Yeah, go ahead. And then Representative Luna, like you alluded to, when it didn't happen, sort of threw those individuals under the bus claiming there were illnesses and flus and basically made mention that they were avoiding the skiffs. That was essentially what she was getting at. So there was the skiff on supposed to happen on April 29th that Luna said was canceled because Dave Grash didn't have certain security clearances. Then they said there was another one that was supposed to happen, I guess, two weeks later. Yeah. I think at least – I don't know exactly when because I wasn't in charge of logistics. I wasn't dealing with that. But I will say that I don't think they gave much notice, if at all, maybe a few days for the second one, which is supposed to be scheduled in mid-July. There was, in my understanding, very little coordination, if any, with Lou or with – and I don't know. So they didn't really say, are you free that day? So they give you a very little notice. And then one of the questions that nobody in ufology ever asked or even challenged was this. Okay, you want to have a skiff now in May, two weeks later. So April 29th canceled, let's have one in two and a half weeks in mid-June. Did Dave Grash suddenly get all his security clearances for that one? And if not, then why did you cancel the – which they said, you know, that was the one they said everybody had skiff flu. So, again, there was the first one on the 29th. Then two and a half weeks later, they were supposed to have a second one. Well, what changed then? Like, if Dave Grash still didn't have a security clearance, then why couldn't you have done the one on April 29th? Why not come out and say, we're completely chaotic, don't know what we're doing, we couldn't get it together, we apologize to everyone, and we'll figure it out. Instead, you just get – apparently Luna loves to blame people. That's – her social media profile is nothing but blaming people. Democrats, Biden, you know, the Epstein stuff. I'm not really into that, particularly myself, but, you know, I can understand where people who are into it really want to see what it is. I get why. I'm more into, like, Ukraine and, you know, other things, but I get it. And, you know, it's just a nonstop stream of blaming people. The witnesses, they don't want to come, they have the flu. One of the people did actually get really sick, or they were recovering from, like, I think, pneumonia. I mean, this is just stupidity. I would – but the thing is, is that in the UFO community and amongst all the know-it-alls who want to run everything, they think, oh, no, don't ever say anything bad about a congressperson. Just basically kiss their ass. That's what they basically want to do. They just want everybody to be, oh, my God, you're – you know, you can get into congress. You can walk into the house. They treat these people with kid gloves. They have no standards, frankly. So as a result, they're always trying to curry favor with these people. So, you know, Luna can throw you under the bus and say a bunch of nonsense, and you're supposed to be like, yes, we love you. And, of course, people, frankly, you know, they think she's very pretty and all that other stuff. And it's just absurd. It's a theater of the absurd. And I can tell you I've seen it firsthand, where either because of how somebody looks or because of being able to go to congress and feel self-important. And then, you know, these are the same people who are always tweeting the bullshit about, like, we got it, we're doing something, we're hitting it hard, give us some money. It's just – it is literally – it is, to me, absolutely disgusting. So I think you hold your congresspeople to account. And what congresspeople respect is power. And power is either money, influence through, you know, being able to get organized large groups of people, and sometimes ideology. But Luna's ideology, for example, is whatever is publicly interesting. I don't know that she likes UFOs or cares about them much. She liked Epstein, and then she didn't. She likes, you know, JFK, but then where'd that go? Like, look, and this is not a critique in particular about her. It's just like – it's sort of a two-sided critique. We're not going to – if you think we're getting anywhere with congress with this kind of structure around it and leadership, I mean, they can't even get a subpoena issued with, you know, at all. And then they're curious as to why. I mean, I've got to be honest. I don't know that I would give them subpoena power either. I'd be like, I don't know. You seem a little – you know, I don't know if you're up for the job. So I'm just not impressed by congress at all. I think the legislation, for example, UAPDA, I'm now more suspicious of it because of some of the things I've learned. Whether that's true, you know, I understand where people have – you know, say it would be something good, whatever, but I'm not – I think we really have to expand the constituency in Congress altogether. And rather than leaving it in just particularly the Republican side, it also needs to – you know, we need to get more people on the Democrat side. We need to get more people all together. And we need to increase the amount of publicity to the issue. And it's very hard now. I mean, look what's happened with the drones. They're flying over our heads. Nobody even pays attention. It's wild. So, you know, we get the government. If we blame the congress, you know, we should blame ourselves too. We put these people in power. We have very limited expectations of them. We make them into heroes or villains. And they're not either of those. They're just people, you know. So it's – I don't have a lot of expectations for that. But until we start telling the truth to congress as much as just hoping that they're going to lead us to truth, until we hold them accountable in all ways, we will never have any power. And that's all they – you know, that's what politicians respond to, right? They respond to power. And we have none of it. Within ufology, the organizations are so scattered and contentious due to personality and being the biggest fish in the smallest pond ever that we can't even organize as a reasonable constituency. So I'm not despondent about it, but I am not – when people say, oh, this is going to do it, that's going to do it, you know, this congressperson's great, that person's terrible, I kind of, you know, just let's take the long view, let's work the science, let's work the lobbying, treat people fairly but strongly, and I think we can get farther. What are you suspicious about in the UAP Disclosure Act? Well, a number of things. First of all, you know, I think that – so to go broadly, so I think that based upon my sense of what I've been – what I've heard about what, frankly, Senator Rounds knows about this technology that's been in existence for at least two decades, if not longer. And I had a chance to meet him very briefly, talk to him for one minute in private, nothing big, but his strong emphasis was on protecting blue sky technology. That's the one thing he said to me. I said, you know, what is your interest in this UAP thing? Because I was like, you know, what's really going on here? And he's a very nice person. He's very smart. I mean, he's definitely no dummy. He's very smart, all right? You can gather all the house people together, and I think Rounds' intellect is, you know, it's interesting. But his focus is blue sky technology, right, protecting the outer limits of what American technology is talking about. And you've heard from Trump talking about, you know, us having some really weird technology. You see some recent posts by Lockheed Martin. You know, people are seeing things in the skies for decades. So I guess my suspicion is this. And my client has a particular suspicion that they're going to try to use the eminent domain language or some of the other language that's been proposed, not in the UAPDA, but in the NDA, the Defense Authorization Act, that would essentially make it such that if somebody, and this is NDAA, walks into a SCIF who's not a government person but a private citizen, that that information can be suppressed. I don't have a clause in front of me, but he showed it to me, and it was very surprising. So whether it's the NDAA or the UAP Disclosure Act, and again, you know, I'm not 100% either way. I'm just saying these are some concerns I have, that because I believe Senator Rounds knows full well about this technology, then why not, then why are you sending people, then what is the UAPDA deciding to do then? You know, wouldn't it be better at first to just tell America that we have some very astounding technology that, you know, if you can? And if not, I mean, I don't know what the reasons are. That's another source of a lot of questions. So I guess I question the motives then of supporting the UAPDA based on the fact that at least one of the people who says they're a big advocate of it must know quite a bit more about the presence of some very strange technology. And I want to qualify something. There was a statement by Rounds recently, I think it was in Askapul, where something says something about it being a stealth, stealth related. 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? Odoo. Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. When Tim Rounds talked on McWest's podcast about this technology, he did not say it was just, you know, oh, it was a very interesting form of stealth technology that my client revealed. It was, he called it alien-like. Stealth is not alien-like. Like, if you have an incremental improvement in stealth, or even a tremendous improvement in stealth, it doesn't really necessarily make it alien. So what Tim Phillips was talking about, if he's, you know, true to his words, about the capacities or capabilities of the technology being alien-like, I would suggest has much more to do with its mechanisms of propulsion, rather than any particularly, you know, incremental improvement in stealth. You don't say something, like if I said to you, hey, I saw some sort of plane, and you said, oh, what did it look like? I'm like, oh my God, I don't even know. It looked like an alien ship. You wouldn't expect it to be sort of an improved F-35. You would say, you know, you'd think it'd look like something out of Star Wars or Star Trek or, you know, Battlestar Galactica. So to me, you know, I think that fundamentally what's going on is the Senate and SSCI know much more than they're letting on. They're lending their support to maybe the UAPDA for good or for bad. Maybe they are well-intentioned. Maybe they do hope it works, but I don't think we need a review board to tell us reality. I don't think we need controlled disclosure, you know, and that's in the title. Why do you want to be controlled? If I said to you, do you want to have, you know, we're going to sponsor the Controlled COVID Truth Act, would you want controlled truth? Like, is that who you are? Do we want, what about Epstein? Do we want the Controlled Epstein Disclosure Act? No, we just want the truth. And we don't need to wait for a panel to decide what we can be told. The politicians themselves are outsourcing their responsibility to tell the truth to the American public within reason. And the ontological reality that we may have, you know, an NHI or UAP should be told. We don't have to tell them what, you know, what specifically, you know, exactly all the parameters of the propulsion or other characteristics. But we should be able to be truthful. We need to stop lying to each other about so many things, including AI and, you know, attending to that. We shouldn't hide any dangers. We should be explicit about them. Let the body politic work and believe in democracy. I think that I understand hesitation, but this is rather incomprehensible to me, at least with my present state of knowledge. So you've been on with me a long time, Ivan, and I really appreciated that. So a couple of things just before we can let you go and enjoy the rest of your day. Generally, we've had the hearing so far with Brian Moultrie was the first one. Unfortunately, at the same time, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard had their trial going on, and that seemed to capture the attention more of the nations and the world, to be honest. We then had the Grush, Fravort and Graves hearing, which for me, I think, it's not unfair to say had the biggest impact and the biggest resounding kind of sound bites from it anyway. We then had the Elizondo, Gallaudet, Schellenberger, Gold hearing, which landed how it landed. I think the Immaculate Constellation for Rory was the biggest takeaway from that, for good or for bad. And then we were meant to have the hearing in July that has been delayed to potentially September. And I want to get your thoughts generally on how have the hearings for you landed, and what do you think about this hearing that was meant to happen, that should happen, and is it even worth happening? Well, I mean, like I said, I think that hearings need to be in furtherance of a goal, and we don't even know what the goal is. I mean, they don't make it explicit. You never hear them say, well, we're taking testimony to elicit certain things related to the locations of things so that we can then issue subpoenas, and here's our process. It could be going on. They could have a very comprehensive plan or strategy, but judging by the characters involved, I don't see it. So I'm not against more hearings. I mean, sure, like I said, there's always a danger of them becoming increasingly dissipated. Now, if they had, quote unquote, firsthand whistleblowers, whatever that means to you, that might move the needle, but I think that we have enough information to demand accountability. Congress generally proposes legislation, but it could do other things. It could issue subpoenas and get information in different ways. So again, I think you're right about with the, you know, sort of listing of priority, you know, in terms of impact. I think that's about right. This next one could even have, you know, tremendous impact. I would like it to, but I don't know what it is in furtherance of. And my problem with ufology as a whole is they're always excited about, you know, a SCIF meeting, a Senate hearing, or a congressional hearing in the House, or whatever. And it's like, okay, what do you, can you even articulate what it is that's going to happen there? That's going to lead to what result? I mean, just because you have people who are firsthand, what happens if people say, okay, then what? Like, where is it leading? What is this leading to? Is it a particular piece of legislation? Is it, is it in support of what? I don't know. So again, I mean, I'm like anybody else. I'll watch it. I'm interested in seeing what they say, but I'm not particularly optimistic. I'm optimistic that it is a purposeful strategy tied to measurable goals, which is, you know, premeditated and thoughtful. It is a, I don't think it's good. I, you know, I don't know. I'm just not, I guess I'm not that impressed by the cast of characters, but I wish them well, and I hope it works out. I, you know, so let's see what happens, I guess. As far as SCIFs go, don't really care about them. I don't think they should be announced to the public. I don't know why you'd do that. As I joked on Twitter, it's like, you know, you never see, FBI doesn't say I'm meeting with the informants at, you know, Starbucks at 11. Oh no, that informant sucked. You know, criticize them and then, you know, make them like, I don't get any of this. Their methods are weird to me as a lawyer and as just a human being, but I'll watch it. But do you think the behavior, do you think the behavior then of Congress, Senate and others like that are ultimately helping the gatekeepers? I was going to ask, sorry, I paused there at the wrong time, but helping the gatekeepers. I don't think in intentionally helping the gatekeepers. It's almost like the gatekeepers are like, you know, like why, why intervene when the enemy is fumbling their ball, their own ball? You know what I mean? Unforced errors. I think, I think these are a lot of unforced errors. Thankfully, Tim Phillips made one recently, so that was great. But outside of that, I, I don't know. You know, I don't, I don't think they're in the league with anybody. I think they're actually people of goodwill, even Luna, who I don't particularly appreciate her social media profile or really pretty much, much of anything. I think, you know, and again, I'm a centrist. I'm not a Democrat. I don't like their, I don't like the Palestine, Hamas stuff. You know, no way, not for me. Nevertheless, and I'm very pro-Ukraine, which is against, you know, a lot of what, for example, Luna likes. She wants to let him, you know, go die. But, you know, from my point of view, I don't think they're in a league with the gatekeepers, but I think that their method and lack of coordination and their constant publicity seeking, we've, you know, everything is announced. I mean, everything is announced. How do you imagine to do an investigation where everything is announced? I don't get it. And maybe there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know. That's probably true as well. But even what they've announced in excoriating people and all that stuff, I just find it very, I just find it like, you know, a clown show. Sorry. I think the phrase, and I don't want to be detrimental here, is useful idiots, perhaps, is the way these things can be described that, you know, unwittingly helping out. And I'm glad you said you're a centrist because I get lots of shit off of Democrats and Republicans when I don't have people, you know, stick up for both sides. And I get it's a political hot potato in the US right now. Listen, in the UK, it's really boring politics. We're not as exciting or sexy as your US politics are. But, you know, we're a shit show as well. So listen, politics is politics. For me, all politicians do the same thing, folks, genuinely. And just to finish, before the quickfire, I try to stay away from talking about the Epstein stuff, like you said yourself. But do you think there's a chance that with the whole Epstein thing, wherever you fall on what that thing is, and it seems to be quite a big thing, the UFO topic is one such big enough topic, it could be used to distract from the Epstein stuff? No, I don't. I mean, if I were thinking logically and sort of iteratively through it, UFO topic is too abstract. No, I don't think it would work. You know, not saying like, all power to you, President Trump, tell us about UFO so that we can forget Epstein for a bit. I mean, I'd like to see justice prevail. I'm not saying he's a good person. He seems like a sociopathic lunatic. And whoever joined him in his escapades is a disgusting creep. But no, I don't think that UFOs would be, you know, I think there's too much personality in Epstein, too much investment created, frankly, by the Republicans to now ever, you know, use UFOs as a way to, you know, scoot the story away from Epstein into the supernatural or, you know, what, you know, I'm not saying it's all supernatural, but, you know, to get away from it. I think Epstein is just too strong an issue. It resonates too much with people because, you know, the sexual component, frankly, you know, if it turned out, you know, Epstein was just a guy who put people to work for minimum wage and didn't pay their taxes. There's nobody to give a damn. It's the whole sexual with underage people that gets everybody, frankly, titillated and incensed and all of that, which I understand. It's horrible. Believe me, I've dealt in my legal cases with victims of sexual abuse in horrible ways. And, you know, I know what that's all about. So trust me, I get that. But I just don't think it's going to be used to distract attention. But, you know, let's hope, right? Let's hope, show us the UFOs so that we don't have to listen to more of Gislaine or whatever her idiotic name is. I just, I think we need to get back to different, you know, we need to hold our members to account. And Epstein is one way of doing so. But there's so many, so many other problems that we have. But the UAP issue, and this is the last thing I'd like to say, let me go one topic that we haven't covered. I just want to briefly mention before, is this. Lou Elizondo, over eight months ago, proposed a national intelligence estimate for emerging all-domain technologies, EADT. And he said, you know, we need to pay much more attention to the drones. And he characterized them as sort of, you know, regular drones. You might say the fiber optic ones that Ukraine used to, you know, hit those Russian planes on the tarmac. Then we, he calls sort of a variety advanced drones, which seem to have some capabilities, which may cross over with what we would describe as UAP. And when Lou was thinking this, you know, eight months ago, this was before Ukraine's attack on Russia, you know, it was before the Iran, you know, use of drones there by Israel. And it was such a prescient idea, right? Like, really, let's focus on the drones. Now, why? Well, over New Jersey and many other parts of the United States, even back in 2019, people forget Colorado, Nebraska, there were drones. This issue of the drones is critical. It leads to the UAP and people don't understand it. Instead, they want to talk about, you know, the boogosphere or, and again, no harm necessarily, right? That could, that could be something. I don't know. Or certainly what Ms. Villarreal is doing is very impressive. And we got to come to that conclusion. But the drones are something that weren't denied. Remember, Trump, President Trump didn't say there were no drones. He said, oh no, they're there. They're just FAA approved. Well, yeah. Okay. What does that mean? Nothing. And, you know, people say they're some sort of surveillance system. But, I mean, you don't need drones to know where F-15s are on the tarmac in, you know, in Glendale, Arizona. I could tell you where the F-15s are to pretty, you know, using some Google Maps and the ruler. I could probably figure out how to take out most of our airports, airplanes using fiber optic drones. And we, you know, America, we don't realize we're so, it just drives me crazy. 9-11 was a predictable thing. There was chatter beforehand. The World Trade Center was a target in 93 by a truck bomb. They just changed it to planes. Kamikazes were there from the 1940s. Like, it's not unimaginable, right? So, the drones are a critical issue. And we need to focus on them because some of the capabilities of these drones that have been, you know, are not just, I don't think it's surveillance. I think it's maybe a show of force or perhaps it is. I don't know. But I will say that the drones are a critical issue. And if ufology kept saying, what is going on with these drones? Your explanation is insufficient. How about you, Luna, Burleson, and Burchett? I know it's not your domain. You're not tasked with that. You don't have the authority. But raise all hell until we can find out what these drones were, what they are, where they're from, and all of that. And if we focus more on the drones, which nobody denies were there. I mean, some were probably some hobbyists and some were helicopters and some were regular traffic of a, you know, 757 or whatever it is. But many were not. And they were doing strange stuff. And the homeland is now vulnerable. And unlike in the past, unlike in Pearl Harbor, where we had a, you know, a do-over, we recovered, we went past. Unlike 9-11, you know, we survived that. If there's drones of a very advanced technology with significant payloads that can move extraordinarily quickly, appear, target, destroy. I mean, they could wipe out all of our military infrastructure to make it impossible to come to the assistance of, let's say, Taiwan. So we're in an incredibly, at least in the United States, who's always benefited from, you know, literally from having water on both sides, from a homeland attack of any real danger for, you know, I mean, it's probably, it's been forever. But now that is no longer true. So if ufology wants to help, focus on the drones. Once we figure out what's going on with the drones, it leads to this advanced tech, which then probably leads to questions about where'd you get all this stuff, which may lead to, you know, NHI. So I think that's a critical thing. And I wish Lou was thinking about it a long time ago. Everybody instead got caught up in him, you know, showing a cornfield. Like it's so sad, the level of just utter, frankly, stupidity and lack of sort of strategic thinking. And I'm not talking about Lou here. I understand he made a mistake. We all, you know, or he should have qualified his words better. But ufology as a whole ignores the drones for the most part, doesn't really get into it, and lets people get a pass and then wants to talk about alien hybrids and all this stuff. And that may all be true. I'm not, I'm not discounting that either, but we need to go for the low hanging fruit. The low hanging fruit is the drones. Where, what's his technology? My client, I hope is able to come forward and decides to do so. Obviously he has his own thoughts about it. He's a patriot. He wants to do the right thing. I think, again, I don't stand by, you know, I don't support anybody's particular claims. I'm not verifying, I know all of the details, but I will say there's a lot of curious things going on. So hopefully we make some progress in all of these domains. And, you know, the community has more expectations from its Congress, holds them to account. And if the Congress people don't get there, let's find some new ones. That's very fair, the points you've made there. Does Lou still have the appetite to be involved in this topic the way he has been? And that includes SCIFs, hearings, you know, all the stuff that goes on in the background we don't hear about. Do you think that's still there with Lou? Yes, I do. I think he's taking a break. Remember his health. I mean, I'm not going to go too much into it, but he definitely, for, you know, the time I've known him, was operating at 120%. That's also due to his personality. So when he decided to finally attend to some health issues, you know, that he had, he, you know, he went all out. So he's focused, you know, for the last several months on his health. He's also focused on some business efforts that have been fruitful and are going to come to light. So he's really been taking care of himself. And I'll tell you something, you know, I think it's important because one of the things that obviously without your physical health, you don't have much, you know, you don't have anything, right? So you've got to take care of that. Your financial health is also important because so many of the people in ufology, I talk to them and, you know, they don't, you know, they're government employees or ex-government employees and, you know, they're always worried about repercussions. And that's understandable because, you know, they spent 20 years at a place and their skill set is, you know, associated with that and so on. So Lou is freeing himself up physically, financially, and otherwise to re-engage the topic when he feels the moment is right. He has his own opinions, his own ideas. I think he'll be back, but I think he'll be selective in how he does it, right? He's tried to get, you know, he's the one who's been responsible for even getting a lot of this momentum in Congress going. But it's not a one-man show. It's an orchestra. And he's happy to lead or help. But, you know, he has to also take care of himself like any human being. I, fortunately, am able, you know, I don't depend upon ufology for my self-esteem or for my living or anything else, you know, so I just say what I want to say and people can like it or not. So Lou is going to come back, I'm sure, and be more in the public spotlight again. He was recently on with Chris Cuomo for something, again, about drones. This time, I think it had to do with drones coming across the border of Mexico. But just as easily as they could come across the border of Mexico and drop off drugs, they could hit Camp Pendleton or, you know, whatever. I mean, this drone issue is the paramount issue we all should be engaging. Drones, AI, and some of the strange maybe propulsion and cloaking or whatever you want to call them, systems that seem to be attended to some of the ones we've seen. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. And I think that when my client comes out, he's going to have some things to say. Of course, I think he's open again, you know, to working with the government. And so maybe that'll happen instead. I don't know. But, you know, for me as a person, I just want to help as a lawyer as much as I can and do the right thing. You know, I love America for all its imperfections. I'm a centrist. I'm not really in, I don't like the Democrats right now. I don't like a lot of the Republican stuff. I'm sort of in the middle. I think, you know, it's very, it's a lonely place to be, to be kind of in the center and seeing some reason on both sides, but a lot of misbehavior. And it's very disappointing, but, you know, until I move to Spain in a couple of years, just for, you know, to get away from all this craziness, I'm going to keep at it. Just to finish off on a few topics I've not touched on, the quickfire round, you can be as quick with these as you choose. You've been on with us a long time, Ivan. Sure. Jeremy Corbell recently dropped the names and addresses of locations of interest for Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, basically saying Senator Rounds should go check out those locations. What are your thoughts on that? Who knows if he already hasn't, but anyway, yeah. How about him? How about Luna Burles and Burchett? Why don't you all get a subpoena together? You know, obviously on the House side, it's different, but yeah, why not get a subpoena or just present to the gate? Bring the media with you. All three of you are all, the whole committee, the whole task force. Go to these locations and see, try to get entry. Get a ton of publicity and guess what? Maybe you'll get people saying, well, what is going on in these locations, right? That would be very simple if you're looking for publicity. So yeah, I think Jeremy, you know, by providing those lists of locations now, I don't know how easily these things can be moved, you know, but you've heard interesting things. I mean, even I remember Matthew, I think it was Matthew Brown who was talking about, I forget the place has a funny name, but over in the DC area, you know, where he said, look up in a hangar. Like all of these places should be visited, right? Like all of these places, you know, instead of blaming Biden, Luna, why don't you grab your colleagues, get on a plane, grab as many of you can, get some cameras together and say, hey, we presented ourselves to this location. We were not allowed entry. We're flying to the next one and asking for entry. We're flying to the next one and asking for entry. That would generate some publicity for, to the American public to say, well, why are these representatives being denied access to these facilities, which are alleged to be tied to, you know, UAP or UFOs, whatever you want to call them. I mean, there's a, I, I, I, anyway, that's my answer. Go investigate, see what's there. Ross Coulthart's comments that through his sources, he believes the tic-tacs were indeed Lockheed Martin technology. That is also, I think what, I think my client has reason to believe that too. Not that he's necessarily seen one, but although I wouldn't, I think he might have seen something, but I don't recall exactly, but yes, I, I don't know, you know, I personally don't know whether it's, you know, I think Lou doesn't think it's, he thinks it's NHI or, you know, whatever, UAP. I, I think, I don't know what the tic-tac is, but from my understanding, it could be, you know, it might be a first generation American technology, or maybe it's from someplace else. I have no idea. I, I, I don't know what it is, but I believe Ross has, uh, is acting on, on, on good faith. Um, and, and, uh, it, it almost doesn't matter to me because the, the, I'll let my client speak to, to that, but suffice it to say, I believe it's very possible that the United States has had some technology of, uh, incredible capabilities for a long time, whether it was put in the tic-tac or not, and that's, you know, uh, UAP and some, you know, I don't know. I, I don't know on that one. Can't, can't, can't make a decision on it, but, um, I think there's an argument on both sides. And your take on the work of Skywatcher with Jake Barber and co? Don't know much. Uh, I've never met Jake. I don't think, uh, maybe, I don't know if you've even exchanged any things. I know he does jujitsu, so Jake, uh, I'll come back on and, uh, get submitted very quickly because my back and neck are bad, but, uh, I'll roll with you if you ever want to do it, um, I, I don't know too much about Skywatcher. I've, I've talked to some people who've been a part of it, see some things from it. Um, from my general understanding, there's a sense that they're maybe, maybe working with the government more. I don't know if that's true or not. I've heard some things, but I don't know if they're working with them in a formal or informal capacity. I really don't know too much about Skywatcher, so be hard for me to qualify it. I, there, you know, there's a lot of things that I don't understand about, you know, what their claims are. I have, I've just kind of followed along very generally, so I don't have a lot of comment, but I wish everybody well and, and hope, you know, I hope they can bring a, you know, a UAP down to earth, but, uh, until they do so, I guess I'll just be waiting like everybody else. Well, listen, big thank you, Ivan, for your time today. It's been fascinating talking to you and I hope I've done it justice. It's been our first interview in over a month. Um, a lot of interesting stuff. This new client of yours coming forward, hopefully, as much as you said, maybe if the government wanted to get involved, we might not hear from them. I hope for our sake, that doesn't happen and we do get something publicly, um, but I hope whatever happens, it's the right thing. Um, have you got any final words for the audience? Well, I, I do hope my client comes forward, but remember, um, he's a business person, he's a patriot and he has to look out after his own self-interest and he wants to protect America. So how that evolves, I really don't know. Um, you know, I, I always put my client interests first. So, so he's client and then ufology, not inverted. I, I don't impose that on somebody. So even if I might want him to, you know, go open, full, open to kimono, he has to make decisions that are in his best interest and I have to support those. Um, no, the only other words are, you know, despite all the, um, roadblocks or speed bumps or whatever you want to call them, that ultimately we're on the right side of history. There is something going on. Um, I don't think that, you know, it's going to be a struggle. I don't think all the politicians are nearly as, uh, the heroes aren't always the heroes that you think I joked on X that, um, maybe we have a Palpatine like figure in the Senate, but I'm not going to necessarily say, I totally believe that now, but I think we need to hold our politicians to account and we need to go in with goodwill, but again, be forceful and say, nope, you know, what you're doing is not okay. Get back on track, figure out what's going on with the drones and so on. Uh, community should, uh, you know, stay positive. Um, we're going to, we are going to get there. We are on the right side of history and, uh, there's no doubt about it. And, uh, you know, it's, when you're in the moment, when you're in the storm, you know, at the, you know, at the bottom of the wave, at the trough, it always looks, um, it always looks grim, right? You never see that, you know, 20 miles away, 10 miles away, there's sunlight and everything. The water's calm. We are going to get there. Uh, it's just going to take more time. And as long as we approach things with strategy, right? And demand accountability and say, okay, but what are you doing? Why are you doing what you're doing? Why do you keep saying what you're saying? What's your next step going to be? How's that going to move the ball forward? If we start thinking just one or two steps ahead, I think we can, I think we can really win this. And, um, you know, so thanks to you, thanks to your audience and thanks to everybody who reaches out to me. Um, you can always follow me on X, uh, at Ivan underscore Hanel, H-A-N-N-E-L.com or that's it, just Ivan Hanel. And, um, or you can email me to my Proton. It's, uh, on, at the top of my, uh, X profile. So I'm always available. People reach out to me, always talk to everybody, listen to everybody and, uh, just have a, you know, it's, uh, have a great rest of your week and a good summer. 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.