Steven Bassett: Disclosure Timeline, UAP Politics & The Age of Disclosure Documentary

¿Quieres mejor internet? Cox Internet de 300 megas tiene las velocidades rápidas y confiables que buscas. Perfecto para streaming y gaming y trabajar desde casa. Todo por solo $45 al mes cuando agregas Cox Mobile. Incluye equipo de Wi-Fi y garantía de precio de dos años en tu plan. ¡No esperes! ¡Cámbiate hoy a Cox! Requiere Cox Mobile Gig Unlimited. Garantía de precio no incluye impuestos y cargos. Velocidad de datos móviles se reduce después de 20 gigas al mes. Hi folks, my book, Atlas of Unidentified Flying Object, is available to buy. And thank you to everyone who has done so so far. 4.9 out of 5 stars on Amazon. Please leave a review if you've bought it already. If you haven't, it is available on Amazon and all good bookstores. It's got some wonderful reviews. Check those out and I really appreciate the support. Thank you so much. Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. As always, my name is Andy and I am joined on today's show by the Executive Director of the Paradigm Research Group, Political Activist, Researcher and, take a breath, Disclosure Advocate, Stephen Bassett. Steve, welcome back. And it's good to be with you, man. I think it's your fourth time this year, calendar year 2025. Kind of almost a quarterly appearance for you now it works out as, which I'm excited about. A lot to discuss. So, we're going to try and rapid fire through a lot of topics in the next, say, 90 minutes. I like that. You're saying please to me, Stephen. You are famous for, hi, Stephen, how are you? And then 20 minutes later, I'll get my second question in. So, let's see how we manage to get through. I'm going to try to do better. Yeah. There's a lot to discuss. I wanted this show. I was going to do a bit of a news update, Stephen. And instead of releasing it, you know, on my own, I thought, do you know what? I've got Stephen Bassett on. Let's get through some of this stuff and get his thoughts on it. And I think the best place to start is the Age of Disclosure documentary. I've shared my thoughts. I've released my review on that. And I'd love to get your take on it, Stephen. The documentary, Dan Farron Coe, it's been out a week or so now. What was your thoughts? When I view this movie, when I view this movie or when I think about this movie, I'm thinking about it as a 30-year activist on this field. Okay. On this issue. Trying to get the government to end the truth embargo. And that's obviously what this film is about. On that basis, it's an absolute breakthrough. It is a colossal progress, huge progress. Unprecedented in some ways. So I'm thrilled, right? And it's going to get a lot of credit when the truth embargo ends, which could be any time now, frankly. Those that were looking for entertainment, right? Like Tiger King or whatever, right? They're going, where's the narrative? Where's all, you know, what is? Now they're going, and for those that know this subject very well, they're going, I want new stuff. I want new stuff. Right? Where's the new stuff? I've seen all the other docs. Okay. And then there are those that are wanting the breakthrough. Okay. All right. Big doc. Okay. Yeah. Where, you know, where's the photos of the ETs and the craft and whatever? I get it. There's two problems here. One is that while people that know this issue well may be disappointed, right? And people that have expectations and they expect this stuff to be given to them as soon as possible are forgetting that for every one of you, there's 10,000 people that don't know what's happening, really. They have a sketchy idea, maybe. They certainly know about the idea of an extraterrestrial. Those films have been played all over the world, seen billions of times. They know about what a UFO is. But in terms of the political processes and the truth embargo and all of this, they don't know, right? And this movie is very much for them. But the movie was really for the media because this film is going to make it a lot easier for more editors to get into this issue, do stronger articles, more publications. There's already a ton now. Really, it's unprecedented in the amount of media coverage we're getting, but it'll make it even easier to go deeper, all right? It's for the members of Congress that are engaging this issue, but particularly for the ones that know something's going on but are not ready to step forward yet. In other words, I'm down with Tim Burchett. I'm down with Anna Paulina Luna, but I don't think I want to get out there right now, okay? This is going to make it easier for them to step in. And you may see new voices from Congress getting in front of cameras and confirming what you've been hearing from these other members and from the hearings. Three, it's speaking to and has impact on the witnesses. The situation is fluid, complicated. Each witness has to make a decision. How far do I want to go? Do I want to come forward? Do I want to testify in front of a hearing? Some have less issues than others. I believe it's gotten much better, but they are still having trouble getting some witnesses. This is speaking to them. It's going to make it easier for some of these witnesses to make up their mind and decide, okay, I'll testify. Or I'm going to speak about what I know, all right? This film is also about Hollywood, right? It's letting Hollywood know that this kind of film, this kind of documentary is what you should have been making years ago, that it's having huge impact. And it's going to be successful. And that's a message to them. And so the film is a milestone. It will spawn many things, but at minimum, it is this. It is the largest assemblage of people of substantial rank and station. Secretary of State, four sitting members of the Congress, two sitting members of the three, well, basically two current members of the Senate. Lieutenant, four scientists that had worked in the, basically the early legacy programs, as well as a number of military, admiral, general, lieutenant, works, 34, never have that much gravitas been put into the same film. Nothing even close to it. And so it is a repetitive process of reinforcement and reinforcement. Does that make for spectacular documentary ship? Not necessarily. But does that make it incredibly significant? Yes. And I don't know if it'll get nominated for an Oscar, which is another milestone that this film has done because no other doc on the subject has had that ability. Uh, but it might, why? Because, uh, documentaries are not just judged on, oh, the cinematography or an unbelievable narrative or whatever. They're often judged on the importance of the documentary. All right. Um, and this one, like, uh, a number of other docs we're familiar with, um, uh, of past, has, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is something of incredible importance. And so it might get nominated. So that's, that's my take on it. And the effects of this doc are going to unfold over weeks and months. And it's just getting started. I agree with a lot of what you've said there. Um, I, I still can't quite work it out. And I think part of the issue for me is Dan Farah clearly has a lot of big connections. So has gone big with this. He has not done interviews on grassroots podcasts like this and shows and YouTube shows. He, he's kept it to the big news channels, the big stations. He's went on Rogan millions of views, millions of downloads within a day on a Joe Rogan. So I understand that. But the documentary itself, and I think you've kind of touched on this, hasn't been made for the UFO community. But from what I can see, it's largely the UFO community that's bought it, rented it, and watched it. However, the mainstream seem to have picked up on it. I don't think, you mentioned that, you know, one in 10,000 people are the UFO folks like us. The other 10,000, I don't think are watching this. But what they are seeing is the clips. They're seeing the media pick up on it. The media showing bits and pieces of the movie. I think we know these days, especially the younger generations, aren't able to watch or they struggle to watch long form content, especially something which is talking head after talking head. But what they will watch is a 30 second clip of Marco Rubio speaking, a 45 second clip of Eric Davis talking about non-human entities. And that's probably just as good. So ultimately, if it makes money or not, that's Dan Farah's problem in the studio. But the ultimate goal of this, hopefully, is to usher in that age of disclosure, pardon the pun. It's perhaps going to do that more likely than I thought it would beforehand. And that's kind of pleasantly surprised me. It doesn't seem to have had any impact outside of the US from what I can see. And that may be unfair. But again, folks, from a UK perspective, no one here is talking about it. It's not hit the news cycles. And even the way that David Grush coming forward did in any way, shape or form. But does that matter, Stephen? Is this something that, like you say, has been made for the US media? It's been made for the US Congress and the US government? The issue affects everybody. It affects every country. And the UK, there are researchers in the UK and there's plenty of history there. But yeah, the leader of the truth embargo on the planet for some time has been the United States. And there are reasons for that. And it's more likely than not, the end of the truth embargo will come from a US president. So the fact that the focus is on pretty much on the US, I get that. It's also, it's a US documentary. It was made here. But first of all, let's talk about a couple of things that you just raised. One, is it going to make money? Oh, yes. Are a lot of people going to see it? Oh, yes. Why? Because unlike the documentaries that are made by our colleagues, with little money and great pain, but they got access to tech and so forth, and they get a doc together and they get it out, and it does get a platform, but it's hard, it's difficult, and painful. Hollywood, of course, is making one film after another with extraterrestrialism and making a fortune, hundreds of millions of dollars. But they won't do the docs. They will not do the docs until just recently when Steven Spielberg did a docu-series encounters and then J.J. Abrams did a docu-series called UFO and then followed it up. That's fine. But a doc, film, screen, no. They wouldn't do it. Why? I believe it's because they didn't want to upset the government. They were happy to do films about ETs that made two, three billion dollars, highest grossing films. But why bother the government? Why create a problem there? I get it. That's changing, all right? And so what we have here is what we've been trying to get, and I've been talking about for 20 years. We have a Hollywood person, an insider, a person that's in the high end, who's worked on A-list films, has the agent, has the managers, has those things that you would have, right? And decided, I'm going to get into this. Now, he had been getting into the issue prior. I think he helped James Fox with his film Phenomena, which is great. And then he decided, I'm going to make a doc. And because he is who he is, he was able to do it right. He was able to do it the way we have wanted. Now, that doesn't in any way denigrate all of the docs that have come out. Stephen Greer has done a bunch. They rent a theater. They have a little, you know, a red carpet kind of thing. They can do, but it's not the same thing as what Hollywood can do, right, the major film industry. And so Farah puts the doc together, right, took him a year. He provided the content, the Hollywood side, and Luis Elizondo provided the connections. It's that marriage between the two that made it what it is. Lou was able to start getting some top witnesses or top individuals. And as you get those, others are willing to join in. And before you know it, you've got an assemblage, the most powerful assemblage of people ever in a doc on this issue. Nothing even comes close, not even in the ballpark, right? If you go, I can bring the list up and go down every single one of them. It's hard to imagine. I couldn't even dreamt of this not that many years ago. Okay, so they get that together. Then what do they do? They do what you're supposed to do. They take it to not just any film festival. They take it to the South by Southwest, second largest film festival in the United States. Get some viewing. They get feedback. And then they began a process of what are they going to do next? How are they going to market it? This is the way it's done, right? Now, I do not know what went on there. I do not know what the plans were, what they may have done, may not have done. What I do know is that they took their time. And when this thing finally hit, it hit at the perfect time. It was perfectly planned, whether it was intentional or not. And so now it's time to get it out. You do it the right way, all right? You start putting out the trailer, right? You start the advertising on the web. It's not too expensive now. It pretty much advertises itself. And you get that going. Then you announce when the premiere is going to be. And it's a real premiere. I say it's a real premiere. It's not a thousand screens. That, we're not there yet. That will happen. Other docs have gotten that and made huge money. But as I said before, Hollywood wasn't going to poke the bear. But he gets three screens in three different, three theaters in three different cities. Same, same, the same group. It's the Angelica pop-ups, which are really cool. They're like retro. Very cool. I love going there. I may go back to some more films. One in New York, one in Washington, one in Los Angeles. Why is that important? Because it's those three cities. Because it's going to be run for a week or two, whatever. And it is. It's playing six times a day. It qualifies for an Oscar nomination. No doc in this field has ever qualified for an Oscar nomination. Will it get it? Remains to be seen. It's not easy to get that nomination. But it is a milestone that has been reached. Okay, now, but what else, right? It's different from all the hundreds of other UFO or UAP or ET docs that have been made by many colleagues that I know and love. I've been in a number of them, right? UFO TV has got, I don't know, God knows how many. You can go watch them all. What is different? Simple. Well, Dan Farah is a highly accomplished gentleman based in Los Angeles, has worked on important films. He has a manager. He has agents. He has contacts. And so after the premiere schedule is set, he just happens to get on Bill Maher. He just happens to get the coveted 10-minute opening interview, which is pure, unadulterated gold, right? And Bill Maher just happens to make it clear that he's pretty much turned around on this issue. He's on board, right? He was a little skeptical, but not this time. So it's a great interview. All the questions are good. Bill even mentions the nuke shutdown, brings it up. Farah responds to that. It's 10 minutes of pure gold. Now, why is that important? Real Time with Bill Maher is the number one total viewed screener on Netflix. Does anybody want to talk about the reach of Netflix? Want to speculate about how many millions of views that film is ultimately going to get on Netflix, right? Yeah. And by the way, the vast majority of people that follow Bill Maher are not into this issue. They may not know much about the truth embargo, but they're about to get a piece of it now. See what I'm saying? Okay. And so then, the way that the Maher works is that it then airs on CNN. It's a replay. One million typical views for that. So it gets another million views. And then there is an after show. This is very common with these shows now. They do a little section afterwards. It goes online. It's just an online thing. You got to watch it online. You got to watch it on the YouTube channel, Real Time with Bill Maher. And that goes up as a clip. It's called Overtime. And Farah's in that. It comes up again. Why is that important? Because his YouTube channel has 2.3 million subscribers. And that channel has got a lot of clips on it. They clip the Overtime. They clip the new rules. And if you go back in history and look at the viewer views of these clips that have come years before, you start seeing 20 million, 25, 30 million views of that clip. And that's going to be up there going forward. And so this film on that alone and that interview is going to be going forward in time, seen by millions and millions of people. And that's Bill Maher. You got that. And then they launch the film. It goes pretty well. And it happens that just a few days after the film premieres on the 21st, it's still running, he just happens to show up on Joe Rogan. That would be the Joe Rogan that interviewed the president of the United States, the current president of the United States, and actually probably helped him get elected. That's the Joe Rogan that interviewed for two hours at Manipalina Luna a couple of months ago where she goes on and she's talking about the people she's talked to, documents she's seen, and so forth. That's a Joe Rogan that has had lots and lots of shows on this because Joe's into the UFO ET issue. I don't know how many, 10, 15, 20. And it's notable, just as an example, that one of the interviews that Joe did that addresses this issue a number of years ago, they had an interesting guest, Bob Lazar. And it was a damn good show. And obviously an interesting show. It has 75 million views now. 75 million. That Joe Rogan is what Dan Farah goes on for two hours. And Joe is very supportive. They get into all of the interesting stuff. They cover all of it. We can talk about that later. But the single most important thing that happens on that interview, which is certainly not going to hurt the prospects for this film, is that Farah brings up something I've been talking about for 100 interviews, going back a year at least, maybe not 100 interviews, 50 or 60, going back about 12 months. He brings up the fact that it is now well known that the issue of UFO ET and disclosure is alive and well in the White House. It is on the president's desk. Joe immediately agrees with that and then says, you know, I should talk to him about that. And my first response is, yeah, Joe Rogan could talk to him about that. But that just went out, right, to millions of his viewers. I don't know how many are going to see it. It's going to be a pretty heavy-viewed show, obviously. I think it's already up to 2.5 million right now. It's going to rise to 15, 20. The idea that the confirmation, in a sense, from Joe that, yeah, it's kicking around the White House. The president knows about it, and Farah is suggesting he might disclose. That just goes out. Name another doc where that has happened. And so the combination of all of this is accelerating the process where we're right there. We are so close to disclosure. I can taste it. This isn't the over-optimistic Steve that talks about this could be a good year. Next year is this. Whatever. I see this is positive. This is Steve telling you, Steve in his office two blocks from the White House, that it is right there. It could happen tomorrow. And I could give you four hours on why. We're not going to do that. But as far as what did I think of the doc, now you know. I will agree with you then, Stephen. I think especially the marketing of this is where the genius of the documentary is. I don't think it's going to make money. That's just my personal opinion. I can't even fit. The numbers aren't available online. I don't even know if they'll release them. From what I can see, it's on Rotten Tomatoes, the review website. There's only 10 critic reviews. It's at 30%. That doesn't really mean much because critics are arseholes generally anyway. The popcorn meter on Rotten Tomatoes is at 93% fresh. That does look like largely the UFO community giving it five stars, which I've no issue with because even if you've not watched it, you can rate it. On Amazon, you have to have watched or bought it to rate it. And that's sitting around 3.5 stars. I'm not surprised at that given how dry it can be. But I think, like you say, I'm going to be really positive about the impact this documentary can have. Ultimately, personally, I don't give a shit if it makes money or not. I hope they make their money back. That would be fantastic. However, in terms of what it does for the topic, it's looking far more bright and positive than I could hope for. I've shared all those views already. When we've got more information, I'll get back to those. However, you mentioned Trump may disclose. There's been a rumor going around now that maybe by the end of the year, Donald Trump will come out and give us the line we want. We're not alone. There's something else here, etc., etc. I spoke to Representative Eric Burleson last week. He doesn't see that as being likely. Obviously, he's very involved in the topic. From the Washington, D.C. point of view, he's one of the top guys pushing this forward as best he can. But he feels that there's too much on Trump's plate right now with various wars going on and all the other things that Donald Trump, building a big ballroom, which, you know, a big, beautiful ballroom that he's trying to do. There's a lot of things on his list that he doesn't necessarily feel Trump would prioritize the UAP UFO issue. On that, and I'll lump this in as well, Stephen, so we can kind of keep it moving along. I asked Burleson about the chances of the UAP Disclosure Act passing as a standalone bill. He said he's working hard to get that through. He put the chance of it passing at around 30%. So I wonder, based on that, and based on him trying to drive that forward, what does failure of the UAP Disclosure Act mean? And I suppose we can take into account everything you've just said about this topic and the impact of this documentary, the people involved, the credibility of the folks involved in this, your Rubios, your Gillibrands, your Burchett, Burleson, Lunas, all that lot, who are all in lofty positions within government at various different levels, if the UAP Disclosure Act still doesn't pass after all of that? Does that really matter at this point? No. A sitting member of Congress, such as Congressman Burleson, that's the answer he's going to give you. He's not going to give an answer that seems like he's setting policy for the White House or telling the White House what to do. The situation in the White House is involving a lot more people and is much more closely held. Here's what I say about that. I've been saying that now for some time. Every, and this is the most important thing I can tell your listeners, your viewers, everything that you've seen happening since 2017 is not about dragging the information out and telling you so you can learn all about what's going on, getting it out, getting people to go in front of Congress and tell you where the bodies are and all this. It's not about that. It's never been about that. What you were seeing happen for the last seven years is the absolute necessary process that had to take place before the president could, in fact, step out in the, or sit down at the resolute desk and confirm to a camera that, yeah, we're not alone, that we have that tech, we have those bodies, and you're going to learn a lot more about it, but I've got to go to bed now. I'm very tired. That's disclosure. Boom. It's over. That is disclosure. It's about setting things up for the president to do that. It had to be done in a responsible way. Not that a head of state, Putin or Xi Jinping, could come out tomorrow and just do it. He could. They have their own protocols, right? But for the president of the United States to do it, the idea that it would just be some off-the-wall idea, just get up one morning, decide, yeah, I think the people need to know. No. There's just too many structures, too many people involved. So a platform had to be built for the president to step on. So when he made that announcement, it would be responsible, and it would be orderly, and it would go well. And that platform has been under construction for seven years. What was needed to do this correctly was we needed legislation. We needed absolute legislation. There had never been a piece of legislation until Marco Rubio's very slim bill was slipped into the 2021 NDAA, all right? We've had now three pieces of legislation, substantial, actually four, but the fourth one was kind of cut in half, but then it's been resubmitted as is three times in a row, which kind of is a message, right? That's not trivial, right? Don't think of it as failure. Think of it as a message that yet this is what we're going to get, okay? A lot's happening. I admit it. We needed legislation. We needed members of Congress to get educated, to have an opportunity to speak privately with witnesses. They started going up on the hill and talking to members of Congress in 2018. I think Christopher Mellon organized most of that. God knows how many witnesses talked to. God knows how many members of Congress. Probably they're focusing on key committees. That took place. We needed more media coverage. That accelerated dramatically after the New York Times articles. I've logged in almost 9,000 articles since the New York Times articles of December of 2017, all right? We needed that. So we needed the press involved. We needed hearings. There had been two very slim hearings in 66 and 68. It took 55 years to get another hearing, a real hearing. We've had three robust hearings with witnesses, solid witnesses. I think a total of three, seven, 12, all right? But six briefings in congressional hearing rooms in which certain individuals come in to talk about and update and so forth. There's been about six of those. That's what, nine? Prior to that, we hadn't anything for 55 years. We needed the hearings. We needed them to be filmed and broadcast live. They were, all right? We needed the witnesses to come forward and testify. And that has happened. And so essentially, almost all of the infrastructure is in place. It's like building the scaffolding for the inauguration of a president. You just don't bring them out in the Rose Garden, have them put their hand on a Bible and say, you know, you swear, blah, blah, blah, and they're president. No, you build a whole scaffolding. You've got seating. You've got this and that. It takes a couple of weeks to do it so that you can have it done right. So the president is standing up there with all the audience, and it's all a pompous circumstance, because if you're going to inaugurate a president, it needs to be done right. That's exactly what this has been about. Not getting the information to you now, but getting that. Now, on the way, information did have to come out. Yes, but it is essentially within certain parameters. Now, the problem the government had, or at least the people that are knowing what has to take place, and the organization of all of this, which has involved many, many people, it's complicated, is that they couldn't tell you why. They couldn't say, we need to have a hearing. We need to get some witnesses in front of members of Congress, because there's extraterrestrials here, and we need some people to testify to that, or we need members of Congress to talk to some of these witnesses and so forth, because there's extraterrestrials here. They can't say that, right? They can't disclose. They can allude to it, and it was only years into this seven-year building of this platform that some members of Congress decided to go there, which is okay, right? But it's not the president going there. It's not the administration. It is some members of Congress. So Tim Burchett goes on several shows and says, matter-of-factly, we have company. We have this presence. And a couple of others have sort of gone there as well. That is kind of part of this building of the platform, because while it's not going to trigger disclosure, and the outcome of that statement rests only on the shoulders of, say, Tim Burchett, right? It's helping, okay? So all of that was being done to get to this goal. But the government itself, the leaders, the administration couldn't say, yeah, that's why we're doing this. That's why we're setting it up. So it is a ruse. It is not exactly what it seems. And that is irritating. I get that. After 70-some years of a truth embargo lying every day about the reality of this to the detriment of a whole lot of people, the idea they're having to lie again about the very process leading up to disclosure is a little irritating. But if you have enough understanding of the process, it's a lot easier to deal with. I have that understanding. And so what I'm saying now is that platform is built. The only thing that's missing is the second half of the UAP Disclosure Act. Everything else has been done. And that could be passed in a couple of days, right? Literally. Stand alone, boom, and it's done. And so what I'm saying is that there is no barrier now for the president to step into the Oval Office tomorrow, announce that we are not alone, that what he has confirmed, what Grush said, and others have said, now I'm tired, I got to go to bed, but I assure you the hearings and the press conferences begin tomorrow and all the rest that needs to be done to get everything out, as has been described, is going to take place. Good night. In that moment, he has locked up a Nobel Prize. He has locked up what, who just said this? I think it was, I think Farah said this or Joe Rogan said it, he's locked up one of the most significant acts of any leader, head of state, king, emperor in the history of the human race. That's what happens in that moment. And I have been saying this repeatedly for a year, and now Joe Rogan is saying it, right? Because we want the president to hear it. But it's not, it's not a partisan statement. It is what it is. It's a Nobel Prize. It's an unbelievable legacy that will be discussed long after everything else is almost forgotten. Or, and I always add this, Vladimir Putin could do it tomorrow, and so could Xi Jinping, in which case the accolades and the glory go to them. I don't know about a Nobel Prize. And our president will have to follow second. And there is no prize at all for second. Right? Yeah. All of that said, all these folks have now come forward. We are at a point where we could be sitting here, it could be months, it could be years. But, you know, we could be sitting here in 10, 15 years, looking back at a time when disclosure was close again. And there have been times in history where that's happened, but we certainly seem we're at a boiling point, at a tipping point either way. All of those folks have come forward. You're Rubio, you're Elizondo, Melons and whatnot. Brett Baer had an interview, and I've just got the quote up here. Brett Baer? Brett Baer? Whatever his name is on Fox News. Yes, because I think it's Brett Baer. Yeah, a guy with an incredibly well-manufactured hairline, if nothing else. He said to Carl Nell on air, somewhere in this country, there are craft that are being held that have landed here or crashed here and that are non-human bodies. Carl Nell says, correct. If that's not enough for the public, with the countless statements that have now been made, even in the last six months to 12 months, around NHI from David Grush, Carl Nell, other folks like Gary Nolans, all these lot. Does it literally have to be the US president or Chinese, you know, whatever he is, Prime Minister, Premier, Vladimir Putin? Does it have to be one of those or nothing for the public to completely get on board? Because you can't just keep going along, taking handfuls of people at a time. Yeah, now they're on board. Now they're on board. These are some huge statements being made by some really senior people. Really serious. Carl Nell's a serious guy. Yeah. But the public still aren't clamoring at the White House gates for give us disclosure. So it doesn't have to be Trump. But he's Carl Nell. He had a distinguished career in the military. And he also worked in the private sector. He's a brilliant guy. Edgar Mitchell said there was ETs here back in 2009 at my X conference. OK, he landed on the moon. This is political. Right. This is not a, you know, a, you know, a popularity contest. Right. It's political. And the truth, the truth embargo is an 80 year national security policy of the United States. They've spent untold hundreds, if not billions of dollars. Well, they've spent untold billions of dollars on the research, legacy programs and all of that totally in secret and a huge sum of money and maintaining the truth embargo, which is they shouldn't have done it. It was a massive mistake. But they spent all that money lying to the American people 24 hours a day, undermining people's lives and effort, pushing out ridicule and so forth. They've done worse than that. Right. That's been going on for 80 years. And so the in the post-disclosure world, we've got to get the information out. We've got to educate the world to this subject. We've got to get other nations involved. And the implications of it need to be really manifest in a huge way through the media and through government actions. And that's not going to happen because Carl Nell says that at a conference in New York or talk to Brett Baer. It's going to happen when the president of the United States confirms it. And by the way, if our president confirms it and it could happen tomorrow, many people are not going to believe it. I get it. I get it. I get it. They're not going to believe it. But within a very short amount of time, several other major head of states, maybe Putin and Xi Jinping will hold off a little bit, but they're not going to sit back on the back row. They're going to be up there pretty quickly and possibly even one or two of the living former presidents are going to back it up, in which case everybody will believe it. And we are in the post-disclosure world. OK, and I'm going to go one thing further. It's possible that 15 or 20 or 30 or 40 years from now, we're looking back and going, we almost got disclosure. No, it's possible that three-eyed atlas are going to turn around and slam into the earth and end all of life as we know it. No. It is close. It is going to happen. And I'll make this point further. Recently, Avi Loeb took out a modest bet with a longtime legendary skeptic, Michael Shermer, for $1,000, that within no later than 2030, at least two of three major scientific organizations will acknowledge, right, that we have this presence. OK, I'm going to I'm thinking about getting in touch with Shermer and saying, I want $5,000 of that action. Now, in the first bet, if Michael loses, he has to give $1,000 to Avi Loeb's nonprofit, right? And if Avi loses, he has to give $1,000 to his nonprofit. Avi is a very shrewd guy, but it would be something like that. Right. It'll go into a nonprofit of his choice or a nonprofit of my choice, which is Paradigm Research Group, which is a nonprofit. I'm thinking about taking that action because it is not going to happen. We are now the only thing that can stop disclosure now, meaning soon disclosure now, is a major war breakout. And I'm not talking about the invasion of Venezuela. Venezuela. I'm talking about the fact in Europe, Germany is building up their army and now there's discussions going on that Europe, NATO might take some, how would you say, preemptive strikes into Russia in order to push them back. If that triggers a nuclear launch of anything, yeah, disclosure could be put off, right? We could have a world very shortly where nobody cares about disclosure happening or not happening. They just wish they were dead. Yeah, that would do it, right? Yeah. Nothing else is capable of doing it. We are there and we and I and I. Unfortunately, I will be humble enough to say, look, nothing is guaranteed, but when you're practically at the finish line, right? People running out from the from the from the, you know, behind the, you know, the people, the spectators running out and saying, you know, you're not going to make it. You're you're you're you're you're going to get a cramp here in about another 10 yards. You're going to fall down and you're going to lose this race. It's possible. But that's where we're at. Count on it. If Trump doesn't do it, one other head of state is the heads of state in the Western world have deferred to us for all these years. You are the leader. You're the great nuclear power. You're the most largest economy. Your welfare and how you handle your affairs is critical to our well-being. And we're not going to rip this out from under you. But given how close we are, if Trump doesn't do it, one of those heads of state is going to grab that Pulitzer Prize is going to Nobel Prize. He's going to grab that legacy that will go to the esteem of him or her and their nation for a thousand years. And Trump will be second. And his son doesn't want that. Apparently, Luna doesn't want that. Birchard doesn't want that. And apparently the secretary of state, Rubio, doesn't want that. And so I'm willing to take on all arguments about it ain't going to happen 10 years, 20 years. I'll take them all on and they're going to lose. Eventually. Something that's given me some additional hope was, and I'm going to steal the microphone for a minute, Stephen. So if you want to grab a drink, feel free. Christopher Mellon made a statement through the UEP Disclosure Foundation, formerly the UEP Disclosure Fund. And for folks that haven't heard, I'm just going to reel off a couple of things that he said, Stephen, and get your take on what he said. He said, in the age of disclosure, we learned the Air Force had a program to track UEP near Area 51 and other sensitive facilities. From General James Clapper, former DNI, does that secret Air Force UEP program continue to this day? Where is the data? What did they learn? He also said, in my view, the Air Force brass treat Congress with contempt. And an Air Force program like that described by Clapper or one like it remains quietly active. Chris Mellon also discussed the Air Force's incredible radar equipment not issuing UEP reports when the Navy is seeing the objects consistently in the same ranges. He's getting at it either being incompetence, equipment failure, or just refusing to comply with the correct procedures. He says it appears the deep state is exploiting a hole in the current reporting framework. And bear in mind, folks, that's all within an eight-minute piece. He then says Congress should put the chief of staff for the U.S. Air Force, the secretary of the Air Force, and director of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, under oath in a secure hearing room to get to the bottom of this. I agree with him. There's only so many witnesses that can come forward. And I think we've had enough of those types of hearings at this point from what we can get. It needs to go deeper. We really have to get at, you know, the gatekeepers. And the Air Force are a big part of this cover-up. Those 80 years plus of secrecy, Stephen, that you know better than I do. The Air Force is very much deep in that. He talks about the sightings that have gone on since World War II, the interactions with nuclear sites, that the smaller program is part of a larger program that could be reverse engineering technology. And he points out that since 25 years has now elapsed, that the information held from the 1990s should be due for automatic declassification. And that got me wondering, events like the Phoenix Lights should be in that sort of declassification, where we're not talking about the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, where perhaps even the U.S. military's best equipment was still limited compared to today. The 90s, we started getting some pretty good stuff, I imagine, some really good captures on all kinds of equipment. So I thought that was a really powerful piece from Christopher Mellon, a really barbed, pointed piece right at the Air Force. What's your take on that? My take on that is this. Yeah, we should have this, right? But why he's saying that is not so we can get that tomorrow. In other words, again, I'll keep pounding away on this. What's going on is, you know, a whole lot of people are going to spend a good deal of their lives dragging all of this stuff out somehow, bringing the Air Force to bay, right? Bringing the CIA to bay. Well, the president just sits, you know, in the White House going, how's everything going? You know, whatever. No. That, you know, barring disclosure, the only way we're going to get this stuff is some citizen effort. Lots of Christopher Mellon's giving interviews like that until finally the Air Force, on its own, decides, hey, I think we should probably put something out. No, those statements are hammering away at the truth embargo until it breaks. Once we have disclosure and the UAP Disclosure Act in place, all of that is going to be coming out in an orderly fashion without having to spend, you know, decades and decades getting it. This is where this has all been heading, all right? And what was the other thing I was going to say? So once people understand that, they understand that this is a process that leads somewhere. And they can't say where. What you haven't heard from Mellon, you have not heard this from Elizondo, you have not heard this from Grush or any of the other witnesses. And they have been interviewed repeatedly, OK, you have not heard them sit down in a hearing. And there's been like, I don't know, 13 witnesses and three major hearings and say the president of the United States need to disclose. The president of the United States needs to go before the American people and end this truth embargo. You haven't heard that. Why? Right. In other words, remember, the president of the United States has the power to declassify everything in the government, everything in the national security structure, declassify the tunnels under Area 51, declassify the Bob Jacobs film, declassify everything new about the nuclear shutdowns, declassify it all. They wanted to, right? In fact, and that is that is the truth. So the president has a lot of power in that regard. And so for some reason, for the last 80 years, for 13 other presidents. Have had that ability, chose not to do it because they all knew it was true. That doesn't mean they know a lot of details. Some knew more than others, but every single president knew that that phenomenon is real. I don't even want to entertain the counter arguments. They're utterly ridiculous. All right. So now we've reached a point where that policy needs to end, but it still has to be ended by a president. OK, either first or second. And so everything you're seeing is to push that from happening. But they're not coming out and saying it because that is not their prerogative and that is getting into a political situation that's tricky. That's for me to say that as an activist, a bipartisan activist. So Grush is not going to say we need president to disclose because immediately he'll be attacked for saying, why this president? Why another president? What's your problem here? Right. Why are you favoring this president? What's going on? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And it kind of mucks up the deal. They're not pressuring the president. They're pressuring the truth embargo. My job is to pressure on the president. And guess what? Joe Rogan just took over some of my job. He basically implied he wanted to talk to the president about this. Why? To get him to disclose. His son wants him to disclose. Right. His son, basically, is kind of a freelance person. Maybe call him an activist. He's put that out there. OK, in a sense, by doing what he has done. And again, until people understand the dynamics of this, they're always going to be in a kind of state of cognizant dissonance going. Well, I'm not that much. I don't have that problem. I understand what's going on. And so I support the president to disclose. I invite other people to do so. Right. Disclosure is not a U.S. thing. It is a global thing. Disclosure is the entire planet. All 8.3 billion people learning they're not alone. Right. Or at least having confirming they're not alone because a very large number of the world's people think they're not alone. Yeah. Ipsos did a poll 10 years ago where they pulled something like 639 countries to be representative of the world's population. And 20 percent of the world's population said the ETs are already amongst us. India, which has 1.5 billion people, pulled at 50 percent. And so there's plenty of people that sort of know that there's an ETs presence. But having it confirmed would be nice. Having access to that technology would be nice. Seeing a worldview change that gets us away from nuclear assured destruction and the nuclear arms waves would be nice. And those things are not going to happen because a colonel in the army goes on a show and says, you know, we've had this program. And I'm not picking on him, I assure you. Right. Pick any one of them. Right. It's not going to happen because Burchett goes on News Nation 20 times and says their DTs here. It's going to happen when the heads of state confirm it, starting with one. And it can be Donald Trump. And he can do it tomorrow. Let me get your thoughts then as we can a barrel on because this has been good and I appreciate you've been firing through some answers, Stephen. Skywatcher. I love fighting. Yeah. Skywatcher. Give me the best shot, Annie. Come on. Give me a shot. Come on. Listen, I know. And peep behind the curtain for folks. Your time is limited today, Stephen, on the show. We don't normally have the three or four hours you can normally have. Well, do you know what then? Let me come back with one thing and try and keep your answer on this one short. OK, so I can squeeze some more stuff in, Stephen. All right. 2020. And that's for the love of fuck, people. And I'm going to swear on that one. I don't give a shit. Left, right, whatever. I'm not. I'm not a US citizen. I don't care about politics in the UK. I very much am of the opinion. No matter who you vote for, the government gets in and they all fuck things up. Right. That's what happens. You can pick and choose and fight over that if you want. I genuinely don't care. 2023, Marco Rubio sat and he kind of slated the Biden administration for not disclosing what the three UEPs that were shot down. Remember over, I was at Yukon and Canada and the Chinese Bible and stuff all that time. And they basically, Rubio came out and, you know, had a go at the Biden administration. Quite rightly. The Trump administration has now been in almost a year. They never done that. The Trump administration, as part of their campaigning, from what I could see, talked a lot about the drone situation. I believe Trump said within days, maybe two days of being in office, he would tell everyone what they were. He didn't. He's had opportunities. He's had chances. Now, what are you going to come back on me with that one, Stephen? Because there's been optimistic and there's been pessimistic. I'm trying to look at this logically and go, okay, you've had the best part of a year. They could have came out and said what those were. I don't think people were happy with the explanation about the whole FAA-approved drone situation because that didn't really make a lot of sense. And regarding the three UEPs shot down, the Canada situation, nothing's came out of that. So if we're going to big up the Trump administration for being progressive on this issue, why not chat about those things they promised to? One, it was a Chinese weather balloon, a Chinese balloon, a surveillance balloon, super hyper political topic, okay? National security. The other stuff they shot down were probably also balloons. They could have been balloons put up as a prank by a sorority. They didn't shoot down any UAPs because you can't shoot down UAPs, okay? And so this was fundamentally a very political and tricky situation involving Chinese surveillance flying over the United States on your watch, okay? They took a lot of heat for that. And so on a political basis, Rubio is going to come back at the Biden administration. Why didn't you whatever, okay? And so this is politics. It's really not UAP. It's really not ET. But a lot of people could easily attach that to it and go with it. So it's basically, it's really a nothing burger, to be honest with you. But once you're talking about a political football, then they can pass it around for years. So it's just not a big deal for me at all. And the idea that he hasn't come out with that, why in the hell would he go there? And is that the same? That's totally fair then. If you think those three UAP, obviously, we know one was the spy blunt. There was a lot of chatter online about one of them was a strange material and it shattered and they retrieved stuff and all that. There was no proof of any of that. But 80% of the stuff that came out afterwards was wrong. Yeah. That's okay. So what about the drone flap stuff from last year? Because that is something Trump campaigned on around. And there was loads of stuff posted online. I mean, I always said at the time, Stephen, I felt there was a lot more things people said they were seeing rather than actually managed to post proof of, given how obvious these things were. They were there all the time. They were there for weeks and weeks and weeks on end. Trump had said they were going to come out and tell us what those were within days of being inaugurated. They didn't. Then we had the whole FAA approved thing. There was a lot of back and forward between folks in the military of what these were or weren't. And again, from your point of view, is that just a case of they weren't UAP? Move on. Oh, they were UAP. There were drones and UAPs. So what happened here, and this is my, and I'm going to definitely speculate. We've been moving steadily toward disclosure and study, but it keeps putting off and putting off and putting off. Right. And so, the only explanation I have for what took place is the ETs do have their own agenda. They can do what they want. Right. So you have to assume they're going to do things sometimes to service their agenda. In 1952, five years after Roswell, when apparently it looked like we weren't going to actually talk about this. Right. I mean, Truman could have done it. Eisenhower could have done it. Right. Didn't do it. Okay. And so, like, they're sitting on it. The ETs looking down going, you know, you had a crashed vehicle. You got bodies. I mean, my Lord, you know, why don't you get that out there? Because we have work to do. We have an agenda to do. We didn't do it. And so, they suddenly just turn up over our Capitol for 11 days, being seen over and over again, tracked on radar. They can't be down there. We don't have the photos and videos we would like because that was a different time. But it's a well-known event, very well researched. Why did they do that? Why did they fly all over Washington, D.C., of all places, to that degree? No other city had anything like that message. I think it was a message like, you know, will you get on with this? Right. I mean, you know, we're here. Why don't you just tell everybody? Right. We have plans. We have an agenda here. Okay. Years and years go by. Right. Not years. Ten years go by. And we still haven't done it. And then in 62, we nearly have a nuclear war, the Cuban Missile Crisis. If that submarine commander had gone a different way, we wouldn't be here right now. Or if Curtis LeMay had his way and started bombing Cuba, we wouldn't be here because they already had operational missiles they found out later. So, that was like a close call. That's just 10 years after the Capitol flyover. And so, guess what? Right. Guess what? Just four years later, they started shutting our nukes off. They shut off 30 nukes in the span of six months between 66 and 67. Four years later, they're suddenly shutting off our nukes. Wow. What a coincidence. So, now let's move forward. We go from 66 all the way up to 2018. We've had a breakthrough with the articles and all of this. That stuff is all over the place, moving forward. But you're still getting pushback. Time's going by. Meanwhile, the risk of nuclear war is getting worse and worse and worse. There's all kinds of nonsense going on. Apparently, they got impatient. And so, about, I guess, I don't know when it started. I think it started in the Pacific. Suddenly, you had things flying around our ships. People were talking about that. We've got things flying around our ships. We had photos. It was like a big deal. And people were curious, what's going on? Well, first of all, point one. Nothing flies around our ships without getting blown to hell. This idea that, you know, you get some drones, fly them around. Maybe you're the Chinese, going to get some drones, kind of make fun of this ship, fly it around. They're going to blow it out of the sky. Any one of those things could have had a device on it, an explosive, suddenly comes in. He's in the wrong part of the ship, sinks the ship. They didn't shoot them down. And this went on and on. And the next thing you know, they're starting to turn up orbs, primarily orbs. Most of all the stuff that was UAP, ET, was orbs. What we call plasma balls, which means what? I do not know, but they have control of it. And so, they're turning up over this facility and that facility, mostly sensitive to facilities. And still, the government's going, nothing. And they started moving east. And they finally got to New Jersey. Well, once you get over New Jersey, man, that's it, man. Something's going to have to give, right? New Jersey is not going to put up with that crap. And so, you have, what was the biggest UFO flap in the history of this issue going back to 47? A hundred, a thousand times bigger than the flap over the Capitol in 52. And the government was in an impossible situation. What in the hell did they do about that? Because disclosure was not yet on the table, right? Not yet there. We're getting there. We're putting together, right? And so, they came up with some of the stupidest answers, some of the most pathetic answers to questions. Kirby, in particular, they were just in a hopeless situation. And rather than disclose, meaning, okay, get the president out there and disclose. That would not have been good. What they chose to do was brilliant to a point. We can't get rid of those things. We can't, we know what they are. We can't explain, tell people that they're UFO. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to start flying our own drones up in a phenomenon. They turn over this space, we're flying drones up there. We're going to mix our own drones with whatever the hell is going on. We can't control plasma balls, but we can, sure, we've got plenty of drones. We've got drones people don't even know about. And make sure that people see those. And so, they're seeing what, definitely a drone. And that, they used that to grandfather the whole thing in and call the whole thing a drone storm. That is what happened. And so, what, right? I mean, it didn't trigger disclosure, but I'll tell you, it has been a significant reason why we are close to disclosure now. Because this president comes in for the second term on the back of all of that. I mean, my Lord, you don't think that the Department of Defense isn't aware of what the hell that was? You don't think he's going to get some inkling of that, maybe even being told? So, the ETs can fly over our cities anytime they want. They could put 1,000 orbs over New York tomorrow. They can do whatever they want. We cannot shoot them down. We cannot stop them. And so, you either keep putting up with that or you end the damn embargo. So, the next time 50, you know, plasma balls turn up over some city in New Jersey, you can just wave at them. You know, the New Jerseyans go out there and say, hey, hey, dude, it's good. I like it. Hey, right on, man. Right on. That's what happened. Okay. Another show. We'll go into that in more detail. Is that an answer you expected? Probably not. But I've had folks explain the whole, and I do believe there was an element of maybe some things were slightly anomalous. I still think they were all human originating bits of equipment. Did you see the videos? Do you know how many videos were taken of these things as they moved across the country? I've seen a lot of ideas. And then they go away. They're not being filmed by ABC. They're right now sitting in the, I don't know, the iPhone files of God knows how many people of scores and scores of these things. I watched them unfold, right? Somebody needs to accumulate these things and put them back out. 15, these plasma balls in formation coming up, going down over and over. Those videos were not taken by the Air Force and then provided to the CBS News. They were taken by people because every single person in the country has got a frigging phone with a camera. Let me tell you, I need to tell you the issue of that, though, Stephen. And this is an issue that happens constantly. Even on the biggest news channels, you see videos that are bullshit and fakes because you can literally get any number of apps. And this is the difficulty with any video, no matter if it's genuine or not. Even the best documentaries, I think even Age of Disclosure, there's a clip of several balls of plasma light orbs, whatever you want to call them, and they move. But that's a known clip from an app which allows you to generate fake UFO stuff. Now, I know that was someone at Fox and there'll be some junior staffer person in who was told, we've got a UFO clip, a five-minute segment tonight. Go get me some UFO videos. They've found some bullshit. They've put it online. There you go. There's some UFO stuff. That's not Age of Disclosure's problem. But it's too easy now to fake videos. I'm more interested in data. And especially, Stephen, if you're saying members of the public going out and filming stuff online, you do understand in 2025, people like clicks, engagement, and stuff being watched. So just put any old shit out online and people will buy into it. So that's where I really struggled with a lot of the drone videos. I've got the Tedesco's on tomorrow night who are going to be discussing some data they've collected and whatnot. That's some really interesting stuff to me. But I really struggle with the videos because of all the videos I watched on those drone flaps, I didn't see a lot that either looked genuine or I could even say was or wasn't either way. And I've said before, I could have made lots of money, Stephen, jumping online live like a lot of folks did every single night during those drone flaps and just playing clips of these videos online and talking as if I thought they were real. But I need to be honest and go, that literally could be made by anyone with a dodgy camera phone app. Andy, the truth embargo is weighed heavy on us all. They spent a lot of money. The disinformation poured out. Undermining of the issue. Everything they could do. They poisoned this issue. They stigmatized it. They made fun of us. They made us fools. I get it. A lot of people are still suffering from that. Let me be clear. The stuff that was flying around those ships was not fake. And as the stuff started moving across the country, people were taking these videos day after day after day. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And the idea that everyone's going, well, there's some orbs happening over here. Let me get the fake thing out. I'll get some tonight. One, not two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, ten videos of the same stuff in the same city. It's out there. Now, if somebody, I don't have the money. If somebody wants to go out and see if they can start getting in touch with people, going back through the whatever the hell the archives would be online and start, okay, this was taken on this night by these people. Let's go get them. Let's get that film. Of course, that's not happening. Right? You would get an understanding of it. Right? But I followed it very closely. And that was not fake. Maybe somebody said, I'm going to join in and put up a little fake thingy. Maybe. But this went on for a solid year. I'm inviting people to consider the possibility that at some point, all of the usual arguments that have been put out for decades and decades, explaining away everything, including all of Blue Book. Fake this, fake that, balloons, mirages, bullshit. They were always bullshit. And they still are. However, because of the enormous amount of stuff that's being generated, and access that people have to basically everything, you wouldn't put out a fake. Right? Like, somebody got a couple of photographs, kind of turned up, interesting enough. Somebody kind of provided them to somebody, and they turned out. Right? They look pretty interesting, frankly. However, under the enormous microscope that the internet is, they actually went on Google Earth, went across the entire northeast section of the country, and actually found the origin of the photograph. One person does that, gets a fake, and boom, because of the history of the truth embargo, fake. Okay. It's all fake. Don't you understand? No, it isn't. But it's not all real. That's my argument. But it doesn't matter, okay? It doesn't matter. If 500 photographs of orbs are real, it doesn't matter that two are not. However, in the logic of the truth embargo, in the logic of this whole process, yeah, that's it. In the old days, it was a simple phrase that described this. If you have a photograph of something really interesting, but it's fuzzy, there's nothing we can do about it. And if you have a photograph that's crystal clear, it's fake. There are no other options. We ran on that meme for 45 years. I suggest people leave that behind. We are right now drowning in evidence about the truth and reality of this. It's everywhere, okay? It's so impacting that the Wall Street Journal got taken in by the DOD, and it wasn't the Wall Street Journal's fault. The DOD reached out and said, we've got to give you an interview about this subject. They sent two national security reporters in. One interviewed me for an hour, and suddenly, out comes two Wall Street Journal articles over a couple of days. I don't remember, yeah. The DOD tries to undermine the whole issue, meaning, you know, it's actually just misunderstandings, right, of all this. It's not real. But then, and I would have granted them that, but they weren't going to stop there because of all the work that's been done, of which I will take some credit for, to get the nuke witnesses, the nuke shutdown witnesses in front of the Congress. And we're really close, with the lead person being Salas. They had to go after him. And so they come up with this utterly absurd thing about they did a massive EMP experiment with the silos back in 66 to see if they could turn them off, which is utter crap. It's already been blown apart by any number of individuals, including somebody that was on the research of the shutdown at Malmstrom, actually on it. They put EMP aside. Oh, and I agree with that. That was bullshit. The article was bullshit, yeah. Okay, but why did they do that? Because they are desperate, because we're drowning in research confirming it. And so in a lack of desperation, they put these two articles out. And this is the DOD at their worst. I also want to mention something else you talked about earlier. There is a reason that the Air Force has been the most silent, the most nothing, right? And actually, when they've had a chance to kind of put the elbow in your groin, they've kind of done that. And the reason is this. Of all of the entities, whether it's Navy, defense contractors in a way, the Atomic Energy Commission or the Atomic Energy, whatever, of all of the entities that has the most to answer for, it's going to be taken, what do you call it, dragged over the coals. The Air Force is probably number one, and they are not looking forward to that. They are not happy about that. And so they have not been very helpful. Fortunately, we got help coming from all the other directions. I'm going to give them a pass. I get it. They're a proud service. They protected this country. They're incredibly important. I think they actually have something called the Strategic Air Command. We need them. They're proud, and they don't want to be humiliated by the disclosure that's coming. I get it. But when they put out something, I don't believe it. And when the DOD, which has a similar problem, pulls out something like that Wall Street Journal, what that tells me? It's not, oh, no, disclosure is going to take another 10 years. That confirms to me disclosure is probably going to happen next week. They are in a state of desperation that can only be brought on the fact that they know they are losing. They've already lost that, and they're just in the process of recognizing it. And the sooner they get on board with this, the easier their post-disclosure time will be. And I do agree with you on that. The pushback we're seeing from official bodies, DOD, Air Force, some of these journalists who are getting incredible medical information from whistleblowers with a day's notice when it can take years to get FOIA requests put through, all indicate they are pushing back against something that they are worried is going to come out 100% with you on that. Next time we speak, we can go into more detail on the other stuff. Yeah, but let me, let me, I'm good for another 40 minutes. Let me, let me add something. Yeah. Let me add something that people haven't considered. When they went with the grandfather drone explanation to try to take the people away from all those damn orbs that were everywhere, right? They then had to explain the drones, right? In other words, the position they were in at that point is, yeah, there are drones over the bases, over sensitive facilities. And then the question is, why didn't you shoot them down? You have to shoot them down. You go, you go, you go get yourself a pretty decent drone on Amazon, you know, and you fly that over a very sensitive military base and they find out about it. You're going to jail. You are going to jail. Your life is pretty much over. There were hundreds of them. They never shot them down. Why? Because they're ours. And they had to actually play that game that way for months and months until it kind of died. Because God knows all this other shit is going. And so when Admiral Kirby, God bless him, goes in front of the journalist back in, I don't know when hell it was. It was, I don't know, it was X months ago. You can find it. It's easy. Just go Admiral Kirby interview on drones on YouTube. And he had to stand there and put this bullshit out. And then finally, a female reporter who I greatly admire just hit him, just confronted him dead on. She probably doesn't, not able to report from the Department of Defense anymore. And she says, Admiral, right? Are these things that we're seeing? I don't think she used the word drones. I think she used it. Are they, are they ours? And he had to say no. He said no. He basically said no. All these drones you're seeing over this base and that base and this and that, they're not ours. She didn't then ask him, well, then why in the hell didn't you shoot him down? Because that would have been even tougher. And so, okay. She says, well, Admiral, are they in other countries? He had to say no. Because they're in an impossible position. They've put themselves in. He had to say no. And first of all, how in the hell can he say no? The only way they could know if they're not another nation, if they went up there with their own drones in a big spotlight and checked the license plate of every single one of those hundreds of objects and confirmed they're not another nation. He could not do that. He's proven a negative. And so that's a stupid answer. Right? But no. Well, okay. There's drones flying around our ships. There's drones flying over military bases. There's drones flying over very important populated areas in New Jersey. They're not ours, and they're not another nation's. And we don't shoot them down. And so her final question is, do you know what they are? Whose they are? No. That interview should be enshrined. I mean, they need to take that interview and just build an entire document. You could build the entire documentary about the truth embargo around that one interview of poor Admiral Kirby had to do when he literally said, they're not ours. They're not another nation's. We don't know what they are. And then from on that, it's like, well, it's just drones. It's just drones. It's just drones. They got, they bought time. They bought months and months of time where people go, well, you know, whatever. But they made a complete ass of themselves on camera forever. It will be in posterity forever. And he's not the only one that had to make statements like that. And what I'm trying to say is, is that the ETs put our government flat up against the wall in an impossible position and said, deal with this, boys. Answer these questions, guys. Right? Fawn this off somehow. And they couldn't. And so I think that is one of the reasons why we are moving faster and faster. It's why the Congress is moving. They're coming out. They're talking. Other people are coming forward because overall, the resistance is collapsing in a sense. There may be a couple of pockets hardcore to the end, but overall inside government, they're going, Jesus Christ, this is over. We've lost this. How can we go forward? What can I do? How can I cover my ass? And you're just seeing the whole thing implode. Right? And so drones form? Yeah. The ETs, they show up. Our response is drones. Both situations are impossible to account for. And the government was literally made a complete ass of. And the governments don't like being made asses of, even if it's higher civilizations with great tech. Right? And the only way they can stop this. Colonel Haynes comes out in a 1997 press conference. It just, during the same year, the 50th anniversary of Roswell. And has to explain the damn reported bodies by many people as crash test dummies that were dropped from planes five years after Roswell. It's one of the most ridiculous, absurd, complete, asinine things anybody has done until maybe recently. I feel for the guy. Maybe he's still alive. That's an example of that. 97, where they had to make a complete ass of the Pentagon to account for the growing interest in Roswell. And they came up with the, you know, another mogul balloon thing. And then, of course, the crash test dummies. And the press, watch the video. The press are laughing at him. And that was 97. Well, guess what? The only thing I can say about this recent fiasco is that the journalists didn't laugh at Admiral Kirby. Yeah. They didn't laugh. Right? Because maybe, I guess, crash test dummies five years later is a little stupid. This has got some substance. And maybe they even felt sorry for the government. That's where we are now. All right? And I understand completely that how many people could come up with that assessment? How many people have 30 years of looking at this, thinking about it, and understanding the total history? Not at the granular level, but pretty over. There's not that many. The average person or journalist, they don't know this. And so they go, this, that, what does that mean? Who said that? Whatever. And so I'm encouraging people, get down to the basics. So if Colonel Nell says, no doubt, boom. When Mellon says that happened, boom. And then just about everything that was said happened, said in the Age of Disclosure documentary, go, yeah. Okay? And then just put all the other stuff aside. All this hoax, that fake photo, this person had a funny background, or whatever the hell turns up on the internet. Some of it is faked by the, by the way, the skeptics. They create fake shit in order to support their whole nonsense. Put all of that aside. Focus on these fundamentals. Focus on this stuff. And ask yourself, why shouldn't the president end this embargo tomorrow? And then all that happens after that will at least be relatively transparent. And we can all share in what could be a different world, a better world. And get advantage of the technology, right? And not have to waste our time pounding against the truth embargo. It's like an army that has to beat against the castle door for a hundred years and never gets in. Jesus Christ, just open the door. Make peace, right? So the truth embargo's greatest sin is wasting the lives of tens of thousands of people trying to get something done. The government says it doesn't exist. It's wasted the lives of journalists. It's just been a stupid thing. The wasting stuff is something we love to do. So it's time for that waste to end. And it can end tomorrow. And it's in the hands of Donald Trump. Do you know what? You speak very eloquently normally. And you can speak at length eloquently, which is something I probably struggle to do. But I love the fact you've just said it's a stupid thing. And I think that's a really apt way to call this whole situation that one day we're going to look back on the cover-up, the truth embargo, for a hundred plus years or millennia, however people want to go back, the people in charge wouldn't just tell us the truth and say, yeah, you're not alone, which is the most obvious thing of all when it comes to all of this. And in terms of the subject, if this was politics and there's an extreme left and extreme right, obviously I'm UFO leaning, of course. I've had my own sighting that no one can tell me it wasn't something otherworldly. There is literally no other explanation short of the UK government or another government flew a huge saucer type object to the middle of a very populated area and had it sitting above a football field. That's just not the case. So I know very well what it can be like to try and tell someone that story and be like, yeah, it's not a misidentification. It wasn't a satellite. It wasn't high enough. It was really low down, et cetera. But my point of view, Steve, in all of that, I get where people like yourself are coming from. I see what the skeptics are trying to do. I see a lot of the disinformation, the pushback, the fighting, but I also get equally frustrated. And I think that's why people who listen or watch this, maybe long term, appreciate my point of view. There are people in the UFO community that lean far to one way, and that can also be damaging to the subject. And just to give an example, not that you need to come back even on it, the whole 3i Atlas situation, there are content creators, shall we say, that are putting out content on that almost daily that are not specialists in physics, astrophysics, space, and they are just making stuff up for the sake of it. And do you know what? See in a couple of weeks, a couple of months, when it all goes away, we get to see clear pictures. I think the object, the comet, watch what it is, is about to make its closest pass, you know, they'll just go away, and it'll be fine, and everyone just forgets about it. But they've spent months bullshitting, and for me, your average, you know those, we are the one in 10,000, you know the 10,000 you're talking about, that find that content online, that look at it and laugh. That actually annoys me, and not a lot of stuff does openly in this topic, and this is something that I don't talk about too often, but when people talk about this topic, and the people who are meant to be good for it, and meant to advocate for it, and they embarrass the topic just for clicks and money, that frustrates me, and that is detrimental to trying to get some of those 10,000 onto this side to really treat the topic seriously, and that's a big frustration I have. Well, guess what? I have a different take, all right? First of all, the idea of doing things to get click for money, that's practically the world economy right now, and so I'm not going to give anybody any grief over that. If you can get clicks and make some money, good. So you got to pay the bills. By lying. That includes, fuck, 90% of advertising, and we're drowning in it, we haven't been since birth, is basically misrepresentation in lies. If all businesses had to only tell the truth, our economy would collapse. So here is my take on it. I love it. Okay. First of all, it's a fantastic extrasolar comet with a different makeup than the standard comets that orbit our sun. And we happen to have telescopes in our solar system all over the place. So this is like a major event. They're filming the whole thing, and they're getting it, and they're studying it. It's fantastic. I mean, remember, in the old days, it was like Halley's Comet would come around. People go, there it is, and they all get excited. Now we're watching this frigging comet the whole way. We're analyzing it, okay? And people are excited about that. And there are a lot of people that are trying to do science about it that don't know science and whatever, okay? And so that's great. And then here's the other thing. Because of the work of a lot of my colleagues, dead now, and some living, who have written thousands of books, who have made documentaries, they've given tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of interviews. They have gone out and studied cases. They have, you know, and the organizations, MUFON, YARPO, NICA, 80 years of that. Because of all that work, one, we are very close to finally ending the truth embargo, and two, enough of the world knows about ETs and all that stuff, and then the idea that it might be a craft, they go nuts. They're online. It could be a craft, and they're straight in this thing. People are taking advantage of that. But there's a whole ET component to this comet. Name another comet that happened. Umurumura wasn't a comet, right? It was an extraterrestrial object, but it wasn't a comet. And, you know, Avi Lode seized on that, and he's become world famous, and it went on, okay? But now we have a real comet coming in. Name a comet that had this much attention. Why? Because 20%, maybe even 40%, because that poll was 10 years ago by Ipsos. 40%, maybe 50% of the people on the planet in Africa and South America and Australia, up in the tundra, whatever, kind of know that there's probably an ET presence here, and that's very cool. And so they jumped all over it and had a ball, okay? So I loved it, okay? And believe me, some of the scientists are making some money off of this comet, too. That's okay. Let me tell you, if we'd already had disclosure, that would have been a different matter. It would have been, well, interesting. We know that now, disclosure, but not open contact. In other words, we've had disclosure. The whole world understands we're not alone. We haven't had open contact. And so this thing turns up. Obviously, the scientists would be going, hmm, this could be an extraterrestrial object. This could be possibly a probe or something. So let's study it in every way possible and see if it's a probe, and we can decide or not. And if it is, well, that's interesting. But if it is a probe, it's not from an advanced species, because the thing's been traveling for a million years. It's going to travel for a billion more. It's not going to stop unless it drops off some pods or something. It's no big deal. And it would have been okay. It would have been no big deal. But because of the truth embargo, it's a big deal. The truth embargo is made a big deal out of a lot of things. Because when you lie at that scale, you know, if you're in a marriage and you make a couple of the wrong kinds of lies, you got three kids and a home and a job, it's a big deal. Because when it blows up, you lose the family, you get divorced, you lose the job, you have to move out of the house and live in a motel. Well, the lies about the truth embargo are 10,000 times more important than those lies. And so when you lie like this for this long, it's a big deal. You create all kinds of problems. And so with the people that are getting some clicks and making a few bucks or coming up with some funny alien costumes, and even the debunkers, God bless them, that maybe even believe the nonsense they're saying, I don't get irritated by that much at all. I don't blame them. I'm not angry at them. I only blame one entity. I'm only angry with one entity. The United States government policy of denying the truth of that through their truth embargo managed program, all right, for 80 years. They're the ones that are creating all this stuff. They're the ones that are creating this cognizant dissonance. They're the ones that are setting up people to maybe play the fake game, maybe a couple of bucks. So they're the ones that have to address this and end it. And then those in a post-disclosure world with stuff coming forward and God knows all the things we're learning, want to throw in a little fake thing, make a couple of bucks, and I don't give a damn. Maybe that's the Scottish in me then. We're different in that respect. I think we talked about this before, though, Stephen, the idea that the post-disclosure world, whole other conversation, fascinating conversation. For me, they're just, I think we discussed this before, there's just a whole new set of lies that come up at that point because then there's a new narrative to control and there will be attempts to control that narrative as to what comes out. And just the statement Donald Trump, oh, there will be. You can disagree, but there's, again, this is speculation on both our parts. If this was 1980 or 70, right, maybe. And one of the reasons disclosure is coming is because this world is totally, radically different than prior to 1990. And so this is not, again, this could have happened at any time, but if it's going to happen now, disclosure is going to go out into a world where 5 billion people have a high-quality camera with them at all times. They have access to a vast amount of information at their fingertips, including AI. They have the podcast revolution, which I think is the final nail in the coffin of the truth embargo because once the podcast thing exploded and people could make huge amounts of money at putting out information and interviewing people outside of the mainstream, outside of major journalism, in other words, Joe Rogan times 1,000, that's a whole different world. And so after disclosure comes, hopefully next week, the entire podcast world is going to address it. The entire internet is going to address it, all right? The investigations of stuff will explode. All the stuff that you see back there and everything else is going to be reviewed and looked into. They're going to dig. They're going to probe. And the focus, just the sheer focus by the world's people, 90% of which all have access to the net, might be higher, on every word and syllable that comes out of every politician's mouth or any spokesperson for the Pentagon, is going to be like an electron microscope. Everything they say is going to be checked immediately. And every time they try to pull some stupid stunt, it's going to be shoved back up there. You know what? That's the world that the truth embargo is ending into, not 1960. If they'd have gotten out in 1947, we'd have been in the post-disclosure era since 47 or 50. And they could have maybe shaped how we dealt with that truth and what have you, might have integrated into their programs. But instead, they hid it all, lied it all for 80 years. And now the check's coming due, right? And it's a big check, right? And they're not going to be able to pay it off with a couple of bucks. And so, yeah, the post-disclosure world is not going to be some super tight narrative, as you might think. But where we need to be concerned about narrative is primarily in the way the business, the business of America, the corporations, the internationals deal with it. Because each one of them is going to have their own narrative or how they're going to capitalize on this new world. How much money they're going to make? Yep. Right? For their shareholders, which are obviously more important than anything else, right? And those narratives need to be scrutinized. And that's a post-disclosure issue. I'm happy to address that. I'll have fun with that. There'll be plenty of people to join me smarter than I. Yeah. Are these multinationals going to try to make the post-disclosure world their world, right? Are they going to make all the money from it, right? Are they going to get whatever? Or are we going to share this new paradigm, this new worldview? So that's a narrative. But in terms of the political narratives, I pity the fool in the DOD or the CIA or the Congress that decides they're going to spin some cockamamie narrative so that they can really just rule the post-disclosure world or get away with whatever they have in mind. And they're in for a very rude awakening because this is not the world that they grew up in. This is the world of Gen Z millennials with podcast power and access to AI and information that was inconceivable prior to even 1980. That's my take on that. And I agree with you in terms of, yes, all of that for good and or bad. But I think we've got another hour and a half to go into that in more detail, to be honest. Next time. Yeah, definitely next time. But I know you've got another interview coming up, Stephen. So let's call it there. And I've got some stuff we can say for next time, too. But enjoyed getting into the weeds on that one, to be honest. That was good. It was nice to come back at you a few times as well because I don't often get the chance to do so. So I appreciate you. I've got some info, though. I've got to give you quick info, a little promo stuff. Yeah, please do. There's a lot happening, of course. And one of the most important things that I'm working on right now is I'm helping with a major conference that's going to go down on the 14th of December for three days. Not just any conference. This was going to be at a huge hotel here in Washington, D.C. But the circumstances simply is not conducive to that. But they decide they're going to move forward. And so it's a three-day, 51-panelist online conference called the State of the World Forum. It's the return of the State of the World Forum of the 1990s, where Gorbachev, along with others, including Jim Garrison, who was the president of the Gorbachev Foundation, put on six huge major events with top-level people, heads of state, creme de la creme, to assess the state of the world in terms of how can we go forward from there. Because everybody was rocking. The Berlin Wall was down. The Soviet Union was no longer. The Communist Party was outlawed. It looked like they went fully capitalist. There was an opportunity to sort of get things back to normal, maybe move away from the nuclear threat. All kinds of good things could happen. And so they held these events to talk about that. They were very well received. They were big deals. I think in one of them, they charged $5,000 a ticket. Okay. Unfortunately, by the end of, starting around 1990, the powers that be, the leaders of nations and whatever, decided what we needed is a new Cold War. What we needed is more proxy wars, more slaughter. And we started a new Cold War and continued aggressively with the nuclear arms race. And everything that happened since then is a result of that. And so we're in deeper doo-doo now than we were after the, but way deeper doo-doo and after the end of the Soviet Union. The risk is even greater. However, Jim Garrison and many of the people that he works with have concluded the same thing that I have. Disclosure is about to happen. The biggest event in human history is about to take place. A lot bigger than the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trust me on that. And it's going to open up a whole new sense of future and optimism, an opportunity to reassess what is the state of the world, which totally sucks right now, good and bad, and start thinking about how to go forward. So the first of these six state of the worlds is going to be online, stateoftheworldforum.com, okay? And it's international. There's already 30 or 40 watch parties that are going to be held in like 10 different countries where people, a lot of people come, watch it, the same deal. And I invite people to be part of it. And because I love England and I love my podcast army, I am a sponsor. And as a result, I can provide a code that will give those who register, save a lot of money. And I'm going to give you that code right now because it's kind of late in the game. So anybody in the UK that wants to register for this, use the code PRG95. P-R-G-9-5. And you will save a lot of money. It's a bit of an expensive conference, but it is a major event. And you will get, you know, you get, you get the whole thing afterwards or whatever, right? You can go. The website is comprehensive, gorgeous website. You can set up a watch party, still enough time for that. You can set up your own thing where you just, you know, got to show it on your TV, you know, and you register. And then you ask all your friends to, to, uh, to come over and chip in, whatever the hell. Or you can have a formal watch party where you get a bunch of stuff from stateoftheworld.form, stateoftheworldform. Uh, you've got 13 days to get it together, but I invite people to be part of this. Uh, and there's going to be six more after five more after this. This is the forward looking game changing thinking and events that you're going to see more of. Some of the events like contact in the desert, uh, we're kind of in that, uh, zone. And there's been a lot of events along those lines that are coming up. People are already planning their events in a post-disclosure mindset. Good. And then once we get disclosure, oh boy, things get really interesting. So I wanted to convey that and also mention the paradigm research group also has plans. I am a 501c3, uh, nonprofit for all you expat Americans over there in the UK. Right. Uh, website is PR paradigm research group.org. That's my, that's my, that's my promo. Thank you, uh, uh, Andy for letting me do that. I will put those links in the description, including that code. Thank you for that. Um, I also thank you for correcting when you said you loved England that you then mentioned the UK, because of course, one, I am Scottish and two, we have obviously England, Scotland, Ireland, uh, Northern Ireland, excuse me, and Wales, all a part of that UK as well, folks. So well done, Stephen, for, uh, for correcting yourself. I did get it in, right? I do know the difference, but sometimes they just say UK, baby, UK. There's, there's a big difference. And I live in England and my kids are English, but you know, of the four nations, England's the most annoying of them probably. Um, so yeah, I tell the English listeners out there, but I live in England, but yeah. So thank you for that, Stephen. Listen, thank you again for your time. Um, since you seem to be coming on quarterly expects even back on and then it's kind of 90 days sooner. If we get that capital D disclosure or, or some kind of statements from Trump I've heard, and I hate the whole coming soon, bollocks and bullshit. There's maybe some stuff with whistleblowers coming down the pipeline sooner than later. Um, maybe Trump makes a statement. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe we get some more follow-up off the back of the age of disclosure. Something that'll be interesting, Stephen, Stephen Spielberg's next big feature film is, is based on extraterrestrials. I know he's done ET. It's not a follow-up to ET. This is meant to be a serious look at the phenomenon. The first trailer is also due to drop. And then it's a couple of weeks as well. So we'll see what kind of reaction that has from the public. And you're quite right. When it comes to the top movies of all time, um, most of the highest, grossing movies all feature alien presences, aliens with superpowers like the Avengers, Star Wars, Avatar, are all based on off-world beings, other beings, other entities. The public is well-versed in it. So, yeah, all of that to come. And then it's a couple of weeks or more. So we'll get you back on, Stephen. Yes, sir. And a Scottish day to you, sir. That's all for this episode of That UFO Podcast. Thank you so much for listening and watching. If you enjoyed the show, please follow, subscribe, and leave a rating or review wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps others find the show. If you're watching on YouTube, hit like, subscribe, and turn on notifications so you don't miss future episodes. You can also support the show directly and get early access, add free episodes, and bonus content on Patreon, or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube memberships. All the links are over at thatufopodcast.com or in the show description below, along with merchandise and more. Don't forget, you can also pick up a copy of my book, Atlas of Unidentified Flying Objects, available now in all good bookstores and through online retailers, including Amazon. Big thank you again to all of you for listening and tuning in. Until next time, keep looking up, you never know what you might see.