The UAP Disclosure Act: Politics, Power, and Non-Human Intelligence

Instagram teen accounts come with automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more about teen accounts at Instagram.com slash teenaccounts. Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. That's software overload. Udo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Udo for free at O-D-O-O dot com. That's Udo dot com. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Udo comes in. Udo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Udo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business. Whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Udo for free at Udo dot com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. I'm Richard Dolan, and you're listening to That UFO Podcast. So I want to get into asking you a question, Steve. You mentioned lawyer Danny Sheehan before. Now, I don't know if you saw a few days ago, he was on the show Paris and Politics, or Paris on Politics, talking about the UEP Disclosure Act. He mentioned that if it's passed, of course, all information 25 years or older will be released to the public. Furthermore, anything that's newer will undergo the process through the review board. And with that approval to release it to the public over the course of seven years under the UEP Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan, so we can adjust economically, geopolitically, etc. How do you react to that idea that there's a scenario here where things are disclosed, but we get it over that seven-year span? That's unavoidable. You've got 80 years of engagement with this issue within the military and intelligence world. It's massive. You've got programs on various levels of classification and so forth, and we still are in the middle of a nuclear arms race. High threat of nuclear war. So, and by the way, since you brought it up, let me quickly update your viewers on this. Where we are right now, which is very good. I mean, September is going to be a watershed month in spite of the rest of the chaos. First of all, I talked about what happened with various members of the administration coming on a podcast and talking, which is not that long ago. But here is where we are now. The third, what I call full hearing, proper hearing, will be held on the 9th. It's going to be in the visitors section of the Capitol, which is massive, so we could have a huge audience. And we've got four witnesses. It's going to be a big deal. It's going to be broadcast substantially, maybe by multiple entities. Meanwhile, in this week that we're in right now is when the Senate is going to be voting on the UAP Disclosure Act. Remember, notice the name. That wasn't an accident. That Schumer and Rounds called it the Disclosure Act. Okay. And I think that they weren't just referring to small d-disclosure, which it is, but also to the fact that the Disclosure Act is important if we're going to have capital D disclosure. You need that in place. So, and this is the third attempt to get it. It will be voted on the Senate. And then the week after that, a week after the hearing, it's going to be introduced in the House, my understanding. And that's fine. But more importantly, it's going to have a sponsor. Eric Burleson, who is now Representative Burleson of Missouri, is now pretty much leading the charge. He's kind of got that portfolio. And that's fine. And so that's important. And they want other co-sponsors. There wasn't a lot of time. I went to a couple offices. But, I mean, look, you know, if there's going to be co-sponsors, Eric probably needs to reach out. But I'm certainly, others are probably bringing it up. So I hope there might be other co-sponsors. But let's just say there's one. The importance of that is this. When you submit a bill to the House, the majority leader can kind of decide whether it's going to go anywhere. They can squelch it pretty quickly if they don't want to. They want to. If it has a co-sponsor, it's going to get more consideration. It's prospects of actually going to a vote or better. If the co-sponsor is of the Speaker's party, good. And so that is the case here. So maybe we'll have a couple of co-sponsors. Which raises the possibility that the damn thing will go to a vote. And even get passed. In which case, the UAP Disclosure Act in all of its glory, with all of the bells and whistles that we wanted. Not just the half that was passed a couple of years ago, but really the full package is what we need. And it's pretty much everything we need. It could be law by the end of the year. It's still a few months away. And that would be very important. Now, that doesn't mean disclosure has to wait for that act to be passed. It has to wait for it to be signed or go into effect. But if it were passed, meaning, okay, the only thing that prevents it from going into law would be signing by the President. And so the President is the one that decides if it becomes law at that point, once it's passed by both House and Senate and sent back to White House. That kind of plays nicely into the scenario we discussed earlier. Because if you're thinking about doing what I think they're thinking about doing, which is end this truth embargo, then signing that bill is ideal. And ideal, right? So you've signed the bill. You're the President. Signed the bill. You could have stopped it and forced it to go back, you know, on a veto. You could have stopped it, but you've signed the bill and then not long after that. So we could see – and, of course, the President – technically, you know, usually the NDAA is not signed until later in the year. So I'm not sure how this might play out. I'm simply saying that both the – putting that bill into play and the Disclosure Act that we've discussed is in the hands of the President, the same man, the same person. All right? And so this is going to be quite a month. And that's what we know is taking place. There may be more. Let's see. Now, let me see. Take me the – please repeat that question, the question that launched me into that. So the question was around playing out over seven years and having that kind of longer-term disclosure. Gotcha. And so what is important is that the act is in place, the process is underway, and the public now knows it's going to get the truth. But that's what's most important. In other words, the embargo is over, right? But that doesn't mean that everything just pops out. It just means that the barrier to the stuff coming is over. Embargo is over. So we already have some information that's actually brought forward under the original bill that was changed back in 2023. And there's actually an archive at the National Archives, the UAP Archive. I haven't gone over and looked at it, but it's there. So you can go to the National Archives online. You can check out the UAP Archive, and you can see the stuff is kind of accumulating. It's not going to rock your world. But it's, you know, good faith. Okay, fine. But if that bill is passed, well, it happens fast. So as you say, the bill says everything 25 years or older technically can come forward. I think that's what the intent is, but my guess is it's still going to be reviewed. I still think the review board is going to check it. But I think what it means is that while it will probably still get checked, because you never know, right? Something 25 years or older might be, it'll still get reviewed. But let's just say that it's going to be first in line. They're going to be everything 25 years or older is going to be right at the front of the line to start going through the review process, which gets things going. Okay. All right. And then, of course, we then start getting to the other material. I don't think it means that something that's new can't be presented to the process, be put into the pipeline. It just means that 25 years has a special status. So you're going to have this pipeline filling up. It's going to be coming forward. It's going to be looked at by the review panel. Now, if it is postponed, there will be something logged into that effect, something that demonstrates kind of the reason why without and we will know that. And we also know under the bill that gets reviewed relatively periodically so that it can be reviewed. Okay. Now it's time to come forward. Fine. And then other stuff is passed on through. And so people are seeing this whole thing unfold. And that is what is important. Now, so the idea that it might take seven years to get everything out that they have, every doc, everything, every treaty, whatever the hell, it's hardly shocking. Right. There's a lot of stuff there. And it does have to be vetted. It's not like they just open the doors and invite all the journalists in. But let me just say, suggest this for those that are not thrilled about that. I'm going to suggest that those that are setting this up, passing the law and planning on the post-disclosure compliance with the bill may be overestimating or underestimating the pressure that is going to be on them from 300 million Americans and hundreds of several billion people around the world. And we're not the only country that's going to be under pressure. Meaning, okay, you were saying seven years. I think we need to speed it up. Okay. And they're going to have a lot of pressure saying, get going. Keep it going. What's this? What's that? I want that out. And so I think it's going to shorten that time frame. And then there's a second aspect in that that's our time frame. Other nations have stuff too. And so they may say, yeah, we're bringing this up now. You know, and we have it too. It's kind of awkward. And so we have the same thing, but then that nation put it up. So we're going to. So overall, I'm going to favor a shorter time frame than is being projected, not a longer time frame. And that's not a criticism. It's not a criticism at all. Who, even in the government, with all their supercomputers and everything, and they've been gaming this outcome, I assure you, for decades. Let me repeat that. Inside, where it matters, they have the computers to do the whole game thing, right? In which they put in all the variables. How will disclosure work out? What will happen? And they've been gaming it for a long time. They're not idiots. And it's not like they're going to be blindsided by this. And so I'm going to assume, though, it's going to be shorter than they think. So, again, but whatever length of time it is, as long as the process is continuous. And there's also another matter. For those that are truly righteous, involved in this, inside, that know to the extent that any of this ET tech has enormous potential implications on the problems we're dealing as a civilization, meaning we desperately need that tech tomorrow or yesterday. There's going to be a lot of pressure to get the tech out, right? And obviously, there's going to be more legislation. I assure you, the UAP Disclosure Act is only the beginning to say, OK, we've got to get it out. It's got to be handled in the right way. This is dangerous. There's dangerous aspects, whatever. But let's get it out, and let's get it in development so we can address some of our merry-pressing problems. So there's going to be a lot of pressure on the tech. So what gets – in other words, it would be a fun game to predict. What will be the last critical information that comes out under the UAP Disclosure Act regarding the ET presence, the very last thing that makes it out for whatever reason? They just couldn't bring it out sooner. It would be kind of fun to know that. And then there is this. For those that hate being impatient, and I don't blame them, as I've said countless times, there's an agenda here. The ETs aren't just hanging around, screwing around, and whatever, they're doing this or doing that. Who knows how it's going to work out? No. There is an agenda on their end, right? And I think that agenda says to me that we get disclosure underway, they're going to do something. And I think it's open contact. I don't know what else they could do. I don't see anything bad. Why would they go bad then, right? They're doing so much to drive the disclosure process forward, right? And if they really don't want us to disclose to ourselves, they're surely not hurting that process. They're helping it. And so I think we have open contact in two years. So you can imagine how that would accelerate the truth process worldwide, multi-nations, if now we're in open contact with the ETs. And that's two years out. I think it's two years. I just feel it. I just think that makes it 2027. So again, I'm not worried about a super prolonged discovery process here. However, it is in our best interest to get this stuff out as quickly as possible worldwide, because the sooner we can get well into the post-disclosure era, the sooner we can start sitting down at tables, nation to nation, multiple nations, whatever, in a U.N., a reformed U.N. or a brand new world organization, and addressing every single existential threat to us between nations and putting them aside. Start diplomatically working our way out of this hellhole, which we can do. It's a matter of will. You know, progress is not so much a matter of wisdom. It's mostly a matter of will. We've got wisdom. We haven't had the will. I'm hoping that disclosure suddenly injects will into the entire human civilization. So again, this was – I'm not worried about long time. And again, if I'm right about this, boy, the next two or three or four years are going to be unbelievable. Right? You're going to get up in the morning going, I want to see the news. Get the news on. I can't wait to watch the news. Right? Right? That will not – that's not the way it is now. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. What I want to do is get some listener thoughts here. As soon as the announcement came out, Steve, about the witnesses, I posted it on a few different platforms. And I'm going to head over to Patreon and read you some of the initial comments from people. So, immediate reactions. Some of them I'm going to get some thoughts from you as well. I'll read through and I'll get you to come in now and again. Jonathan Chapman said, Looking forward to George Knapp. Hope he has some new info or evidence to share. He kept it quiet on today's Weaponized. David Tinson said, It's nice to see George get his moment. He deserves it more than anyone. Fingers crossed his hearing is more than a box ticking exercise. Dub Snapper said, George Knapp isn't a UFO hook either. Or cook, I think he meant to say. He went out on a limb decades ago when his colleagues made fun of him and the topic. Monette Cortez, a pretty well-rounded group. I like George being there. Fun-sized Phil, great name. Knapp's an interesting one. Considering his original ties to Lazar and currently to Corbell, I would have thought someone like Richard Dolan would be better suited to that commentary role. Stephen Davies and a few other folks have suggested George Knapp may be a placeholder for someone. But I don't think that's how the hearings work like this, is it? And that was suggested last time with Schellenberger. Knapp will be there. Well, Dolan will have his day. The fact that they brought Knapp in confirms to me Dolan will have his day and some others. To the extent that these committees recognize that the people that have been carrying the water for decades on this issue, without Nobel Prizes or three degrees from major universities or incredibly wealthy, whatever, that they must be recognized or just a travesty. So, as far as George, hey, I think George Knapp could just come on by himself. They could start at 10 in the morning and go a couple of days and he wouldn't repeat himself. I mean, there's so much he could present that it's going to be significant. And so, it's huge that he's there. And by the way, if there's anybody, there are a number of journalists in this field that deserve Pulitzer Prizes. There's no question. I think Leslie Kane deserves one. Certainly Blumenthal deserves one. There's a few other that are kind of getting in that zone. But George, nah. Jesus Christ. He deserves a Pulitzer Prize. 40 years of journalism on this? Written? You know, video? The body of work is incredible. And so, he deserves a Pulitzer Prize. And, you know, I think he'd probably get it. Post-disclosure, he'd get it. And that would be nice. There's a lot of people deserve some recognition here. Right? And I hope the American people understand that's important. And we say, well, why? Why should I care if these people, yeah, they made the choice to do this. It wasn't easy. Why should I recognize them? Because if you don't recognize, that's why, that's why, you see these awards back there. These are just some of the awards that I wasn't able to give out at my six X conferences back in 2004 to 2010. Because they were deceased, in some cases, and I couldn't reach family. Or they were alive, but I wasn't able to get it to them. Okay? But I gave out something like 36 awards to try to honor the people in this field because we're going to do it. And the nature of the X conference was such that it really was very conducive to be able to give in a number of various awards. And so the point I'm making is that the mainstream isn't going to reward us. Not yet. But we can reward ourselves. But the reason the mainstream awards must come, and the American people must understand this, if you don't show the acknowledgement and appreciation to these people that do this kind of thing, then it's less likely other people are going to do that kind of thing. Right? In other words, you just say, hey, you know, you slaved away. You went bankrupt. Right? You spent years. You were frustrated. Eh, but you were right. But, you know, no. Go away. Right? Yeah. You know, that's fine. Let's get out of our way. No. You're basically sending a message. Don't sacrifice like this. Don't do this. Don't challenge the state. And so if you're going to reward anybody, reward the people that are operating against government desires that have to pay those prices and make sure that they're acknowledged. Don't forget about them, even when, you know, the ultimate outcome is after they're dead. Acknowledge them. And there are so many. And, of course, the bigger the issue, the more people to acknowledge. I mean, some activism is fairly low scale. There's a whole lot of these people in this field going back all the way to 47 that deserve major acknowledgement in the post-disclosure world so that other people will see, you know, if I take this on as a citizen, if I go after this truth as a citizen or whatever, at least maybe I'll get acknowledged for it. There'll be appreciation. I belabored that, but that's the point on that. Andy had said, a different Andy. Excited about George Knapp being on there. A lot of potential to steer the conversation to specific places. Claire said, I was initially very, very excited to see George Knapp on the panel. However, after a few minutes of reflection, I'm now unsure. Your average Joe may do some research and very quickly write him off as a UFO cook. But at least being sat alongside credible veterans gives him some gravitas. Excited to see what they all have to say. Matthew said, are any of these individuals firsthand witnesses of UEP retrievals and or reverse engineering programs? Because I think that's what's necessary to get mainstream media attention or to move the issue up the political agenda in the US or anybody else for that matter. Can I interject there? Yeah, why not? I'm the one paying attention. It's already got mainstream media attention. We're up to our yin-yang and mainstream media attention. So we got it already. Secondly, this is not a democratic process. Right? It's not like George Knapp is going to testify and the value of that testimony is based upon how many people think it's valuable versus how many people don't. No. Okay. I guarantee you there's going to be people that will throw shade at anybody that testifies. Period. I don't care who they are. I don't like this. That's social media. Social media is nothing but a giant, you know, kind of information washing machine. Okay. It's not irrelevant. And you can definitely learn a lot from it. But you have to be judicial. All right. Now, a poll, a highly significant, well-organized, well-funded poll can sometimes give you a solid sense of what people think about something. And guess what? The majority of people could think this, and it's wrong. Okay. So, again, I don't think he worries and neither do I worry. I never worry about being trolled or who doesn't like me and who does. The people that are knowledgeable and involved in this and trying to get the outcome that is going to serve not only the American people but the world's people, they will understand and know right away how important George's testimony is. He doesn't need validation from the Internet and some collective. And there will be plenty of people that will praise him. And the way I go, here's how I handle myself on the Internet. If people are praising me, I go, thank you. Like, and if people are not praising me, I don't say anything at all. Do you know what? Jeremy Corbell has a wonderful phrase, praise and blame, it's all the same. And that's not unfair. It's just, yeah, it's a good way to look at it. That's why I don't think that. I don't think praise and blame are the same. Because if they were the same, you'd treat them all the same. No, no. Praise is way better than blame, right? And you should always acknowledge praise. But blame is part of the game. And the best attitude is to not acknowledge, not fight, not debate, not respond, not defend. And so you don't treat him the same. But I get the point that he's making. But it's opinion, like praise and blame is opinion. Because I've seen people praise things online that do not deserve praise. And that's my opinion. But I would strongly argue that that does not, whatever it is I'm talking about here, I've got things in mind, don't deserve praise. They very much deserve the opposite. However, people will praise them because of low standards or a certain narrative or a certain agenda. So for me, that's what I can appreciate, praise and blame being the same. Because conversely, someone trolling something, you know, one man's trolls, another man's, you know, person that's right, whatever you want to call it. Because actually, what they're saying is correct. They've just done it in the wrong way. So I can get where that statement comes from. Well, there's first person, second person. Look, if somebody says something on the net about whatever, and you are a third person, you're a second person, right? And yeah, in a sense, if somebody praises somebody or praises a thing or blames it, it's basically just two assessments, two opinions. So it's basically the same. It's information. And if you want to have an understanding, you vet it. Right? So you vet it. Is that praise justified? Let me check it out. Fact check it. Is blame justified? I'm referring to how the individual, the target of it, right? The target of it. It's less the same in that regard. Because if you are the target of the praise or the blame, then you actually, I'm suggesting you respond in two very different ways. And also, there's this, if you are right about something, if you are doing the right thing, praise is a very helpful positive force forward, okay? Blame is a smaller but yet force against, all right? But it's asymmetric. By and large, if you're right, if you're doing the right thing, the effect of praise is more powerful than the effect of blame. Now, if you're pulling a scam, if you really got something nefarious going, then blame is going to dominate there. And praise, not so much. But again, in terms of activism, if you're doing the right thing, praise is pretty powerful. Blame, not so much. And so again, in that sense, from that personal perspective, it's the same. Yeah, I think my thing I was thinking, Steve, and you probably avoid it, but there are some YouTube channels, not just UFOs, but across various topics, that just make things up on a daily or weekly basis. And I mean, truly, I know you'll be shocked to hear that. Yeah, they lie and make stuff up. And people watch it and say, that was great. And then the following week, they just completely ignore what they've made up or they double down or they go back on it. And it's like, for the love of Christ. Look, if you want precision, go to college and study science. Go to a fine school. Use the textbooks, right? And do the scientific method. Precision. The fact that we can go to the moon or build a supercomputer is based upon an enormous amount of science over many, many decades and hundreds of years. There's a scientific method which produces almost absolute truth, right? That's why I kind of went in science because the rest of it was just, yeah, what the hell? And so, but if you're not in science, if you're in the world of human affairs, social sciences, even history, whatever. Yeah, it's not like that. And so, it's much tougher. And that's why when you have a situation in a society where science is being undermined, being threatened, being trolled and what have you. So, what you're seeing is people undermining the one thing that humans have been able to come up with that is able to produce truth so accurate you can use a whole bunch of those truths to assemble a rocket that will actually go to the moon and return. If you try to assemble a rocket based upon, say, polling the internet, it's not going to go anywhere. That's just going to blow up. And so, as we undermine science in any way, we are undermining the most significant thing we have done in the world of gathering truth. And that is not going to help. That is just going to make everything worse, everything harder. Science should be sacrosanct. But I'm afraid it's been politicized. It's been politicized in the past, going back thousands of years. Believe me, it's a problem that science has always faced. And one of the things we need to fix in the world that is coming in order to get to a place that's not going to be catastrophic, and the list is an incredibly long list, I can assure you, but kind of near the top of that list, is we must fix the politicization of science. Let me go through some more of these comments because there's a couple of them I'd quite like your opinion on. Matthew had finished off saying he hopes to be proven wrong and that these go wrong, these go well, these hearings. There were a few comments. Casey said, can we stop inviting journalists to these hearings? Last time, all it did was cause confusion and drama and ultimately second or third hand information. If these are more pilots with incredible stories, I have a feeling this will be the worst hearing yet. But Fravor has a story with other witnesses and data to back it from radar along with video captures by another pilot. If that wasn't enough for the Congress or American people, then surely these stories can't move the needle further. Care to comment on that one? There's an intelligent person there. That's an intelligent statement. One, they haven't even testified yet, so we really don't know how powerful the testimony is going to be. Secondly, this is a process underway. It is a process. In other words, the whole thing is happening. I've said this a million times. Some people view the hearings as disclosure in a sense, as another key disclosure process, meaning we're going to learn this, we're going to learn that, we're going to learn this, we're going to learn that, and we're going to keep learning stuff and learning stuff. And eventually we're going to be able to, oh, there's ETs here. Or the government will say, wow, I had no idea. Based upon that testimony and stuff, I guess there's ETs here. No, that's not that at all. It has never been about that. And that's one of the most confusing and difficult things that has created indigestion and anxiety disorders amongst the public. The government knows about the ETs. They've known about them for 80 years. They've investigated them, studied them. They've probably had some live ones. They've had dead bodies. They've been using every resource at their command and all the money at their command, which is, you know, trillions of dollars, to understand every aspect of the ET presence. Okay. They already know this. So if that is the case, what is going on here? Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process, so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. Okay, some people think this is part of the real disclosure process. In other words, we need to hold these hearings so people in government will, you know, over at the Pentagon will realize, wait a minute, there's something going on here. I need to write this book so they'll know something going on here. I need to do this activism so they'll... No. The reason there is an activist movement is not because they don't know, and we need to help them know so they'll do what we think is right, but because they already know, are denying us what they know, and we're trying to get them to end that truth embargo. And so, if that is the case, what's been going on since 2017? This final, this denomé, this final act of the play, what is it? Well, I know what it is, and I understand why people are confused and upset and angry, and they get to... Why didn't he do that? Why didn't he say that? What's going on here? We should know that. No, it is a process to bring us to the point where the president can disclose, and it will all work out well, all right? Not only that, it's a process so when disclosure happens, a lot of people that would normally be assailed with a whole lot of criticism will be viewed as, okay, you were helping, you were helping get it done, you did this, you did that, you're doing the right thing. Yeah, it turns out you knew about it 30 years ago, but it's okay. You're helping, you're part of the solution. You've stopped being part of the problem and part of the solution. So, it's kind of a public relations maneuver. So, okay, so, all right, let's recap. The reason we had to have legislation, the reason we needed to have witnesses starting to come forward, the reason we had to further involve the Congress, which has been completely out of the fine line, the reason all this is taking place, and plus all the media coverage is generating, and the public awareness is generating, right? Certainly the involvement of Congress, right? Okay. In other words, the judicial branch is not an issue. The judicial branch has never been an issue in terms of disclosure, right? There haven't been any cases going up there that they have voted on or whatever that have severely undermined this process. No, it is the executive branch and the legislative branch. Now, as you probably know, the military intelligence complex is part of the executive branch. So, they're deep into it, all right? Keeping the legislative branch out of this was key to the truth embargo, right? In other words, we don't want any hearings. We don't want any members of Congress saying anything. We don't want you to engage the issue at all. Stephen Schiff did it way back in the early 1990s. That didn't go anywhere. There were several others that touched on it I know about, but that didn't go anywhere, all right? The last hearing prior to 2023 was 1968, and that was a show hearing, though the people that testified had something to say, but it went nowhere. And the next year, they closed down Blue Book. Keeping the legislative branch, one of the three branches of government, out of this issue was key. So, in order to get to disclosure and do it responsibly, that legislative branch had to be brought in. That's what Mellon knew and other people that came forward in 2017 knew. And I think Christopher Mellon hopefully will be acknowledged because he's basically led this process of getting the legislation branch in, not alone, but he was key. It was absolutely essential. And so, it's taken seven years. If there were a lot of dramatic things happening in the world that have slowed it down, just, you know, you're competing with everything else. And so, four pieces of legislation. One is the total package, which has been resubmitted twice, now three times, okay? We've got a task force devoted to it, right? We've had hearings in the House. You've had seven or eight other briefings in front of Congress. We have members of Congress going on television, saying there's an extraterrestrial presence here. They use different language. Going in front of the cameras on Fox News, whatever. That hadn't happened before. So, the Congress is now fully engaged in this issue. The media is covering everything. 7,000 articles, mainstream articles, triaged out of 20,000 or more, you know, fringe stuff. On my website right now, go read all 7,000. You'll be very smart, okay? Why? Because all of that needed to be done to build the platform that the president could step onto, wherever it is. Could be a Joe Rogan show. Could be the East Room. And say, we're not alone. And end the truth embargo. And it would be appropriate. Everything that followed after that would be appropriate. The Congress is in on it. The Congress is not sitting over there going, what? You can't do that. The Congress has to be involved. There's so much legislation that's going to follow. So much. The press will not be overly shocked. The press is not going to be surprised if the president disclosed tomorrow. Right? They're going to say, well, that's a news story. And they'll show up, you know, in thousands at a time. And the rest of the world's population is not going to be particularly shocked because this platform has been built. They've seen it being built. It is to get disclosure. To make it appropriate. Make it responsible. Now, the problem and the cognizant dissidents is that they couldn't say that. What could they do? Right? Could Christopher Mellon... All right. Let me tell you. Could Marco Rubio, way back in 2020, as he's putting in that very first initial piece of legislation that's going to set up the report that started the ball rolling? Could he have given a press conference and say, you know, I think we need to pass this legislation. So not much. We need to put it in the NDA bill, 2021 NDA bill. And the reason we need to do that is because we've got extraterrestrials here. We've got non-human tech here. We're not alone. He can't do that. Obviously, he cannot do that because that's not his job. Only the president can do that. And so that would create chaos. And so we will one day learn how many people in the United States Congress serving without getting into staff, just the serving members over the last seven years. Some are now gone, but they've been serving at some point in the last seven years. We may learn how many of them actually knew all along the ET presence was real. And it's going to be a shocking number. And if you want to throw the staff in, it gets even better. And then we're going to learn that the White House knew. Believe me, I am certain that the president has been told that it's true. I think Obama, I know, I don't think, I know Obama was told because logic is overwhelming that every president was told. But people mistake being told, being tipped off by an appropriate person who's connected and being given a massive adult briefing that sets you up to be able to, you know, what in that? They're not just being told. We know that Truman knew. We know that Eisenhower knew. You think Kennedy didn't know? And so the president, at minimum, every single president, all 14 of them, every single president that's been in the White House knew it was real and true. That doesn't mean they're going to do anything about it. And they've chosen not to. In terms of disclosure, right? Obviously, they have, one way or another, supported the work that had to go on dealing with this issue in all of these programs. They didn't have to know what the programs were, but they were supporting it. They didn't try to out them. Okay? And so, hell no. They just chose not to do anything about it. And that's the way it is now. And so this is hard to people to grasp. Well, if they knew, why didn't they just say it? Well, because ending the truth embargo is not some casual thing. Right? It's, it's, it's, it's world changing. It has huge implications for every sector of society and as, and as, you know, serving members of Congress, all of the entire, everybody working in the Air Force, intelligence, you know, there's a whole lot of problems and issues that it's going to create. And so, to the extent that you can minimize the disruption that the event is going to happen, the better. And in order to minimize that disruption, you need to set this platform up because, and, and, and again, I mentioned this, that to the extent that the public will look back and say, ah, I see what you were doing. The president discloses on Monday and over the next week, people are just looking at that and they're starting to, well, now I get it. now I see why you were doing all that. And, and I, and they may say, well, then why didn't you just tell us seven years ago? Why didn't you tell us 20 years ago? And the answer is, is because we did not have the basis for it to be done in a way that was going to properly serve the interest of the United States. And, and that's also in terms of things going on in the world and the nuclear arms race was number one, right? But eventually it clearly had to end because the, the global awareness and everything else and the activist movement and all those damn Richard Dolans out there and George Knapps won't, won't leave us alone and all that. We knew it was going to end, but if it's going to end, it had to be done in a proper, responsible way. That's why we didn't tell you, but we told you now, well, let's move on. And so as people criticize this witness or that witness and why didn't we get that? Why didn't he say that? No, not, and everything else. They're not understanding that it's not really about what a particular witness has to say. It's about a process that sets up the president. And so any reasonable witnesses testifying under oath in the third major hearing since 1968 is helping the process, right? And it's complicated because some witnesses won't come forward, but there's always going to be witnesses. Now, for me, the penultimate hearing, which is one of my number one goals that I've been working on for a long time and I wish I, you know, had more resources to be more effective, but is, and this, this, this, this hearing, I hope will take place before disclosure. It certainly will take place after disclosure, but the witnesses are dying is, and I, and I've let this be known, every single member of the oversight committee, including Luna, all of them, Burleson, every single member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has received the two copies of the affidavits and witness statements of these individuals. In other words, we must have a hearing in which the SAC-based officers who were firsthand witnesses to the shutting down of our nuclear weapons, impossibly so, in 66 and 67, and there may be some witnesses available for some later ones because the Air Force really tightened up on that problem, there may be witnesses to the Russian shutdowns, but that's a Soviet shutdowns, but just those two, and there are a lot of witnesses, I assure you, particularly when you talk about the security guys who were up top when the, actually seeing the craft hovering over and over as the missiles were being shut down, which of course was being witnessed by the SAC-based officers in the silo, those witnesses need to testify for some very powerful reasons, and that testimony is the most important evidence or testimony you're going to get on this issue, period. More important than somebody sitting down and saying, oh yeah, I helped build the TR-50, what was it, TR-58, whatever the hell it is. TR-3B. Yeah, TR-3B, I helped build it. That's cool, right? I interviewed an ET once in captivity. That's cool. No. The shutting down of those nuclear weapons is the most important thing anything ET-related has happened. It has massive implications that will play out soon enough, and the witnesses to that have been trying to get a hearing for 35, no, 31 years. I mean, trying. They did everything. A major book was published, UFOs and Nukes by Hastings. A doc on the book was put out. Bob Salas wrote three books. They testified at my citizen hearing on disclosure, a mock congressional hearing under mock oath in 2013. They held two press conferences at the National Press Club. One's got very substantial coverage. No hearing. However, last year, in November, last year, 2020, yeah, no, last year, November, Bob Salas was able to get a meeting with Nancy Mace who was sharing that hearing, right? And it's on video. You can find it on YouTube and he was able to present the key elements of the shutdown case to her. She was very responsive, thought she felt like she could, we'd like to have those witnesses. And of course, she had the witness statements and so forth. There's also videos out there regarding Bob Salas talking and speaking to this. he's been the leader of this movement to get those witnesses the right to testify about the most important event the ETs have ever conducted as far as we know in the modern era. And now, recently, I was able to, well, he's, I think, you know, I think he may have talked to another member of Congress. I think he may have talked to Burleson. I'm not positive. But that's something, right? It's not much. However, the idea of these witnesses being available that they're still alive some may need some serious help to be able to get in that room and sit down and that there's more that might come forward once the ice is broken. It is in play across the entire oversight subcommittee and the intel. And now the question is what are they going to do with it? That's, that's been my number one project. I'm not the only one trying to do this, but it's a personal thing with me. I know, Bob, I've known him for a long time. I know how important these men are, the heroes they are, the sacrifices they've made. I know the ones that have tried and tried and then died. So if I can just get that testimony, I will be a very happy guy. Though I want disclosure too, I want that too, but I want to see these men testify. These are heroes of the highest order. running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you're drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR and more. No more app overload, no more juggling logins, just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable and designed to streamline every process so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. They have been trying to tell the truth and the only, one of the principal reasons they haven't told it is not because the Pentagon killed them, which it could do, but it doesn't do that. It's very little of that that's gone on, thank God, or disgraced them until the point they have to move to another country. The Pentagon ghosted them like they don't exist. Who are you? Whatever. Say nothing, don't respond to anything and just hope that nothing, so whatever they do, we got nothing to say. So they ghosted them. They ghosted these men for 30 years minimum. They also tried to kind of contain them back in the, you know, going the previous 30 before that, going back to the 60s. They threatened the hell out of the security guys. They then dispersed them to, you know, eight points of the planet in order to keep them apart and some of them went to Vietnam, didn't come back, whatever. They just ghosted them. Fine. And these were men who were given the authority. If a code comes in from the White House and both men do their duty, they will turn two keys that will launch nuclear weapons that will essentially change everything for everybody and maybe destroy a good part of civilization and a significant portion of life on Earth because of the aftermath. These are the men that were given that authority. You think they picked them, you know, they just picked them randomly at a local mall? Think of the responsibility they had. Think of how they felt when on two occasions, well, one's in Russia, one's here, when, and these witnesses have not come forward yet, I can believe that, they're down there in the silo having a ham sandwich and the missiles start going to launch mode. And they continued up the chain there and at some point they're about to go into launch and civilization to come to an end and there's nothing they could do about it. They witnessed that. They were there. Those witnesses are not available as far as I know, maybe dead, whatever. Imagine what that was like and then they stopped and they went back to shutdown or back to status. That's a message. You talk about shutting the missiles down, you don't think that's a message the ETs were sending? These are the men who, that we have ghosted, laughed at, diminished at times, whatever it took to prevent them from doing their duty and telling the truth. The DOD is going to have a tough one there. I'm not going to be too awful, but still, I'm going to have to talk about it. Right? I mean, they're, well, look, when it comes to doing bad things, the list that governments do is so long and the top of the list is so awful that treating men of valor and righteousness and truth badly is not at the top of the list. And so I need to, I need not to get too worked up about it, but they are symbols. You know, talk about testimony of great power, talk about men of great substance not being able to tell the truth and that encapsulates pretty much the whole thing pretty well. You can imagine that on a broad scale basis, that kind of policy of the government is not going to make this country better. It can only make it worse. Steve, let's finish on some listener questions. I got a lot of them through, many of them you've covered in the body of the interview, so we won't tread back over old ground. But thank you to everyone who gets in touch when Steve's on the show. Rob says, so Jeremy Corbell had threatened to show pre-recorded interviews with whistleblowers if they don't make it into the hearings. Does Steve think that without the weight of political backing that this subject will ever make inroads into a wider public awareness? I'm not going to tell other activists, journalists, whatever, how they should conduct their efforts. So, there's not much more I can say about that. I don't know enough to be able to say appropriate, not appropriate, but the people that are pursuing the truth on this issue, I bow to their efforts. I do what I have to do and they're going to do what they have to do and that's the way it ought to be. Close to a larger point, though, if I'm guessing just putting two and two together because of the way things have developed today, George Knapp is going to be there to, I imagine, represent people who aren't there. I'm just going to assume that at the moment. In some way, shape or form, I think he does that anyway. If the hearings don't go the way that George and Jeremy have hoped, given the work they do in the background and the whistleblowers that they have said themselves, they have taken into the offices of the people, the congressmen and women, the senators, to have these conversations don't go the way they want. If they've got pre-recorded interviews, do you think that can have a big impact being released to the public without getting them in front of Congress first? Because we saw it with Matthew Brown, didn't we? That he, that's someone a lot of folks maybe expected to appear at this hearing. again, I'm just not in a position to be able to say whether that's good or bad. I don't know the interviews, I don't know how that reaction would go, I don't know how they plan to do it. It's not my call, right? And so, I'm not going to throw any shade on any of the people that are pursuing this issue. And then secondly, as I told you, it's not about a particular testimony. It's not about a particular witness over that or this or whatever. It's not about how much comes out right now. The government already knows there's an ET presence. A substantial portion of the public knows ET presence. This is a process that has to happen and it has to be representative as a information gathering and revealing process. I get that. But understand, everything that's being revealed, the government already knows, has known, right? So, it's something else. It's going through kind of a ritual maybe or whatever. Whatever. It's just a necessary process that has to happen. The basic process needs to happen in order for the president to step forward. And so, if people are wanting the process underway to then increasingly deliver more and more and more profound stuff until somebody finally drags an ET into a hearing room and Congress and says that's what they look like, they're missing the point. They're not understanding what's happening, right? And that's why I tend to just kind of keep that view and approach it that way and not get into the weeds with respect to who said what and why was it that and who did, why was that person there, who would, you know, somebody misspoke. That's not important. What's important is we keep having hearings, we keep having tons of media coverage of those hearings. Those hearings are broadcast around the world and members of Congress go on podcasts and talk about UAPs. That's what I'm focused on and if that's happening, we're making progress and we are making progress. Matthew asks, how much of a role does the NHI play in disclosure? Staying hidden while abducting people and colluding with the worst of us seems like a bad sign. Well, there's no question in my mind that the disclosure process has been, has benefited from ET activity, non-human intelligence activity, no question. They don't cloak, right? You know, sometimes they'll hover right over a freaking house, right? You know, the contactees, for whatever reason, partially because I think the issue matured, partially because people started writing about it and people were seeing images, all of a sudden in the late 1980s, contactees started having their memories come back in large numbers and so you got people talking about I did this, this happened to me and that was interesting. I'm thinking that could have been prevented. So, crop circles? Not all the crop circles are made by college students having a prank. Some of those simply couldn't have been made human. There's reasons for that but obviously it's not all human but it's also not all ET. It's a little ostentatious. It's like if you don't want to be known why would you do that? Why would you draw huge attention? So, I believe they have an agenda. I believe they're driving the process. Okay, now they're doing other things. Fine. Contact is no question one of them. The contact that takes a form of an abduction as we define it is significant. Non-trivial. Is it more important than the other things? Not necessarily. Is it more important than the nuclear weapons issue? No. Is it awkward? Yes. It's worth pointing out that the consensus I'm getting from people that are focused on the contact world and abduction world, it's less. I think there's a lot less of that going on. I think the reports have gone way, and it doesn't mean memories don't come up, but in terms of new incidents of this, I believe it's substantially less. I could be wrong. It seems like the crop circle thing is backed off too. I don't think there's nearly as much. I could be wrong about that, but that's the sense I have. So, that said, yeah, I mean, if you were a professional publicist, you might say, look, I'd like to sit down with the ETs, all four or five of the species, and let's discuss public relations. Let's discuss how to do this in a way that is optimal for your image and how you're going to be treated and any book deals you might get. Yeah, but that's obviously not what's happening. We can't do that. They're doing what they have to do the way they have to do it, and we can't really change that. I mean, we can do things that they'll respond differently to, but we can't go up, look, you can't do that, you can't do that, do whatever the hell they want. But I'm pretty comfortable with their overall behavior over the last 80 years. Some people are not, but now I'm not a contactee or a bug tee. I might think of it differently, but I know plenty of contactees that also feel that way. They're quite happy with the overall situation in terms of their engagement here. even if they've had a tough contactee experience, which has traumatized them, that doesn't mean that they're just automatically going to condemn the whole ET reality. No. So, again, I'm not too concerned about some of these other things. Now, post-disclosure is when we will start to sort this out. Contactees will eventually start giving their own testimonies. They'll become very popular. You're going to have books and interviews and we'll learn a great deal more about the overall contact experience, the full spectrum of it. They'll be listened to, that information will be gathered, assessed, acknowledged, and anything else the ETs have done, we'll probably learn out why they keep taking cattle blood and special tissue, probably find that out. We'll find out a lot of things, really. I don't see a barrier in any of that. And we may even, if we get open contact, find out why they're here at all. We may even find out why they turned up 3,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, assuming it's the same ETs. I don't know. We will learn a lot of stuff. And the post-disclosure world is not going to be about learning something cool the government did. I think it's going to be open contact and we're going to learn about what the ETs do and what they've done and why they've done it. And that's pretty cool stuff. I mean, let's admit it. That's even cooler than going to another Star Trek movie. That's the real deal. And that could be in our future. There is a huge list of things it could be in our future and would have been in our future if the government had not kept the embargo on so long. The beginning of the truth embargo was not a crime. It was not necessarily even a terrible decision. There were ample reasons why they would take that path. I get it. The sin or the awfulness of it is that they kept it too long. They got wrapped into it, tied it up in a nice knot and they kept it too long. Way too long. And that was the mistake. That was the bad part of this. So I'm pretty good about the beginning and I've said that many times, but how long they've kept it is a travesty and a huge mistake and it's been costly. It's cost us a lot. Little Glowing Orb asked a couple of questions. You've covered some of them, but they asked, do you have a counterpart or partner in either Russia or China that are also working forward toward disclosure? Oh yeah, I got a counterpart certainly in Canada. Right? A little bit closer to home. Well, yeah, closer to home. Victor Vigiani, basically the leading activist in Canada. I got a counterpart in Italy, got a couple of counterparts in the UK. Not in, I've been to Russia, actually gave an interview in Russia to a television station way back in 2018. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload, no more juggling logins, just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process, so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. There are a number of, well, there's some, like, like, Paul Stonehill is a strong researcher of all of the Russian history, but he's not in Russia. You know, let me put it this way. It's not, it's not a terrible thing if you're engaging this issue in Russia, but not surprisingly, you don't get famous. In other words, it's like, you know, you're not, like, giving interviews to international press and so forth, where it's a little easier to have that media attention, but they're not particularly upset about it, so there is research and some activism, though obviously activism has become more problematic in Russia these days, but I assure you, Russia is loaded with information, the government knows pretty much everything, and a lot is going to come out of that country, all right, again, same situation with China, though if you know what, if you really know a lot about the issue, you may know, you know somebody in each country, but UK, you got Nick Pope, he's like a, he's a movie star, right, he's very defined, you had AJ Gavard, the late AJ Gavard, boy, that broke my heart, actually kind of a star in, we've got many stars here in the United States, Italy, definitely, Portugal, I know some people, I did a speaking tour, 20 countries, I'm hoping that I can get some supporters to put together another speaking tour for me next year, for sure, I want to go back every country in Europe, hopefully in a post-disclosure world, so yeah, there are counterparts there, but it's not, it shouldn't surprise anybody that the focus seems to be dominant in the United States, not only because we became the major power of a democratic world post-World War II, major economic power, major military power, but because the sudden explosion of ET activity appears to have been directly connected to the dropping of the bombs in Japan, and we're the one that dropped those bombs, we're the one that started the development of bombs, we're the one that at one point had the most, we did the most testing, so that if there is a connection between the ET presence, or the non-human presence, and nuclear weapons, that is one reason why the United States seems to be at the center of this issue more than any other country, is it fair? I don't know, does it matter? But yeah, so there's an appropriateness to it. We started this whole damn thing when we dropped those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm not criticizing, per se. a lot of people not happy about it, some people think it was an evil, whatever, but a lot of people were vaporized, a lot of civilians, and it was like a milestone event. I mean, we tested them, and we built them, and then we dropped them on people. That's a big milestone event. Okay, so we kind of started it, not that they haven't been around, I think they've been around a long time, but you know, there are hundreds of years where hardly anything happening, but then all of a sudden, 1947, 45 on, boom, off we go. So let's just say that the U.S. really starts the modern era. Then there's a certain appropriateness to the U.S. ending the modern era, the modern era of the embargo. That's the beginning of the truth embargo, very shortly after those bombs were dropped in 47. And so the U.S. has kind of a responsibility to end the truth embargo and allow the rest of the countries to finally get involved here. But there's a closing of the circle that seems to make sense. Good answer. Thanks. Sandy says, I recall hearing someone in the disclosure field mention something about these NHI in some type of hierarchy. Will this information be available to the public anytime soon? I'm not too familiar with that one myself, Steve. So one of the really spectacular things to look forward to post-disclosure is of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of contactees that have come forward mostly privately with correspondence with researchers. And God knows how many that have not come forward. The number could be in the millions. Post-disclosure, let's just say the barrier to coming forward will be very low. And so every researcher interested in a subject in the world will have an unlimited supply of individuals to start talking to and we can get a very comprehensive picture of what they experienced, who they dealt with, how they acted. We know there's more than one. Could be four, five, six. We don't fully know to what degree they're connected or how they're connected, but they definitely look different. So one of them, one of them at minimum looks very much like us, which is one of the most significant things actually that we know about contact and I can go on about that, but I'm not. And so that, that information is going to come out. And if we get open contact, we'll get the rest. In other words, I expect if things, if we can trigger, get disclosure, it won't be that long before we will actually learn who they are, where are they from, how they have interacted with each other, why they're here, right? To what extent their agenda is different, different, right? All of that. There's really no barrier to it unless the ETs say, okay, you've disclosed, that's what we wanted, we got some things to do, we're leaving now, we emptied out our bases, destroyed everything there, we don't want you to have see our special files and we'll be back in a thousand years and see how you do. I mean, if that happens, well, too bad, I don't think that's going to happen. And so all of that information lies ahead and it's fun to speculate, it's fun to interpret, as long as you don't get mad, but that could be ahead. Again, the only thing standing in my view between us and all of that is a single statement from a head of state, we're not alone, it's true, and I'm going to assist in helping to share that the information that has been accumulated, eventually it becomes available to everybody. Ross has two questions. Could Stephen be asked, one, whether he thinks catastrophic disclosure would only be catastrophic for the gatekeepers? And two, what is the best way to make disclosure more palatable for the gatekeepers? Look, this whole catastrophic disclosure thing, I'm not fond of it, it's one of those language things that just pops up, becomes a meme, and nobody knows what the hell it means, or move it this way. I think we had that chat last time, Steve. I think I remember that, yeah. And so it's not help. Okay, you know, one person's catastrophic disclosure is one person's perfect disclosure, right? And so it's not useful, right? All we know is disclosure, we have a pretty good idea of how it's happening now, we're seeing the process, we talked about it at length, right? And so if the president walks out tomorrow and does it, you kind of have a sense of where we're at and probably can predict the response to a significant degree. And so I don't see anything catastrophic there. Now, some people think here's one interpretation of this catastrophic disclosure, okay? And it's a crude one, but it's one, all right? Yes, the president discloses and then the next day there's a press conference with a whole bunch of Pentagon guys or they explain that there's a 50-50 chance that they're going to just basically take over the plan, right? We have this possibility they're going to do that. There's nothing we can do about it and we will be working for them very soon. Or there's all kinds of stuff that's embedded in what they've been doing already that's going to have consequences down the line. In other words, you think things are bad now, they're going to get a lot worse. Catastrophic disclosure. There's one, okay? Another definition of catastrophic disclosure, is it's going to embarrass the hell out of a lot of very important people. Politicians, secretaries of secretaries and DOD guys, whatever the hell else, you know, and everybody that's kind of part of the embargo, it's going to embarrass them, it's going to cause disruption, you know, they're going to get bad press, people are going to throw tomatoes at them in public whatever. That's the public relations problem. And so in the sense that anybody with respect to this issue has a public relations problem, that's catastrophic. Second, that's the second, that's the second way, okay? Third way, catastrophic disclosure. In spite of all the efforts to do it right, to get the legislation involved, to get plenty of awareness worldwide, I mean, there's nobody on the planet that doesn't know what UFO means in their own language, okay? And even what E.T. means, right? And not only do they not know what E.T. means, they've seen movies with E.T.s in them. The number of movies made on the subject is the largest genre in the field, some of them are multi-billion dollar films. They've been seen all over the planet, right? I mean, if you're living in the jungle somewhere and never leave, well, no, but the vast majority of the human race has seen more than many movies with E.T.s in them, and they've been flying through space and going through warp drives and stuff. So, what? Right? It's not a big deal. But, okay, if disclosure takes place, and for whatever reason, it just sets in motion some unknowns, and this is one of the reasons why, another reason why the truth embargo has been maintained so long, and it gets back to good old Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, which is a valid point. It's a very valid point, though he probably shouldn't have said it given he was Rumsfeld, but there's known knowns, and known unknowns, and then there's unknown unknowns, and the unknown unknowns are the ones that really can be a problem. So, can you disclose the E.T. presence to the world and be fully aware of every possible problem that could happen? No. Is it, and are there problems out there that you certainly don't even know exist? Yeah. And so, there is no certainty here, and so you have disclosure, and it sets up a chain of events like with airplane crashes where seven things have to happen, but if they all do in a sequence, the plane goes, you know, straight down? You don't know. That's one of the problems that the activist has. Are you doing the right thing? Do you know for a fact it'll work out well? No, of course you don't. And so, it's possible that it triggers a chain of events that ultimately leads to very terrible things happening, including a nuclear event, in which case, the disclosure was catastrophic. But as I said earlier, and I will continue to say, if you're going to have a nuclear event, you want it post-disclosure, not pre-disclosure. And so, that's where, that's as far as, that's all I've got to say about catastrophic disclosure. You do the best you can. The more the public engages, it's going to be better. You do it authentically. Authenticity is something that nobody knows about anymore, but apparently it was a thing once. And you just authentically, not just tell the truth, you authentically tell the truth, there's this difference. And you hope for the best. And that's about all we can attempt to do. But is there a guarantee? No. And if it goes badly, I'll just turn my email off, go off of social media, lead a quiet life. New Zealand has always been my place. I'll just go down there and, yeah, what can I say? It didn't work out, right? But, you know, I got a couple years left. I'm going to eat a lot of seafood, climb mountains, whatever. Sounds like a plan. Let's finish with this multiple choice question, okay? So, Paul says, simply this, your best estimate or guess, multiple choice. What does humanity on earth look like in two years? Let me go through the four, okay? A, nothing more than new hearings, new witnesses, new documentaries and books, but no closer than we find ourselves today. B, capital D disclosure, press conferences have taken place throughout the world. Religious leaders accept the new reality and look to ways to reassure their followers. C, alien invasion has ensued. Millions of lives lost in the first wave. The survivors now prisoners of the new ET occupation. And D, World War 3 is over. 96% of the population of earth are dead. Survivors are scattered. Not enough to go on. One year later, everyone's dead. We never found out the true truth behind the UFO mystery. C and D are just, don't even think about betting on that. Not a chance. B is the most likely. And tell me A again, real quick. A was nothing more than new hearings, new witnesses, new documentaries and books. No, B is more likely than A. A is possible. Because that's what we're doing. And from the standpoint of some people, if they're comfortable with where things are at, then they're going to be comfortable in just keeping it like that as they buy time. In other words, the truth embargo continues to exist, but the pressure on it kind of stays about where it is now. And we're just sort of in a standoff for two years. I'm afraid that's low. It's pretty low because there are real circumstances that are escalating this. Okay? The internet is escalating it. The podcast revolution is escalating it. The entire social media complex is escalating. The general media is jumping in. That's escalating. And the other processes are not stagnant. Most of what it's doing is leading to something else. And so the idea that it can sustain two more years of this, a barring of something dramatic, right? Again, if we have a nuclear war, it's going to be put aside. Okay? NUCOR, got to put that thing over here now. While we get ourselves into an underground bunker and do what we have to survive. And then after all that's over, maybe we'll revisit it. Right? Or maybe we just won't care. No, barring that, no, I can't imagine disclosure making it, the truth embargo lasting two more years. I can't imagine it. But, you know, and let me tell you, let me be clear. I have talked about the prospects of the truth embargo ending for 30 years now. If I've, if I've, if I've aired, I've aired on the side of optimism. I've always aired on the side of the prospects are good, but there were times when they weren't. And so I was like this, you know, like, but always forward. It's a keep hope alive thing. If you're an activist and you can't keep hope alive, you're in the wrong job. All right. So, uh, however, that said, and I can say this, I'm not, I'm not making it up. This is true. I have never felt more confident. I have overstated it in the past. Sometimes I've been a little too confident. I try not to ever kind of say a date. I always project possibilities, timeframes, things like that. But, you know, with the media, if you say it could happen, the media writes it, it would happen because that gets you more readers. All right. And that's just the way it goes. I get that. I have never had this level of confidence that we are close to this finally ending than now. It's it, we're just in another place. Uh, and that's been building for seven years. Uh, and every year something more happens thus feeding that sense. And so I can't imagine being more confident than this really with, without disclosure, virtually happening in a few days. So, you know, uh, right now it can happen at any time. That's why I've been, I've been bringing up this, this scenario that I discussed earlier, right? This kind of quid pro quo basis, win-win kind of thing. Uh, that is one of the reasons why it's, it's different than any other time. Nothing, nothing, no situation like that has existed. The Rupstein scandal is like a, it's like a mule. It's a mutant event. It's, it's like, you know, one in a, what do they call it when one of those storms that come up in the, you know, that's a once in 50 year, 80 year storm, something like that. Once a generation. Yes. This is a once in a thousand 2000 years scandal. I mean, this is huge. Uh, that if we, if anything more happens, it'll be like, yeah, it's, it's, it's going to happen. But right now I can't say it's going to happen at any time, but right now it can happen at any time. The barrier to it happening tomorrow is as low as it's ever been based on a whole bunch of circumstances, uh, that one could write a fine essay about if I could sit still for 20 minutes. And, uh, but I try to describe in this incredibly long interview, which I'm happy with all of those circumstances together is why it can happen tomorrow. It can always happen the next day, even 1992. Right. As I say, every president knew it just would have gone as well. It would have been much more difficult, much riskier, whatever. Now it's not the case. Now it could happen tomorrow and it'll probably be just fine. We could polish things up a little bit, a little bit more in that. The UAP disclosure act would pass. That would be nice. Does it have to be passed? No, it doesn't. So that's where we're at. So yeah, B I'm going to give B 85%. 85%. 85% is B. Awesome. Well, Steve, in the coming week, uh, a week's time, we're going to know exactly where things are at after the hearing. It'd be good to get you back on to share your thoughts and kind of what happens and, um, kind of speculate where we go from there. Um, but do you want to let folks know again, any of the sites that they can check up to check out your media resources, all that kind of stuff, just to finish off? Yeah, sure. Uh, I'd like to do promos at the end. Um, I'm constantly supporting the organizations. New paradigm Institute is making some great progress. They've got a, um, a citizen disclosure, uh, project underway. They have a way for you to contact your members of Congress. Of course, Danny is, uh, going to be out here again very soon. He's very much involved in everything on the Hill because Danny Sheehan is a legend and he's, he's key. So, you know, any, and they're, they're a big operation. They need big funding. I don't. So if you're, you know, if you've gotten to crypto early, support the new paradigm Institute, sole foundation, uh, is very important. UAP disclosure fund just merged with two, two other organizations. Now they have divided up into UAP disclosure fund 501 C three UAP disclosure action fund 501 C four. Uh, and that's important. Um, there is another major event that has been announced with a website. That could take the, I suppose take place in December. And that is the state of the world forum. This is a big deal. Multi-million dollar project. And it is reigniting a very profound series of events from the 1990s. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you're drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. 1995, I think 2004. State of the world forums. Go back. You don't find much on the internet, but these were post-World War II major events where heads of state and high-level people from all over the world came together in mostly San Francisco and eventually New York to talk about the state of the world and how we could make it work because optimism was high back then in 94 and 95 and 96. Didn't quite work out. Huge events. Well, the man who was the president of the State of the World Forum and the president of the Gorbachev Foundation at the time, which Gorbachev was involved in the state of the world. He came to him and a lot of other high-level people after all of these years, 21 years is going to start it up. And why? Because the reason those state of the world forums were held back in the 90s is because we had this huge paradigm shift that it looked like the nuclear Cold War was, oh, well, the nuclear arms race looked like it had prospects to end the fundamental Cold War with the Soviet Union. That was gone. The Soviet Union was gone. And it looked like we were headed towards an extraordinary detente where we could work things out and no more real massive threats at that level. But things didn't get handled well. Mistakes were made. And so it went south. But it was an extraordinary optimism time. I remember it well. And, well, we're having the same thing now. We're on the verge of a major event that is going to create a potential for massive change and optimism. And so with that in mind, he is bringing it back. State of the World Forum. Scheduled for Washington, D.C. The website is stateoftheworld.forum. Okay. That's tricky. But there's a lot of domain names now. There's so many. There's so many extensions. So that's in the works. And, of course, obviously more funding is needed there. I have a major conference I will announce soon. I'll be attending at the end of the year, toward the end of the year. And Paradigm Research Group is hanging in. When I realized what was coming, I made the decision last year to convert, a year ago, to convert to a 501c3 nonprofit. I didn't do that before because as a sole proprietor and so forth, nobody can demand to see my files, demand to see what I'm saying or talking about. They just can't get in my face or whatever, which is fine. I should have done it sooner, though. It was a mistake, but whatever. So I converted to a 501c3 nonprofit so that I can accept tax-deductible funding. I don't need millions, but I need tens of thousands. There's a donation section on my site right up in the front. You can find it. We'll donate. And it's a pretty nice donation module. The project I want to do is kind of like the State of the World Forum. The last X Conference I held was 2010. I'd done six of them. They went very well. That's where I gave out all those awards up there. I didn't get a bunch of them. And I want to now, it's time for 2026. So I want to do a seventh X Conference that will then hold one every year going forward, hopefully in the post-disclosure era. X Conference 2026. Tight, well-focused conference at the National Press Club, which requires about $20,000 in advance money to secure the dates. If you want that date, you've got to put the money down. They can reimburse if you cancel, but still, you have to put it down to secure the date. It's a barrier. I simply cannot jump over on my own. So I need about $20,000 in donations. As soon as I have that, I will lock those dates down. And that's my major projects. But in the meantime, I'm helping Danny Sheehan and New Paradigm Institute. I'm helping the State of the World Forum and continue to do all the podcasts I can. I'll also do any of the conferences and so forth. And I'm helping, you know, work with the Hollywood Disclosure Alliance, HollywoodDisclosureAlliance.org, founded by myself and Dan Harari in L.A., which is a year on and doing great. We're up to 227 founding members, Hollywood or, you know, film people or content people, as well as UAP people, people that are involved in these things. I mean, they're serious players, so they can connect with each other. It's a free networking operation. They can just connect with each other, create content, do deals, make lots of money. HDA is not a part of that. And it's growing. And so people that have credentials in the film or content creating industry or, which includes podcasts, by the way, or people that have really, you know, pretty invested a lot of time and are involved substantively in the UAP issue. Contact me or Dan on the website, HollywoodDisclosureAlliance.org, and you could become a founding member as we grow. So that's kind of a good thing. That's one of the things I've been very pleased about. And there's other organizations forming. I can't keep up. I hope to put out an update, PRG update soon. You can subscribe to my updates at the website, ParadigmResearchGroup.org, and put out kind of a long compilation of all the stuff that's in play now and then with links so you can kind of quickly have a giant Chinese menu stuff to check into. I've been wanting to do that, but I, you know, it's been hard to didn't really focus lately, but that's coming. So that's, those are my promos for today. And anybody wants to contact me, I'm very accessible. Call me, email me. The contact information is on the website. Awesome. And thank you again, Steve, for your time. You've been very generous as always, and folks, start sending in your questions now for Steve for after the hearings. And of course, when those happen, there'll be plenty of shows happening that week. I'm sure across the interweb, not only on this podcast as well, where you'll see Steve. And in particular, because I love, I love the country. If somebody can put together a real good speaking venue for me in the UK, I'm there, baby. Right? Definitely. I listen, I've, I am happy to facilitate that stuff. If people want to, want to get involved, I almost, I'll tell the story soon, I think, actually, because unless the gentleman's listening, who almost organized it last time and wants to try it for a third time, but hey-ho. Yeah, I think the UK is badly, badly, badly lacking in a good quality, large-scale event that perhaps you get in the United States that we don't get outside of, outside of the, the US. Let me just say this. We have some big events here. The UK has had plenty of conferences over the years. They've been pretty good, okay? And certainly they have speaking events. The population is less, can't quite do the large ones, but they're great. I've done many of them. But it's been a while, right? And so, but I'm really looking, what I'm really looking for is, because I've got to fund PRG, is there are now some extremely broad, as you know, for the last three hours, there's some extremely broad, complex discussions that you can have. There's, there's a, there is a, you know, it's easy to fill up a three-hour presentation with a break in the middle covering all of this stuff. And, you know, it's, it's, it's great to do podcasts, but I think now we're at a point where large audiences are possible, or it's possible to get 500 or 1,000 people to come to a significant venue to hear this stuff firsthand and ask questions. You know, the, the level of awareness and interest and the excitement is, you know, unparalleled. And that's what I do. I mean, I speak, I don't do, I don't write research books. Okay. I, I, I pretty much speak and have a website. I've given more, more interviews on this subject than anybody else, including the legends. God bless them, because that's all I do for 30 years. Uh, and the, and, and of course I couldn't have reached that level without the podcast revolution, because a lot of the people that did a lot of interviews was before they, they passed before the podcast revolution got started. Yeah. And so it's not fair. It's not fair, but, and I can, I can, I can walk out on a stage with a thousand people without a script. And I think present this stuff and that's my strength. And it's, but in order to really use your strength, you need to have a stage to stand on and an audience to, to be there. And then, you know, you know, ticket it and share revenues. Everybody wins and everything will go to my nonprofit. I mean, it'll get, it'll go right into the work. I'm not in business. So, and a UK would be a good place to start because I've been there many times and spoken many times, but I'm also looking to put together, though I haven't promoted it too much yet. A full speaking tour of Europe, like I did in 2008, which I think was 16, 16 countries, 18 cities, something like that. It was tough. It will be a lot easier this time, but I'll tell you, it was rough back then. But still, it was incredibly wonderful. I made some great acquaintances and I was hoping to be able to come back much sooner. But as you know, the issue started moving, you know, started to kind of get off in the woods for a while and get delayed and so forth. But now it's time to jump back in big time. So thanks for letting me say that. All right, my friend, I got to go. It's all right. Until next time, ad Astra. That is all for this episode. Thank you very much for tuning in. Don't forget to leave the podcast a review on your chosen platform. Apple and Spotify do make a huge difference to the algorithm. If you're checking the show on YouTube, please don't forget to like and leave a comment on here as well. Any sharing you do is very much appreciated on any social media platform. And finally, you can listen to shows ad free and sponsor free and their glorious full versions by subscribing for less than the price of a coffee on Apple, Spotify. Just search that UFO podcast premium YouTube. You can sign up and be a member or you can do that through patreon.com. Thank you very much for listening, folks. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you're drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odoo for free at Odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com.