Truth, Testimony, and Disclosure: Steve Bassett’s Take on the UFO Hearings

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're 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. It's tax time, y'all. If you want to file free, this next one's for you. Now taxes is so free. Love that jam. Up next, commercials. Into a TurboTax free edition. See if you qualify at TurboTax dot com slash free. No schedules except for earned income tax credit, child tax credit, student loan interest, and schedule 1A. Hi everyone, and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. I've got an interview today, but also with some breaking news. So we're going to get straight into it. Joining me to discuss the upcoming UAP hearings, I have the executive director of the Paradigm Research Group, political activist, researcher, and disclosure advocate for his must-be 7th or 8th appearance at this point. I've got Stephen Bassett. Steve, welcome back. It's good to be with you, Andy. It's good to have you on. And literally minutes before we are hitting the record button, we had some big news dropping where we're coming on to preview the hearings due on the 9th of September over in Washington. But we now have the list of names, Steve, which have dropped as we speak. And I'm just going to run through those very quickly for people listening because I'm going to get this interview up and out pretty quickly. Andy, what site are you looking at that's got the... So I've got multiple ones open here. They're on X. I've got the Oversight House, the actual link. But any number of different ones. The Oversight.House.gov. Okay, hang on a second. Let me see if I can get that up so I can go... Because I just... Obviously, I didn't know. I mean, it happened just before we were going to go on. It's literally minutes before, folks. Yeah, so... Okay. Oversight Subcommittee Task Force. Let's see if that works. Oh, well, that's the committee. You don't want that. So I'm going to go to OversightHouse.gov. Tell you what. If you go into the chat for this video, I've put the link in the chat. I can do that. Let's see. Where is the chat room? Oh, I see chat. Okay. Excellent. Is that it? Yep, that's the link. Fantastic. Okay, good, good, good. Thank you. Technology is pretty cool, isn't it? What we can do now. It is. And this is how fresh this news is, folks. That literally, as we're hitting record, this stuff just kind of dropped online. So, yeah, some interesting news. And, Steve, just while you pull that up, I'm going to run through the names for folks listening. So the hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, the 9th of September at 10 a.m. Eastern. So that's about 3 p.m. in the U.K. It will be held in the Capital Visitor Center. And the witnesses confirmed are Jeffrey Nucitelli, U.S. Air Force veteran. Jeffrey, as Jeff, is relatively well known. He's done quite a few podcasts on the Vandenberg Air Force incident, including being on with myself. Chief Alexandro Wiggins. He is a UAP witness. He was on Weaponized, episode number 73. And we'll go over his sighting in just a moment. And George Knapp is a name that most folks, I am sure, will be very familiar with. UAP journalist extraordinaire. And Dylan Borland, UAP witness, U.S. Air Force veteran. For me, the least well known of any of the names. I'm not too familiar with Mr. Borland at all. But, Steve, I suppose we're getting fresh initial reactions from yourself on those names. If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. Capitol Visitors, that's not a hearing room. That is a big place. I think, if I'm not mistaking, the potential audience could be, let's see, hundreds and hundreds. Okay, let me just see the photos here. Oh, my God, yes. It is a huge area. And so it could easily have hundreds and hundreds of audience. Now, that is intentional. They are looking to really make an impression here. Obviously, they could easily... Well, initially, there was an announcement that it was going to be in some hearing room in the Rayburn. But they could easily get a hearing room. There's no question. But they're anticipating a vast interest in this. And so they've moved it into a huge facility. And so I am guessing we could have an audience of two, three, four, five hundred people unless they confine it. All right. So Capitol Visitor Center is clearly a move by the Secrets Task Force to have maximum impact off of this hearing. All right. And so if it's 10 a.m., all right, it's going to be a question. People are going to have to get there pretty early if they want to be, how would you say, well-situated. But I am not familiar with the Capitol Visitor Center. I will go down there, I assure you, before the 9th. Look it over completely. But I'm excited by this. This is going to get a huge amount of coverage. It's going to be live streamed. So that's the first thing that needs to be said about this. Again, I just found out, folks, so, and I owe this to Andy. If he hadn't been paying attention, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Now, as far as the four witnesses, three of them, I have very little. Again, it's not possible to keep up with all the witnesses that are coming forward. And that's less important than the fact that they're coming forward. So I do not know much about three of them, but I know a lot about one of them, and that is George Knapp. So what has happened here? However, they're bringing on one of the top journalists on this field, going back further than anybody else doing journalism on this that's still alive. I don't think anybody compares. He has an unbelievable, I guess you could say, portfolio of interviews and actual research into the issue because he's based in KLS TV in Las Vegas, not too far from a rather interesting base. What's the name of it? Area, Area, Area 51, I think. And so he's not a witness, but he's talked to plenty of witnesses, even that are not even here with us anymore, including, I think, some of the ones that are still here. But he's a vast trove of information. He has certainly earned this privilege, and I'm very happy for George that he was able to do this and testify under oath. And so the power of this is that there is just a huge range of things that George can testify to in terms of what he has heard. Now, this is all secondhand in pretty much every case. I'm not sure what firsthand testimony he might be privy to. He might be privy to some, but certainly he's mostly privy to information provided to him by very interesting people, important people over the decades and the bigger picture. So his testimony will be criticized to the extent that any of it is secondhand. It will be criticized by the social media skeptics, but the wise people and the reasonable journalists are going to take it for what it is, an extraordinary compendium of information on this topic, which is no longer in doubt. In other words, when he sits down, he's been able to sit down to that committee under oath at a time when the idea of the phenomenon is real is simply not on the table. It is absolutely real. And anybody that doesn't think that is simply not paying attention or out of it or doesn't care. So it is real. And there is a very significant growing consensus that it's not only real, it is not human in origin. And so when he sits down, this array of testimony that he's going to give is going to be received well and not nitpicked too much. Now, as far as the other witnesses, I'm interested to see what they have to say. I'll assume that there's some firsthand stuff there. They were not picked randomly. I do know that there is a list of individuals that were higher up on the preference list and they wanted them. And one of the reasons this hearing has been delayed is because they could not get a lot of the people they would like to have gotten to justify. Because things have gotten a little dicey, a little bit complicated, some concerns about how it's going to go for them. This is very volatile time, by the way, in general. Right. The political volatility and intensity right now in Washington, D.C. is off the charts. And so they're just kind of holding back. And that's their right. And I have no problem with that. All right. That's all right, because they're still there and more witnesses are coming forward. And what the Department of Defense. Or to put it what I like to use the phrase, the managers of the truth embargo, wherever they operate from. And they're kind of scattered across a number of entities in our, I guess you could say, military intelligence complex. They have to understand this is an irreversible, inexorable process now that more witnesses are going to come forward. And the more they come forward, the more they come forward. And so to the extent that they want to somehow push back against this, like they recently pushed back against the nuclear shutdown witnesses that are really wanting to testify, who would really be a big major hearing, I assure you, they really pushed back in a very dramatic and stupid way, that it's a waste of time. Let it go. Let this come out. And hopefully let the UAP, you know, wait for the UAP Disclosure Act to be passed. We'll talk about that. And then comply. Don't fight this until the last dog dies, because it's not a good look for the organizations, the military services, the intelligence services, and other DOT operations that it's not a good look for them. It's undermining their integrity, the trust in them. It's time to end it. And so we'll see how they respond to this hearing and whether they decide to try to make a problem here, try to push back or something. We'll see. But let me tell you, the fact that this is in the, where they're locating it, in the Capitol Visitor Center. Wow. What next? RFK Stadium? I don't know. So it's really a boost to me, because it's a clear indication of how serious they are. This group of patriots. I mean, these people are heroes. And I'm talking about the members of the oversight subcommittee, right, that we all know very well. Bernie, Birchett, Luna, Mace, Garcia, Moskowitz, and so forth, who have absolutely refused to give up on this, have pushed it consistently, gone public. And while there's definitely progress in the Senate, and of course you can't dismiss Schumer, Rounds, Gillibrand's contribution, particularly Schumer, Rounds. This group, who are mostly of the conservative persuasion, though there are others in there that are not in that persuasion, but are operating in a very nonpartisan way. They're just not going partisan at all. Now, this group is driving this process right now, and I think history will understand that, and they will receive the accolades and credit that they deserve. And of course, right now, the individual that's kind of in front of this right now is Burleson, but Luna had stepped back a little bit, but now she's back into it, including a two-hour interview on Rogan recently. So, I'm very excited, and well, we're only six days away, so I'm going to be a busy boy between now and the ninth. Right, a few things to pick up with you then, Steve. The first of which are the other witnesses. Like you say, you're not overly familiar. I don't think many folks will be. Jeff Nucitelli, I think, may be the best known he is to myself. I've interviewed Jeff back in December 2023. Other folks did around that time. He is a former Air Force security officer, and he discussed the huge Red Square sighting over Vandenberg. That was something that was pretty prominent at the time. However, the other two witnesses were Chief Alexandro Wiggins. So, Alexandro was weaponized with Corbell and Knapp back in April 2025, folks. It was weaponized episode number 73, and I'll just read the description, the synopsis of that episode for you. The crew members aboard the USS Jackson witnessed an astonishing encounter with four unknown objects off the coast of Southern California in February 2023. And now one of those eyewitnesses is stepping forward. In this episode, Jeremy and George are joined by an active duty Navy service member who describes in vivid detail seeing a glowing tic-tac shaped object emerge from the ocean. The transmedium craft then linked up with three other tic-tacs, which subsequently zipped away in tight formation. The objects were detected on multiple sensors, and a video was recorded by crew members inside the combat information center of the ship. The witness, Alex Wiggins, an active duty Navy service member with 23 years of service, says sailors routinely encounter unidentified objects in the area where the first tic-tac incident was documented in 2004. And then the other witness, Dylan Borland, U.S. Air Force veteran. I can't find exactly, but I'm pretty confident that this gentleman on LinkedIn is the Dylan Borland, who from September 2010 to February 2013 worked for the U.S. Air Force as a geospatial intelligence analyst responsible for collection, analysis, dissemination of geospatial intelligence. He then moved on to BAE Systems that will raise some eyebrows as an intel analyst, providing full motion video and imagery analysis in support of the global war on terror. And then he moved to Intrepid Solutions and Services, LLC, as a geospatial analyst and knowledge manager, ultimately. Pretty interesting CV. I don't know much else about Mr. Borland. Don't know much else about Mr. Wiggins. Jeff Nucitelli, we know his story and the story he has told. And of course, we've covered Mr. Knapp. So what's your take on those three witnesses then, Steve? Well, it appears, and it's hard to be sure based on what you've said, but it appears that these other three gentlemen may have firsthand testimony, meaning I saw that while I was working. I saw this. I witnessed that. In which case, they've surrounded George with three military gentlemen with military backgrounds. George does not have that kind of background, who have firsthand testimony, which helps to bolster George, who by and large, I think, is going to not be giving firsthand testimony in the sense that, well, he's firsthand to the person he was talking to, the individuals that he's engaged, right? And that's great, because I think it's just great. In other words, there's plenty of firsthand testimony out there. And we get all the complaints about, well, it's got to be firsthand or it doesn't count, which is nonsense. There is a lot of testimony that is not firsthand, which Grush was not firsthand, but it was fully supported, which is why anybody pushing back against him was, well, being ridiculous. But I think that is a good combination. So as George expands into, Lord knows what he's going to talk about. He could talk for hours. He could testify in so many things he can't imagine. I think that'll go over very, very well. So it's a powerful group, and I expect it's going to have significant impact. Let me just add, and I'm pretty sure this is the case, I don't think Jeff is a firsthand witness himself. I'm pretty certain Jeff, given his role at the time, he was, and I'm just looking this up and remembering, trying to remember two years ago, the interview, he was collecting the evidence and testimony from the witnesses who saw the object. And Jeff, that was his job at the time to go around. So he's recounting the story. I would say personally, and from what I can see, initial reaction, the reaction online is always going to be mixed. I don't think that will go down well with a lot of the community, that that witness is secondhand. I think George Knapp, if you like George, that's going to be a great one. I'm quite happy to see George there. Other folks won't be because he is a journalist, from what I can see online, people are saying. The other two seem to be firsthand witnesses. So I would lean, though, I think, to what you said before, Steve, there were witnesses on a list who aren't going to be here that I think they may have wanted to be there. And I wonder, is that part of George's role? He's representing people who, for multiple different reasons, are not there on the day, cannot be there, don't want to be there, or can't be there yet. I think he was just, obviously, a very strong witness that could talk about a lot of things. So we have two firsthand, possibly two, quote, secondhand. And by the way, this whole thing about secondhand witnesses, look, if someone is secondhand, then what do you do? The first thing you do is you look at their credentials, their vitae, their history, which usually is always easily documented. Not always, but at this level, once you get to Congress and so forth, it's well known. And so if they have very strong credentials in terms of what they've done and their accomplishments and rank and station and clearances and so forth, because George has got a 47-year career as a journalist and publishing forever, it's totally known. And then that obviously is, that's, that's the next best thing. And it's important. But over the years of the truth embargo, one of the ways the truth embargo has survived almost 80 years, God bless it. Actually, it is 80 years now. Truth embargo, as of July of this year, because I like to start the truth embargo when they reversed the Roswell article and said, no, no, it wasn't, wasn't a saucer. It's 80 years on. One of the reasons is, is that no matter how much gravitas you have, no matter how sterling your career was, if you talked about this, it's, it's nothing to it. But, uh, and, and demeaned or ignored. And so, like on my website, I have a section, uh, paradigmresearchgroup.org under resources, I have a quote section. And it's got quite a few quotes from earlier on, just going way back, right, of pretty substantial people, including astronauts and so forth, clearly indicating that this is real and, in most cases, non-human. And, and, and it didn't work, right? So, astronaut, uh, Mitchell repeatedly supported the fact that this was real and non-human, and it just, it just didn't have that much leverage. In other words, people just dismissed it. Somehow, the truth embargo was able to get us in that place where we sufficiently demeaned and, um, degraded, ridiculed, that even if somebody of significant, um, accomplishment, came forward on it, uh, so what? And so, secondhand is, can be incredibly powerful, particularly in this area. And I think what we're seeing is that more and more secondhand witnesses are going to be treated the way they should be. This will be an interesting test of that. Uh, and again, the amount of secondhand testimony that's out there is vast. In other words, there's this huge, we have built up a huge evidentiary, uh, matrix, uh, of, of information confirming the truth of this matter over, over 80 years. A lot of it was done by people, just regular citizens, uh, not, you know, not research entities, not the Federation of American Scientists, whatever the hell, Science Foundation. No, no, by just regular people writing these books, but talented people working hard and, and chronicling thousands and tens of thousands of cases. We built up this huge evidentiary base, and now it's being added to by a whole massive new tranche of evidence coming in from, well, being brought forward, being found, witnesses coming forward. There is an avalanche coming down the mountain of evidence, heading straight for the truth embargo managers and any of the entities that are particularly tasked with dealing with this issue and managing the truth embargo. It's literally heading right for them. And it's going to be firsthand testimony, secondhand, thirdhand documents, photos, God knows what. And so the question is, are they going to step out of the way of this avalanche and accept it and, and be part of the truth process or not? And this is, of course, the matter at hand. I'm starting to feel a lot better about that. Uh, so another significant, uh, part of this is about to land on September the 9th. 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? I want to get your take on the actual title of the hearing itself and what that may kind of point to. So, the actual title of the hearing is Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection. Excellent name. Perfect. They're basically saying exactly what needs to be said. We need testimony. This is a major issue, incredibly important issue, most important issue in the world as far as I'm concerned. The witnesses need protection because it is so profound, and the government has pushed back on this for years. But it covers all the bases. It's an historic title, and I like that. You mentioned the truth embargo managers. You also mentioned quite rightly that not only the United States, but particularly the U.S. at the moment, in the Western world, as in political upheaval, you can take your pick of any particular situation politically, geopolitically, whatever you want to call it, economically, and things are a bit of a shitshow. Do you not see a particular circumstance where, given the chaos that's ensuing, the people who are in charge of this truth embargo can use that to their advantage, potentially? Yes. Okay, well, this is something that I've been hitting really hard in interviews for a very specific reason because it's potentially a game-changer. My office, which I've been in, I've been in this, this, my office has been in the National Press Building now almost six years. And this building is two blocks from the White House. Which is helpful. And so, we, for those that have the time to watch a lot of news, which I do, but they, in particular, may understand that we are reaching a series of inflection points. This is an historic time. Yeah, interesting time. We are definitely reflecting the Chinese curse. We are living in interesting times. And it isn't fun. And the outcomes are unknown. And there will be casualties. And so forth. I don't want to beat this up too much, but we are, the diplomatic and international arrangements are breaking down fast. Which is to say that the rewards for so many mistakes made by so many heads of state and mistakes in policy by nations are now coming due. And they're going to take their toll. The world is now extremely dangerous in ways that are not as apparent as they were in an earlier, simpler time. Obviously, the world was pretty damn dangerous in the early 20th century, got pretty dangerous in the middle of the 20th century. It's a danger not quite like that, because we now live in a world where we have weapons that are just off the charts. Not simply nuclear bombs that blow things up. We've got about 12,000 of those, which I think includes the Mervs, but maybe not. And if it doesn't clear the Merv warheads, God knows how much it is. It could be 20,000, 25,000. They're extremely powerful. We have faster missiles. We also have EMP weapons that are capable of taking out entire country's grid, which means you don't have to blow it up. You just take the grid out, and just everybody pretty much starves to death and or dies off. And then you can move in if you want. You've got potential for satellite weapons. And the sophistication of bioweapons is light years beyond where it was in World War I, where mustard gas was considered a particularly nasty thing. Trust me, it's child's play now. That could jump in at this at any time. It lurks there in the background. It's considered a weapon of mass destruction, so it's kind of under the mutually served destruction umbrella. If you hit a nation with a massive bioattack, they can nuke you. That's there. All right. We have 8.3 billion people on the planet now. It was about 3 billion when World War II was wrapping up. That's 5 more billion people, a significant portion of which are not very happy. And we continue to spend untold trillions of dollars on servicing the fear and terror we have from the other. Everybody's protecting themselves from everybody else. And so those trillions of dollars, they're not available to feed anybody, clothe anybody, medical care, housing, water, food, whatever. It's not there. It's not there. So guess what? People go without and they get angry. They get really angry. And then, of course, all the conflict that's happening, so many civilian deaths and so forth. They get beyond angry and they do bad things. And so there's a sense of danger now that it's a little less obvious and yet it's there. You can feel it. So there's that. At the same time, we have actual wars going on, actually happening right now. We're watching. And unlike earlier times when you waited for the newsreel to turn up in front of a movie, you were going to watch at the theater back home. These are live stream. You get to see them happening as they go down. And at least these days, they continue to, how would you say, not show the awful stuff, the really bad stuff that you would look at and go, oh, my God and wretch, perhaps. No, they don't show that because they don't want to offend the audiences back home. So they show you a lot, but they pixel out this and pixel out that. I am perfectly someone that supports the idea that the journalism out there shows these wars in every single detail, as awful as it can be. And stop protecting the civilian populations elsewhere so as not to offend their sensibilities, because that just makes it a lot easier to put up with the next slaughter that's going to take place. So that's going on. At the same time, of course, we are reaching what could very well be the end of the truth embargo 80 years on, which is a much more promising process that could change everything for the better. It is the opposite of what I just described. It is something that could bring hope to a lot of people. It could change the world. It's just hard to describe the impact that this is going to have if we can simply end the embargo and acknowledge worldwide that we're not alone and start getting into what we know and the tech we have and how to take that tech and use it to build instead of destroy whatever. This is coming to a head at the same time that this other circumstance. In other words, the simplest way to put it is we're closer to a nuclear event that could trigger a war than ever. And we're also closer to disclosure, ending the truth embargo than ever. That's happening at the same time. Then, we're also in the United States, heading an inflection point. This is a much smaller thing in a way, but the nature of it makes its power far more significant. An inflection point of what may go down is one of the biggest scandals, scandal, scandal, you know, certainly in American history. We've been through many. We've seen them, right? I've lived through quite a few, watched them on TV. They were, and people were uncomfortable and they didn't like it. It was awful. It was nothing. This is something. It's hard to describe how big it is, but more and more people are saying, are alluding to it. Anna Polina Luna, when she left the extraordinary, apparently, meeting, not a briefing, but a meeting, in which 10 victims of Epstein's time on this earth spoke with members of Congress. When it was over, she was clearly a little shaken. She went out of her way to tell the media that were there that this is way bigger than you may think, and it is. As for Nancy Mace, who was a victim of sexual abuse about a couple of years ago, she couldn't stay the whole time. She had, she left, walked out of that, walked down the hall crying, said nothing to anybody, and this went on. Then she posted something on her site. This is just a glimpse of how huge this is. Why is it huge? Because it went on for so many years. Because it's not just somebody abusing women. It is somebody involved in very large scheme endeavors that have involved hugely important, well-known figures, powerfully politically, wealthy into perhaps the billions, and other aspects of it. It is gargantuan. And it has been held at bay for 20-some years, at least. At least, maybe more. Somehow it was able to go on, possibly because there were so many powerful wealthy people involved that it was like a blackmail circle where everybody knew they couldn't do this because they, so everybody is like, it's like mutual assured destruction, right? It's the, it's the, it's the scandal version. Nobody can do anything because everybody goes up at the same time. Anyway, 20 years of it. And the number of names involved is in possibly hundreds and hundreds. In other words, the number of names of people of substance that people know who have very substantial careers and whatever else could be in the hundreds. And the effort to stop it is starting to unravel because they got the files. And by many files, I mean, they got disks with huge numbers of documents and videos. And they haven't yet been destroyed somehow. The FBI got it initially. And that's just been, just kind of out there for a while. Just goes, how would you say, simmering, right? And the effort to try to prevent it has been going on. You know that. And yet, ultimately, I don't see how. There's just, it's just too late. It's going to go. It's like a volcano that has clearly achieved a point where you're looking at and you're going, this is going to erupt. And anybody that knows anything about volcanoes, there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Right? And so, we're at that inflection point. And it is not, and this is going to be ugly, nasty, vile, angering. People are going to get angry in many ways. There's going to be so many things to be angry about. It's going to dominate the news at a time when the news is not easily dominated. So, there's that. There's other inflection points, right? Involving environmental crises and whatever the hell. So, here is what I have been talking about of late. And I say this respectfully. And I present this in a non-partisan way. I am not pushing a partisan narrative. I'm really not. I have kept that out of my work for 30 years. I'm not going to start now. This issue transcends politics. It transcends religion. It transcends economics. It transcends, you know, the desires of nations and so forth. Transcends it all. It's the biggest issue in all of human history. Bigger than whatever the hell happened 2,000 years ago. It was interesting. You can watch it on Ancient Aliens. This is way bigger than that. And so, it is non-partisan. So, things have happened which have finally convinced me that the matter of disclosure by the current President of the United States is in play. It has been discussed. It is being looked at. They have been testing the waters as to how it might be received. And I believe that is a fact. Okay. I don't have inside connections. Right? You know? Nobody threw anything out the window yesterday from the White House for me. And I went and grabbed it. Right? No, no. I don't have any of that. This is testing what is known in the public space. And here is what is known. All the way back in the beginning of Trump's first term, there was the odd UAP or UFO thing happening. Something from his son. Something said something about he might have been briefed. A comment from the President. A minor question from the journalist. It was not, you know, hidden off on the side. It was there. It wasn't taken up. It didn't seem to go much in terms of the White House. But then there was a lot happening back then with respect to politics in the White House. So, but, and this is important, while the White House was not making any dramatic moves during the first Trump administration, which starts on January the 20th of 2017, because of what happened in December of 2017, when the New York Times article slammed down after the 10 people came forward publicly from within the military intelligence complex as retired and said, we're going to pursue this issue in multiple ways. Plenty of progress was made during that period. Okay. And then we move into the Biden administration. For a number of reasons, the Biden administration, the Biden White House was not going to engage this issue. There was kind of a political existential quality to what was going on there. It was difficult. And the battle lines were drawn. And of course, we had, certainly last two years, we had a president who had lost, I think, well, we had a very divided Congress as well. So, it did not emanate much from the Biden White House. However, in the years that he was there, we made extraordinary strides. Okay. Extraordinary strides, including witnesses coming forward and huge amounts of coverage, thousands of articles in the mainstream media, favorable in almost every case. You had the Grush coming out, the major event of the Grush chairing 2023. 2023, and much more. Huge progress. Okay. And then, President Trump begins his second term. So, when he starts his second term, almost eight years of progress on this issue, taking it to levels we've never seen before. The issue, meaning the reality and the truth of an extraterrestrial presence or technologically advanced domain presence, huge amounts have been accomplished, including legislation. I could go on, but most people know this. As he starts his second term. Fine. And this second term, clearly, was going to be even more controversial, more challenging than the first. Okay. So, with that in mind, with that preface, I'd write this up in an article, but I write up the articles, I send them out to venues that may never publish them. I guess, as an activist, I'm a little skittish, and maybe they worry. But the point is, is that five days before he starts his second term, given, remember what I always said, everything that happened in the previous eight, his son, who has a podcast at that point, triggered, Donald Trump Jr., brings on Luis Elizondo and Ross Kolfar, two of the major, major players in this unfolding process, one a witness and a kind of an activist and the other a journalist who broke, who broke the initial story of Grush. And, of course, God knows what else. I mean, he's, he's, he's, he's a major player and he's, he's doing tons and tons of journals. They brought him on and they talked UAP or UFO or whatever the hell for two hours. 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. There is zero possibility that that was an accident. That, oh, it had been booked a year before, and it just turned out that Donald Trump won the election, so it ended up being his father that would be inaugurated five days later. No. So, I will say with high confidence that that was a deliberate choice of those two people insisted by his father. You do that. And probably some of the people in the White House around his father. And so, okay, why would they do that? Why would you bring those two witnesses on five days before you're inaugurated? I can only think of one reason that makes even the remotest sense, and that is you're going to see how the public reacts to that podcast, and it's very easy to do. You see the viewing, how many views. You can read comments to the podcast and so forth. You can scan social media. You can get a pretty good read on how that podcast was received. Okay, so file that away. And thus begins the Trump presidency. And obviously, it's been quite a ride. It's been intense. Okay, there's more happened in the next three months in this presidency than probably just about any four years of any other presidency we know in our memory. It's been almost impossible to keep up with it. One thing after another after another. The controversy is growing. Intense. Adeline's being drawn. Hundreds of court cases. Whatever. So that goes on three months, four months, five months. And again, the issue of our issue, the issue that I'm involved in, the truth embargo continues to advance. And I want to go into litany here, but trust me, most people know this. If you're on social media, you've seen what's happening. Recently, some very important things have happened. Right? That hasn't stopped. It's been relentless. Okay, fine. So whatever is happening with respect to politics and the governance of the country that some people think is fantastic and other people think it's the end of the United States as we know it, the matter of this non-human, technologically advanced non-human, and the matter of the truth embargo, has continued to advance and make progress. Okay, fine. So, has anything happened that seems to indicate that these two things have crossed streams, which we know from the movie is a bad thing, except in the end, it had a great ending. Yeah. Is there anything? And I'm watching for it. And believe me, that's not the night. All I do is watch. I don't have a life. I scan. I don't know. I've got six newspapers I'm signed up to. I'm on Twitter. I'm on Twitter. I see thousands and thousands of posts on X, which is pretty much the main conduit. And I'm two blocks from the White House. I'm paying attention. Well, so others, people can lead a life. Take a vacation, right? Raise their kids. And so I'm watching and watching. And then it happens. What happens? Well, as Bowman said in 2010, contact, something wonderful. At least I think so. In rapid succession, this is what takes place. No warning. No warning at all. Keeping in mind, there's 8 million, 20 million, I don't know how many podcasts there are out there. So if you want to go on a podcast, you have an unlimited choice. You can pick high, low, middle, whatever, this kind of, whatever. You just, and if you're a person of high, you know, status and so forth, you can pretty much pick anybody you want. Like if the Pope wanted to do a podcast, he could pick anyone of 15 million and they would say, yes, sir, you're welcome. And so the vice president of the United States, vice president Vance, turns up on a podcast. The name, I forget the name. I could throw it out. It's less important. It's easy to find. It was a podcast I'd never heard of. Doesn't matter. It doesn't mean they're wonderful. I think it was two gentlemen, but whatever. I think it was two women. Whatever. It doesn't matter. He's on a podcast. And let's face it. If you're the vice president, it doesn't matter what podcast you're going to be on. It's going to go viral. It's going to get out there. It's going to be seen and retweeted and so forth. And he goes on to talk about this, that and whatever else. But he lets the UAP, UFO issue come up. Now, right away, some people will go, okay, so what? He wants to talk about it. No, you have to understand how these things work. If you're the vice president or the president, right? Or anybody really big time. And you don't want something to come up. It does not come up. If you want it to come up, it comes up. All right? That's just the way it is. All right? So, yeah. So, in other words, would you sit down at 60 minutes or one of those, quote, high-end journalistic things, knowing that, well, you can't get a deal with them for that? So, they're going to ask whatever they want? Uh-uh. You don't do that. If you want something to come up, you go on a venue that you have control. When Hillary Clinton won Jimmy Kimmel, I assure you, she decided if she was going to talk about UFOs, and it came up because she wanted it to. So, he's talking about UFOs, UAPs, this, that, whatever. I don't remember the details. But what I do remember, and what's most important, and this is the shoe drop, the vice president of the United States said, I'm obsessed with UFOs. Now, a lot of people would go, isn't that quaint? It's cool. It's like a hobby. You got some books in the library. You know, I'm in your basement library. I'm kind of a thing. I didn't know. It's so cute. Right? You know, it's like saying I'm a butterfly collector. I've been collecting my whole life. I've got a huge collection. No, I'm obsessed with UFOs is boom, and I'm going, okay, there is no way he goes on and says that unless after, how long has it been? It was January. It's approximately 10 months. January 20, 10 months, they decided to retest the water and see how the reaction would be now. Okay? And then only four days later, right? And another rather important person, the director of national intelligence, D&I. I mean, really, I don't care what you think about people on the Hill right now. An incredibly important, powerful person goes on another podcast, not particularly well-known as far as I know. Nice people. They're chatting it up. The UAP subject comes up, and she speaks to it this way and that way. Nothing too profound, but clearly she's not dismissing it. She's basically saying, I can talk UAP on a podcast with the cameras rolling, and I'm going, that's two. And what next? And what next is the second shoe that dropped? Now, if anybody's got a better explanation, email me. Tell me I'm crazy. Account for this. Explain it. Only five or six days later, the chairman of the Federal Secrets Task Force that is in charge by its own mandate with the JFK files, the RFK, MLK files, and the Epstein files, and the UAP issue, which they've addressed. She was also on the subcommittee that held the hearings. So she's been dealing with this issue for a couple of years. It is part of her portfolio and her historical legacy. She goes on not just any podcast. She goes on what would rightfully be said is the most important podcast on the planet Earth. The podcast that made a major role, had a major role in electing her president, Joe Rogan. It's hard to estimate how many people are going to watch a Joe Rogan podcast, not only live, but eventually in archive. But yeah, it can get up in, I think, 20 million, 30 million. I mean, there's almost no upside depending upon who's on. And so when she goes on that podcast for two hours, she knows full well that millions upon maybe tens of millions of people are going to watch this. And could she have prevented Joe Rogan from asking her about the UFO issue? Maybe. It's possible that she could have wanted to do that podcast and said, Joe, I don't want to talk about this. And Joe Rogan might have said, OK, and he might not have. And if he said, no, I'll talk about what I want. She would have said, well, I'm just not going to be able to do it. But thank you so much for thinking of me. But obviously the subject comes up and she starts talking UFOs and UAPs. Now, understand, for several years, she's been in skiffs. She's been reviewing witnesses. She's been doing vetting in order to hold all these briefings and so forth. She's been in the heart of that whole thing going up on the hill. And so she's talked to a lot of people. She's seen a lot of documents. She has a level of understanding and awareness that is above ours, above journalists, because of where she's her position and her status and her clearance capability. It's not top, top, top, but I assure you, she's talking to a lot of people that I can't talk to. And before you know it, she's talking about the fact that what she has been told and what she has been seen in documents confirms that we have that technology. And that technology didn't fly itself. We have the bodies. And then she goes really deep. And I've listened to it. There's a transcript out there. I encourage people to go listen to it, read the transcript, become fair with every single word this woman says in that podcast, because I think she was changing history right at that moment. And she says that they seem to think or it seems to seems to be that they are interdimensional. OK, OK, fine. Whether they're interdimensional, time travelers are from another planet. That's equally profound. All three are. That's it. Right. And I hope they're not interdimensional. I think they're star to star. Doesn't matter. But the fact that she would even say that you think you think that she was trying to diminish that. In other words, I've told you some important things I want you to know, but now I'm going to say something crazy so you'll be dissuaded from caring. No, she's actually had these kind of discussions. And there are people in our military intelligence community, witnesses or whatever, that have alluded. They're leaning that way. Barring a full accounting of everything we know, you can lean a number of different ways. Until we end the truth embargo, we have a lot of people leaning here, there and everywhere else. Except everybody should be leaning in the right direction, which is the truth. And so I concluded at that point that absolutely the White House is now very much taking the temperature of the American people on this issue. What is the reaction? They just had three bing in a row. And by the way, scores of articles were written about each one. And they're up on my website right now. And if you go and read those articles, 2025, it's in the media list, link list. And if you read them, it's fine. It's positive. None of these articles are going after them about, are you kidding me? Are you crazy? What the hell are you talking about? They're all basically covering a state legit. And so this is the punchline here. I think they are seriously considering ending this truth embargo. And by that, I mean the president ending this embargo. You don't take the temperature of this in that way in order to, I don't know, have the undersecretary of state come out and do it. You do it because of the president. And I am going to take a wild guess, it's not wild at all, and say primary reason that they are doing it, but not the only reason, is that because of this other matter I discussed. Remember I said they crossed streams. And that is you've got a massive scandal coming that is going to be bad news for a lot of people. It's going to be awful. There's going to be consequences. There's going to be casualties. And whatever those casualties are, right, ending the truth embargo is about the most significant, profound diversion and distraction you could possibly do. Nothing short of actually launching a nuclear war. That would do it. And everything becomes moot. But there's nothing more powerful than that. And so for a certain amount of time, a long time, the entire media complex shifts to that, the public's interest shifts to that, international issues shift to that, and it would literally dominate human experience for a while. In which case, that other stuff is backburnered, all right? That's one thing. That's one thing. But there is a second aspect of this, which is also extremely important, that people or others are going to be reluctant to talk about. I get it, but I don't have a, I don't have, there's no guardrails of what I say. It's what I want to say. And that's it. I'm an activist. And that is this. If the president of the United States does the very simple thing, it will take five minutes, walks out in the Oval Office, or, you know, simply steps out in the Oval Office of the East Room and sits in the Oval Office of the East Room in front of maybe a select group of reporters just brought in for that one issue. Whatever, whatever, it doesn't matter, or even if he goes on Rogan, because this is a new time, we're in a new era, and like, you can do something on Rogan that you could never even thought of doing, say, 20, 30 years ago, but on a show like that, you could do it now. And simply confirms that what we've been hearing is exactly what is the case, and that he certainly has the ability to confirm that personally. We're not alone. We have these craft. We have the bodies of the people in those craft, and they are not human. Something along those lines that basically confirms that we're not alone. However it's phrased, that is disclosure with a capital D. That is the end of the truth embargo. And why is this important? Because the head of state that does this, first, not second, second, no, first, whoever it is, and there's a number of heads of state out there, will immediately achieve one of the greatest political legacies of all time. Transcending almost anything you want to point to, okay? It will go around the world in a day. This individual will be heralded as one of the great truth tellers, ending one of the greatest lies of all time, and triggering a complete transformation of this, of our human civilization, in relatively short order. I mean, it won't be the next day, but I'm sure you'll be faster than any other transformation we've been under. Almost certainly get a Nobel Prize. It's a luck, okay? And so whatever that head of state faces, that head of state will always have that and that legacy until the end of time. And so I'm simply suggesting that that makes that particular move very logical, very appropriate in a way, very helpful, and even self-serving. That is where I'm at right now. That is what I'm putting out there. And so far, nobody has come back at me right on this. Again, I'm not trying to cause trouble. I'm not trying to pick sides at all. I'm simply addressing the circumstances that are before us, right? And you look at the circumstances. You try to come up with a logical assessment as best you can because you can't – I'm not Baba Vanga. I can't predict the future. And put that out there if the consequences are significant, if the outcome is profound because I'm going to – I'm biased in a sense. I want the president to do that. Absolutely. I want him to do it tomorrow. And if all I say – talked about happens, that is fine. So, those that want much more negative outcomes or whatever that serve their angers and predilections, I get it. I understand. I don't have that problem. The president could do it tomorrow. And then the last thing I'll say is that there are other heads of state that could do this. And you may have noticed of late they're kind of getting together out there. Kind of a coalition of heads of state that are aligning up, opposing us. One of them could do it tomorrow. And once that happens, all of the positive aspects of being the disclosure head of state for the second person are gone. 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. Steve? This was the most Q&A, but I think you knew that. It was going to be good. That's all right. I'm going to hit record now. So, listen. I am going to come back at you. I'm going to preface it, though. I'm going to preface it, though, and say I, of course, like you, and like anyone listening to this, would love any head of state tomorrow to give us the capital D disclosure that you have wonderfully outlined there. I'm going to talk like the TikTok generation, and I hate TikTok, right? No offense to anyone on it, but, you know, those clips just threw my head in. No, no, no. Oh, no, Andy. You just said you hate the TikTok generation. My God, man. Have you any idea what you're in the works for? Oh, my Lord. Take it back. Please take it back. Steve, listen, you are the least TikTok-friendly guest on the planet. So, what you're kind of saying is, and I'm going to build myself up here for my argument, is we have this thing that if the truth comes out, and I don't mean the 30,000 pages of files or whatever they've got, I mean the actual truth that probably still isn't out there. There's going to be a lot of movies and CDs that people can't go back and watch because their favorite actors, singers, whoever, are going to be named as implicit in something that's disgustingly shocking, worldwide scandal, okay? So, you've got the Epstein stuff. Run alongside it, you've got the UFO stuff. And you're saying, obviously, the UFO stuff may be used to make folks forget about this really bad thing, this Epstein stuff, and the truth of it. No, no, no, no. It's the opposite. It's the opposite. You think they're going to use the Epstein stuff? The Epstein situation, I'm sorry. No, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, you say UFO stuff. The disclosure event mitigates and will certainly slow down the other thing which is still going to happen. Yeah, my issue with that is there's an element of faith being put in society which may be a little misplaced because if you look online, there's a lot of morons, there's a lot of idiots who have voices. Do you watch Squid Game? No, I have assiduously avoided that because, I mean, again, I just don't need that in my head. No, there's moments in Squid Game, and I think it's been out long enough, folks, where at the end of the task, everyone knows at the end of each task in Squid Game, you play a kid's game and people genuinely die. That's how you're eliminated from the competition. However, at the end of each task, what they do with the remaining contestants is they give you the choice to leave. No consequence. We can end the game now. We just need the majority to vote to leave. If there's 50 of you left, we need 26 to 24. And the obvious thing, once they've seen this shocking, horrific thing, is you would expect them all to go up and say, oh, my God, we should all leave. But people begin to question it. People begin to make bad choices. People think, well, I survived this one, so just one more. And it keeps going on and on and on. And people never really vote to stop it. I'll just kind of end it there. But that's the gist. I think there's a bit of an issue with society where we may actually be at a really odd point where there are large swaths of society who would care far less about what we would in terms of disclosure than seeing which pop stars or movie stars are named on the Epstein list. And there's almost getting a worryingly large element, especially on the younger demographics, where they would shrug their shoulders at, we have bodies, we have craft, we know these beings are interdimensional, star to star, whatever it may be, and we're going to bring them out next week. Or do you want to see this redacted list? I worry that as people walk up and squid game it and choose which one they want, UFOs or Epstein, it goes the other way. And that's just the bad place I see society being in. Not that there's a whole load of impacts off of that, but that's kind of where I'm at with it. Okay. I've heard this thinking, of course, many times. Thanks. A lot of what happens in the world is not democratic. In other words, you do something bad, right? And so somebody spends a lot of money, goes out and polls, I don't know, the entire population of the country. Let's just type into a country, right? And they discover that 57% of the people don't care. 43 do. And therefore, you're gold, right? That's not the way the world works. There are private opinions and views, and there's institutional opinions and views, institutional consequences. That's how, let me give you an example. I think it's a good example. You have this young fellow, Maggioni, tragic thing, who did a pretty awful thing. On video, seen, right? So he was caught, and he's come forward. And for whatever reason... That's the assassination of the high-level exec. Of the medical CEO. Okay, yeah. So for various reasons, there are a whole lot of people that are very sympathetic to him. And they're literally posting this all the time. They're showing up at the court appearances and what have you. And so there's a certain number of people that think, hey, you know, what he did was not as bad as you might think, and maybe I was justified and let's let him go. So, what if 51% of the American people felt that way? So, hey, 51% kind of feel, let's let him go. No, no, no, no. There's 8 billion people in this world. 340 million people in the United States. And so, anything that happens, I guarantee you, you can get together and cobble together a group of people that are going, eh, no big deal. I don't care. I think I like it. But, that's not what we're dealing with here. Something, this scandal, because of the kinds of people it's going to affect and their legacies in history, there are institutional consequences. There are financial consequences. A whole lot of other people are indirect going to be affected. And so, this is going to be, upset many apple cards and create huge problems for substantial institutions and power that are not going to just sit by and go, you know, everybody makes a mistake. It's going to be hell. All right? And people are going to be, you know, turning on each other. You're going to have court cases. You're going to have, it's going to go on and on and on and the media is going to engage it. And so, when I talk about diversion, pretty much it's institutional diversion. Meaning this, if the media has shifted its focus on the, on the, on the post-disclosure situation that suddenly hits, it doesn't matter how many people in the country could give a damn. It, the pressure on those involved in the Epstein scandal is mitigated for a while. It is, it is not ended. It's simply not so much in the front and will, will slow down. It will slow down the outcome. I want to eliminate. And that's what I'm referring to. Okay? And so, again, and, and the issue of legacy. Okay? The issue of legacy is transcends again, democratic matters. If, if you get a, if you get a legacy, if you do something that story gives you a legacy, whether people like that or not, whether they like you or not, a legacy is what it is. It passes, passes down in history. It is what it is. It's not changeable. And so, uh, if you, if you win a medal of honor in war, uh, you achieve a high esteem that is a part of your legacy. and even if you go on to have a problem after the war, maybe become a criminal, maybe go to jail, you always have that medal of honor. It is not democratic. They can't vote it away from you. And so I'm simply saying that the fundamental tenant is that there are two huge benefits that come assuming this scandal blows as big as I think it is and so forth. Distraction, delay, mitigation. Uh, and I'm just, you know, to what, to what degree? I don't know, but I do know one thing. The leader that ends this truth embargo gets a legacy of extraordinary significance and nobody can take that away. It doesn't matter whether they like them or don't like them, right? It doesn't matter. They cannot take that away. And the other aspect of it is this. Ending the truth embargo is not an American thing. It is a global thing. It is a civilization thing. The truth embargo ends for all 8 billion people that moment. 200, almost 200 countries and sovereign states, sovereign territories and 8 billion people. And you have just freed that lie up for them. You have just freed the truth up for all 8 billion. And I assure you, as you move away from the United States, the number of people in this world that really give a damn about these other matters, right? Shrinks to nothing, okay? But the legacy will be global. So this is a hugely asymmetric situation. And then some people say, you know, you're trying to make it good or you're trying to, you're let, what, you know, you're picking sides. I'm not. I'm simply saying this is history. History is what it is. It's huge. It tends to go where it wants to go. And I'm just trying to say, I think this is where it's going and the outcome will be what it is. There were a lot of people, for instance, leading up to World War II that kind of saw it coming and they were pointing out things like, you know, that's not good and that's not good and oh boy, I'm not liking that. This could lead to World War II and people say, what, are you a war lover? Right? And can you predict the future? No. But they saw what they saw and a lot of people said, I'm out of here and they left Europe. Again, bad, bad, you know, it's kind of a negative thing. This is a little more positive. No, no, let me come in there, Stephen. That's my response. Yeah, yeah. So, history at what cost is probably a good place to go then because, again, if you want to go with, we've got the president of the, and I'm just going to use Trump, we've got the president of the United States, Donald Trump, has confirmed in whatever way he says a non-human presence, we've got that capital D disclosure. If it's at the expense or being done for nefarious reasons or as a distraction or it's being done even not just for Epstein but for other reasons, is there not a huge risk around that? That, yes, we have this truth out, but that would be questioned and would it be the whole truth? Then there's a lot of questions come off the back of that and I suppose I have to ask, are you at the point where you would go, that's enough, you'd be satisfied and where it goes from there to hell with it, whatever happens, happens, but then there's a danger that you've got, that could be gatekeepers and truth embargo managers still controlling a narrative and going, okay, we're going to let this out, but do you know what, everything that comes out from here is utter bullshit and you perhaps start a new truth embargo with 80 years of BS using that narrative of here's disclosure, but it's what we want you to think disclosure is? Two points you've raised, I'll respond to both of them. First, let me say that any truth embargo is so massively significant that the fact that it also may have served the person that ended it in a way that was self-serving to that individual, it's not even in the, it's nothing, it's like, fine, the person got some benefit, who cares, the world just got a benefit 10 million times more important than that, and so that's an asymmetry that's not going to be a problem, and then you've asked the fundamental question, which is independent of this scenario that I've presented is, well, then what? Right? Now, I think what you're implying is that the person, if the head of state that ends the truth embargo, it has certain problems, problematic in certain ways, well, couldn't that then pretend that it's going to go badly and what have you? I get it. If, say, Vladimir Putin were to end the truth embargo, there's a lot of people that are going to say, well, this is not going to go well. This is not going to go well. Right? What next? I don't know what's going to go fine. You're right. And you could pick other leaders, except it's not happening in a vacuum. We got 80 years leading up to this, right? 80 years of history and docs and all the stuff that's happening. And so the way it will go is that if our president discloses, I'm going to confidently predict that several other heads of state will practically be right behind it. They're not going to sit back and go, wow, I had no idea. Right? Particularly the prime minister of the UK, right? UK prime minister. I mean, I had no idea. There's so much stuff implicating the UK and this thing's not even funny. And we could go down the line. The point is they are not going to sit back as this thing starts to move around the world and say, I know nothing. They have evidence. They have gun camera footage of the yin-yang. They can come forward and confirm it immediately, within days, within weeks, whatever, but pretty damn fast. And so, very quickly, it's not Donald Trump told the truth. Do you believe it or not? And if you don't, then this is no big deal. No. he's going to get backed up by an array of heads of state. How many does it matter? But two, five, six, eight, ten, certainly the nuke nations. And so the matter of Donald Trump's veracity becomes moot. Now, the other point is this. Once it happens, it's not happening in a vacuum. We've already got pieces of legislation. We have a UAP act. It could be signed later this year. It's a major act that encompasses the whole process of bringing everything out. We've got how many witnesses do you think are willing to come forward after the truth embargo ends? And the risk falls to practically zero. How much massive evidence is going to be available? It's not available now. And so it creates a new tide in a boat floating on that tide trying to undermine it or bitching about it or complaining all the little social media skeptics doing their thing. No, it is a tide. It will go where it's going to go and there's not a damn thing that can be done about it. So I'm just not worried about that Andy. It's going to be fine. Okay? I don't know. Is there any leader out there that somehow would be a really superior person to end the truth embargo? Is you go to the smaller countries that don't have to deal with these massive macro processes? Maybe the Prime Minister of New Zealand or I don't know whoever's running San Marino right now? Maybe but no. Every major nation in this world, meaning the big ones, the nuke powers, as well as some other non-nuke very powerful nations, have all committed crimes against humanity. Every single one of them. Okay? Every one. Some more recent than others, but in their history, oh yeah, right? They've done awful things. And so there is no perfectly, that's the word I'm looking for, there is no pure nation or head of state of that, well there's no pure nation whose head of state can come forward from that and go, okay, oh this is great. No, no, no. In fact, ending the truth embargo is about getting to a place, hopefully not too far down the line, when all of the heads of state of this world are basically serving their people and trying to serve the planet and moving away from all those crimes against humanity so that as each year passes, the distance between the last crime against humanity increases. It is, and it's one of the things that I talk about, I'll say it now, the disclosure is the only pathway forward that's going to save our ass. We've made too many mistakes, done too many things wrong, screwed too many things up, not fixed a plethora of stuff that had to be fixed. We've built unbelievable amounts of weapons, squandered hundreds of trillions of dollars, and so now in this point in time, you've got people that are going, it's over. We need to go to Mars because the only way we're going to save the human race is if we go to Mars because there won't be a living human on this planet not too long from now. Mutual Sir Destruction is like global anxiety. The entire planet should be on a Xanax strip. It's not good. Now some people just don't want to think about it. I don't blame them. Raise your kids, hope for the best, go to their soccer games, try to make a living. But there are people like me and many others smarter than me, I assure you, including think tanks, that they know what's going on. They know how bad it is. And it's not fun to keep telling people that because it kind of gets to them, and I get it. But I'm able to talk about this in the context of something profound. There are people out there that will be happy to tell you how awful it is, but they don't have a way out. This is it, right? It's walking dead, baby. The zombie apocalypse is coming. Not a damn thing we can do about it. But that's not the case with this issue. With this issue, we have a way out, I believe. I'd love to debate anybody at any college anywhere about that, and we could discuss it. It would be fun. It would be very civil. There are too many people that present this this way, and this is why I'm still around 30 years on, because I don't have the credentials, I don't have the resources, I don't have the gravitas, I don't have huge connections, but I'm still here, still giving these interviews. I've given more interviews than anybody else in the subject, which is a big deal, because I've been at it so long, and that's all I do pretty much, but because this needs to be told, and it needs to be presented in this kind of political way, people want to talk to me, and I'll keep talking to them, and I'll keep saying this, until somehow I realize, no, it's not going to work, won't matter, disclosure will not make any difference, human civilization is about to head back to the Stone Age for a while, hopefully it won't be too long, but hey, you know, who wants to think that way? So, we do have a way out, and by the way, let's also include this, if you have a reasonable knowledge of the history of the UAP presence, or the UET, or technologically advanced non-human, without getting into ancient times, just in the last 80 years, if you have a reasonably robust understanding of it, mine is, you know, it's not at the level of some of the researchers, I mean, it's a massive subject, the researchers have gotten down into the very basic stuff, they can rattle off stuff, I have a big picture view, but it's reasonable if you have a reasonable knowledge of the history of this issue going back to 1947, there is ample evidence that the ETs all have an agenda here, they're just not hanging around, doing whatever the hell they feel like, they have an agenda, and that agenda seems to be in our favor, seems to be that they actually care how screwed up we are, have maybe some reasons why they they would like to see us get it together for their benefit, and they have done things and said things and there are certain actions that they've done that support that. There is very little that is against that interpretation, very, very little, and so that is, that's part of it too. Now, if you are a citizen that doesn't know anything about the ET issue and you're hearing about this stuff, it's a little confounding. I mean, you may go, yeah, I think it's probably true, but I don't know anything about it, and so the ET is going to eat us, they're going to blow us up, is there a deal, there are treaties, or whatever the hell else, I get it, but the reason they don't know about it is the government said there's nothing to know about for 80 years. They've kept us ignorant to make it that much more difficult to assess the situation. That's why you have activists. Activists, the activist job and activist movements is to get a government or an authority to do something it should do because it's the right thing to do, even if the government has been very successful in keeping everybody in the dark or out of it, so they don't even have the ability to engage it, but it's still the right thing to do, and so you press it on behalf of everyone else that doesn't understand, it hasn't been kept from them, and you do what every single activist has to do in all of history, every single one, nobody gets to take a pass on this. Each activist has to decide what I am doing to try to, and everybody that's involved in it, just not me, but everybody, my contribution to this activist process that's going to force an authority, a government to do this is the right thing to do. You can't be certain. There are no guarantees. The world's too complex. You just have to decide, is it the right thing to do, and then you do it, and if it goes bad, that's unfortunate, but I would say a world where people are doing what they think is the right thing to do, even though it doesn't always work, is a world with a much better chance of going somewhere and achieving a civilization worthy of calling that name, calling itself a civilization, which is to say the truth doesn't always give you what you want, but it is more likely to give you what you need and what is right than lies. Lies don't take you anywhere but down, though there are short-term moments where you can fly for a little bit, but then you crash and burn, and so seeking the truth over lies has the better likelihood of an outcome. Doing what you think is the right thing to do has a better likely outcome, but there are those that want absolutes, right? Unless you have, you can perfectly prove that this is going to work out great, which is impossible to do, then why should we care? Why should we support it? What can I say? That is the activist path. If someone doesn't want to do those things and do it that way, they don't want to take this path because it will not work well for them. They will be very unhappy. 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. You mentioned about how many interviews Steve you've done. There's a good reason folks like speaking to you, and I certainly have enjoyed it whenever I've spoken to you. I think there's a reason people listen to or watch this, and it's the way I approach the subject in a certain way. I like to think I've learned, not just from doing this, but in professional life and everything, getting older. I can look at a lot of things from different points of view, and I can look at an argument from multiple sides, even disagreeing with myself. Why do people think a certain way? Okay, does that help change my viewpoint? To your point, you mentioned disclosure would be a way, and I'm paraphrasing, but to almost cover up the greatest crimes against humanity, or the great crime against humanity, and move forward. You said something along those lines. No, no, I didn't say cover up crimes against humanity. No, no, I'm not getting at that, but you made a point around crime against humanity. My concern with the point being we get this disclosure that you're talking about is that going forward, it starts the next great crime against humanity. There's an assumption, well, it's all assumptions, because we don't know, that all those leaders come out and say, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, this is right, President X or Prime Minister Y, whoever comes out and confirms it. What if they don't back it up? What if that person's left on their own? There's then the question of what evidence actually comes out from the disclosure, President, let's say, again, I'll use Trump, it's the easiest one to use. What if they don't give us everything? Well, yeah, look, I've been asked that question. Look, disclosure is nothing more than a confirmation we're not alone, which is a big deal. It will davidize the world's people in a way that we've never probably seen. In other words, you're going to have more people addressing and thinking and viewing and getting excited about something in the shortest amount of time ever in the human race. And it's compelling. And it's happening in a time when the ability to communicate information about this extraordinary thing could never be more grand. I mean, you could communicate worldwide like this. Everybody on the planet could share. You could immediately share your view on this to somebody on the other side of the, you know, on the planet that happens to be in your Facebook group, whatever. Right. So the ability to engage the information and get it out could not be better. That may be, that may not be a coincidence. Okay. We also have AI, which is going to give us an ability to deal with the information and a lot of the implications in a way we would be more hampered, we'd be hampered without it. So disclosure happens. Everybody knows that there's ETs here and they want to know more about it. All right. And they're going to be intensely focused. Right. Meaning they really want to know about it. So it's, so whatever you decide to do, however you decide to deal with it, if you want to, if you want to throw in a little lie here or misrepresent here or hold back something that really should come forward, though under the Disclosure Act, it'd be against the law and maybe take your, your, your science project and go off somewhere and hide and keep doing it. You have to understand hundreds of millions of people, if not more, are watching it. Every government, every head of state, every process, every statement on this issue from that point forward is going to have the world's attention. And so if you want to play games with it, right, and see how can I commit a crime against humanity based upon the fact that we're not alone anymore, you're going to have to do it very publicly. And so when, when you talk about a paradigm shift, which we've had a number of them in the science world, it's a little harder to point out paradigm shifts in worldview, but they can happen and this is going to be a worldview paradigm shift as Danny Sheehan has spoken at length about and will write about, God knows, you probably have a couple of books. A paradigm shift is of so profound nature that the very power of it almost precludes screwing around with it afterwards. Okay? Now in science it's a little easier to talk about that. So, so Newtonian physics, when it, when it broke was a major paradigm shift in science and same thing with quantum physics and to some degree atomic physics. These are paradigm shifts in the scientific understanding of extraordinary significance. And so in the aftermath of something of that extraordinary level, people that want to say, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, this quantum mechanic thing, nonsense, okay? I got another theory or whatever, we're going to go this way, we're going to go that way, I don't believe it, blah, blah, blah, blah, it's not going to work. Now, when you're down at small stuff, if you have little things happening, whatever, anybody can challenge it, everybody can make a big deal, but a paradigm shift means you have irreversibly entered a whole new era and world. And by and large, the vast numbers of humans that are involved in that are going to go with it, whether they want to or not, they're going to be carried forward in that tide. And in this case, the tide is a positive one. We have had many tides in the history of the human race that were awful, red tides, and there was nothing you could do, they were going to take you where they're going to take you. The tide that led to World War I, World War II, whatever, this is a good one. Right? This is a tide that can take us an extraordinary place. But how do you get a tide powerful that would do that? Well, you finally address the fact that we've never been alone in this galaxy. This galaxy is so much more than we could have ever dreamed, so much bigger, of course, than we ever imagined. Even now, too big to comprehend. It is transcendent. Okay? And for that reason, I'm not too worried about the post-disposure world. There will be some instability. Naturally, there will be some instability. I'm hoping that nobody, for whatever reason, it upsets them to the point where they get a little, you know, trigger happy with a nuke. Okay? And I've said this many times. And this will put things maybe in a more moderate perspective for you. And that is, if we don't have disclosure, we're going to have a nuclear war. I'm absolutely certain of it. Absolutely. It's going to happen. Okay? If we have disclosure, we may still have a nuclear event, right? That could trigger a full-out war. In other words, it's not likely to start with 200 missiles being launched. It'll start because somebody does something stupid or an accident and it escalates, but we could still have a nuclear situation, a nuclear event happen post-disclosure. But the difference is in the post-disclosure era, it is much more likely we will be able to deal with that, that we will deal with it in a much different way because we're in a much different place with a different worldview. Whereas if we have that nuclear event happen like tomorrow, pick a theater, we're going to deal with it in the, our traditional way, that we've been relying on for 12,000 years, which is to relaunch whatever, take vengeance until the whole thing blows up. In other words, in this particular paradigm, it's going to go badly. In the next paradigm, there's a much better chance that it will not go badly. And one of the ways that some people think about this, because they don't have a lot of understanding of the phenomena, they think about it this way. if we launch the nuclear weapons, the ETs will turn them off. They can apparently do turn off weapons, right? And they'll just make neuter them, right? They'll just fall down, right? Just a falling missile and save us. That's kind of another version of what I'm talking about, but a little more risky. And obviously, if the ETs intervene and turn all the missiles off, I guess you could say that's disclosure, that would be disclosure. We'd be in the post-disclosure world pretty much right away and very happy. Hey, you turned the missiles off and you saved us. We love you. Come on down. Have a piece of cake. But that's simplistic. It's naive, but it's understandable because the government is doing everything it can to keep us as naive as possible on many things. So that's a very naive version of what I'm talking about. Let whatever's going to befall the human race, and it may be bad, let it be in the post-disclosure world, not in the current paradigm, which we have screwed up 18 ways to Sunday, and is not particularly very constructive and is very dangerous. And I think in that scenario where people hope that ETs would save us from any kind of nuclear war, the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be incredibly annoyed at them picking and choosing when they divert. weapons of mass destruction and when they don't, let alone, and that's from a very human perspective, but how many nuclear tests happen underwater or underground every single year? And world life, marine life? Well, a couple of thousand, and then they stop. Guess what? I think China is about to restart testing, and that could easily start spreading. We could have four or five countries doing testing. By the way, those two, I forget, two, three thousand nuclear tests, air, ground, underwater, pretty much responsible for a major increase in cancers. If you look at the cancer statistics going back to the 40s, it virtually parallels the nuclear weapons testing that was going on and putting radioactive crap up into it. Almost like it was a bad idea regardless, yeah. So, again, they're thinking about starting that up again, need to do some more testing, and I'm just, you know, what can I say? I'm almost 80. I don't have any kids, I don't have any grandkids, so it's like I don't really have a dog in this hunt, right? It's more of a, well, it's just more of a, Steve, look at a couple of years ago, they had the idea that we're going to detonate a nuclear weapon on the moon to see what happened, and you're like, I mean, that could be one that really brings upon disclosure one way or another, you know, but, um, I want to bring us back, Steve, to the hearings chat, believe it or not, I'm only on my third page of 11 of notes, um, so we've covered a lot of ground, I say we, you have covered a lot of ground. You can put it out in three, you can put it out in three parts, let's roll, I got nothing to do today. Well, um, I don't know if you saw, but, um, in the last 24 hours, a rumour started online that the hearings were going to be postponed until November. Had you seen that? And that came from Eric Davis. So, Eric Davis online on LinkedIn, I believe, commented to someone, the hearings won't happen in September, they're going to be November, no one wants to come forward at the moment. So, Anna Paulina Luna, yesterday, as we record this, uh, on Wednesday, on Tuesday, Anna Paulina Luna had to come out and quash these and say, no, she actually made a slight slip up and said she had never heard of Eric Davis. Then she deleted her tweet, given she literally a couple of months ago had sat beside him and listened to him talk about multiple alien species in that hearing. Um, but she had to correct that and I wonder what's your thoughts again on, we've got this hearing now confirmed and you've got a congress woman, a well-known player in the UFO game and physicist Eric Davis, having these issues or misinformation or corrections happening online and almost petty spats. If we look at a few weeks ago, Louise Elizondo and Anna Paulina Luna very publicly having a spat online as well, how does that play into how this looks in the eyes of the public? Well, let's see, uh, the internet, social media platforms on the internet is just imagine 10 billion backyard fences and people are chatting to each other over the fence, a little gossip, little whatever. How was your day? My day was nice. It's a massive information matrix that is essentially without any significant, uh, management. There's some, but not a lot. And so everything on the internet has to be viewed that way. And so, uh, and, and people can get things wrong and then tell somebody else and then come to somebody else, right? And it can spread. Usually if you get something wrong and you tell your neighbor by the time the neighbor tells it to two other people, they realize that that's wrong. Now, by the time somebody figures out it's wrong, it may have already been viewed by, I don't know, 20 million people or something, right? Share, right? You want to share. Okay. Repost, share, all this kind of stuff. So it's, it's a massive, uh, I don't know what, what am I thinking of? What's the word? I can't find the word. So you, you all, you, you need, you need, you need circumspection. You need an education. You need to have, be able to think in a lot of other things in order to navigate the internet to minimize, uh, embarrassment. Okay. But regardless, expect to be embarrassed. If you're going to engage the internet, you're going to do something stupid. You're going to say something that's not quite right. Right. And because you've got first, second, third, fourth, fifth hand stuff it's going to happen. And the other thing that I'll mention is that the individuals whose whole career they're, they're now of age, right? You know, kind of up my, near my age is certainly up there. They're in 60, 70s. They spent almost all of their working professional life where they may be very accomplished, sustained scientist decorated inside, you know, military or, or, you know, intelligence guy, whatever, all these people, they, they didn't, they weren't on the internet. Right. Even when the internet showed up, they still weren't on the internet. And so very late now in their lives, they're kind of, they're kind of jumping in. And so they, and they really, this is, they're, they're like a fish out of water. They, they really struggle with it because it's just nothing like anything they've dealt with before. It is, it is the wild west of information. And we know how wild it is because we know it can be bodicized. It could be manipulated. It could change elections because it's possible to put out mass information and so forth. So just beyond human frailties of like, you know, I, you know, I thought I had it right and I put it up and then somebody passed it. There is a systemic use of the internet by well- funded entities designed to make us think something is true when it's not. And then in case that's, you know, not enough for you, the rise of AI means that of course now you can put things up in the internet in which you can mimic the person's voice almost perfectly. You can mimic their image and now you got people saying stuff you think is true. They aren't even saying it. So it's, it's a mess. So what, what can I say? I think more and more we're getting this. And so we need to not jump off our eighth floor balcony because of something that somebody said that somebody said on the internet. So Eric Davis got it wrong because he heard it from somebody else. Does it matter? The fact he's Eric Davis, people give it a lot of gravitas. No, he's no different than anybody else. I don't care how, how, how important you are, how experienced you are, how smart you are. I assure you can get something wrong when it comes to the internet, which is mean be careful what you repost, right? And try to verify what, what you can whenever possible and avoid that. So it's not a big deal. It's not a big deal at all. It's not even important in a sense. Okay. And, and as far as Luna, and this is a side, it's not important. This is just a side thing. I was at that meeting. Luna was there for a while. Right. But then she had to leave. I think if I'm not mistaken, she wasn't there when, when Burleson asked Davis that question and he started talking about the types of aliens, but I could be wrong about that. But again, she was there for a while. She had to leave just because they're in a panel together. It doesn't mean they've been dining out, right? Or swapping tweets for the last year. And so she just didn't know who he was. No big deal. Again, in our age, everything you do is going to be seen and scrutinized and you're going to get, you know, tweaked, little trolling, unavoidable. Get used to it. All right. Which is, which reinforces something I said earlier. If everything you do now is going to be seen and known, scrutinized and criticized, don't do anything really stupid. Because if you want to go out and really do something bad, right? Yeah. I'm going to do this. Okay. People are going to find out. They're going to see it. And they're going to come back at you. And the stupider or the most awful, more awful, the thing you're thinking of doing, the worse the consequences. The internet and this whole neurosphere that we created now where everybody communicates with everybody in a sense has its downsides, but it has its upsides. And while this is the greatest disinformation technology ever created, it is also the greatest fact-checking technology ever created. And so, it's all about how you use it. But it is what it is. And so, it will shape the post-disclosure world, but I think very positively. Because overall, everybody's going to want the truth post-disclosure. And so, the demand for the truth is going to be at a level that's never been seen before. In other words, everyone wants the truth, right? If you're going to put out the, I don't know, the agricultural numbers, I would prefer to have the truth, but it's not like tens of billions of people, whatever, millions of people focused on the agricultural one. But on this issue, post-disclosure, billions of people are going to want the truth. They're going to be focused on what's going to be said. And so, in that case, not telling the truth would be a very unwise thing to do. I know some will do it. Even this late in the game, the Department of Defense put out a complete piece of nonsense, a total lie, information, totally lies, to the Wall Street Journal to get two articles out in order to push back against what's going on. So, yeah. And guess what? The Internet savaged the Wall Street Journal for this. Right? I didn't savage the writers, though I actually was interviewed by one of the writers. I even gave him Robert Salas' contact information. And so, he interviewed Robert Salas and then they tried to call Robert Salas a liar. So, even now, the DOD thinks that, yeah, we're just going to put out a bunch of slop and everybody will buy it and we'll buy some time. No. No. Now, every time these institutions will lie, they're undermining their credibility and they're going to pay a price. Now, as they get to understand that, as they get more aware of this, they may realize, Jesus. Now, in the political arena, though, we have a lot of work to do because in the political arena in the United States, lying has become the standard. Right? It's the go-to standard. Everybody is lying at everybody else in order to get an advantage. Now, I don't say everybody's lying or they were always lying. I'm simply saying that this battle of ideas is serviced by misrepresentations by everyone to one degree. And so, truth is like taking major hits. In other words, if you've got two major parties that are willing to operate from a strict truth basis and just present their views, I think things should proceed pretty well. But once it turns into a battle of disinformation, it's not going to go well. And then, when the U.S. government just systemically has been undermined trusting government for decades by lying one administration after the other in various ways and then the ultimate lie about the presence of the non-human presence which is now 80 years on has undermined trust. Trust has fallen to the point where now people won't even believe the truth when it comes out. So, in the political arena particularly and in the social contract we have some serious problems there. But again, ending the truth embargo transcends these issues in the moment and will continue to transcend them for quite a while. And my hope is that this massive paradigm shift in worldview and in some degree scientific understanding is so big that it will actually push civilization and nations into a truth zone where the truth becomes the real default position and the desire for the truth is huge. The willingness to fact check is huge and people are pretty much that's what they expect and if you don't deliver it they will then give you an incentive to not do that not lie anymore and we end up in a far more truth-based society which we've got to get to. We cannot continue to build civilization on lies. Lies will lead to war and destruction annihilation pain suffering the zombie apocalypse and yet right now we're drowning in lies and we really are drowning in lies and so somebody's got to empty the swimming pool and refill it. I think that's the way the truth embargo could go. This may sound ridiculously optimistic but it's possible to make a case for it and I don't see any other options. If anybody's got another thing that can kind of take us where we need to go and save us from all the awful shit that we're headed for hey good you know let's hear it I want to hear it that'd be great maybe we could do that but for now I'm real comfortable with this approach and this analysis. That is all for part one part two will be out in the next couple of days you can listen to this episode already in full ad free and with no sponsors for less than the price of a coffee if you head on over to Patreon or Apple you can subscribe to the podcast for less than the price of a coffee or take up the two weeks free trial that are available on those platforms you can head on over to Spotify and search that UFO podcast premium and get access to this episode in full no adverts no sponsorships and also with some extra bonus content as well thanks for listening folks 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 that's O-D-O-O dot com that's O-D-O dot com that's O-D-O dot com that's O-D-O dot com