Hello, and welcome to the show on Martin will Share host and we have
got another great guest this evening, Kevin Wright. I reached out to him,
I would say maybe a month and a half ago or something like that,
when I started seeing what he was doing with his SOLVE advocacy. He
also advises the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies SU as well. So I saw
what he was doing, I thought it would be very interesting, and the
timing kind of works for what's going on. They're still trying to squash the
Schumer situation. I'm going to play a clip quickly on that in just a
minute. So anyway, it's Kevin Wright and he will be on in just
a minute as a guest. So the blog this week is the titled NASA
and the UFO Problem. Another great one by Charles Lear goes all the way
back to nineteen seventy three, talks about when Jimmy Cotter was involved, and
also talks about his siting as well. And a very interesting blog by Charles
Lear. Please check that out when you can. So if you're watching live
and YouTube right now, you'll see in the chat in the upper part of
the chat is pinned our newsletter. Anyone can join our newsletter that's also on
our website PODCASTUFO dot com. It's over on the sidebar. But if you
click in the live chat right now, you can sign up real quickly.
It opens in a new window. You can sign up your email address and
get weekly newsletters that basically tell you what are blogs are going to be a
link to them, and also our guests and information about our guests. And
sometimes that's really good to have because I'll announce, for instance, tonight,
as I know right now, Michael Schratt will be here next week, but
sometimes that changes, so you know, it's really good to get the updated
information. And I do not send out a lot of those. They just
go out one time a week if you're worried about any of that. So
getting a lot of feedback, some positive, some not so positive from what
I'm doing with the Crossfire that's every Thursday night with three other gentlemen, and
that's right here on YouTube live. And so you know, I've said in
the beginning myself that I didn't want to get into any of the politics out
there. I just wanted to talk about UAP. Sometimes they're an inchwined,
so I do understand that. But you know, we got in a bit
of a little heated discussion last week. Some people love it. I personally,
I'm not interested, as I say, and to talking about politics because
I think it opens a lot of issues because of the divisiveness of this country.
So I just don't want to get into that and cause all these discussions
that lead away from the UA subject. So just a little discussion that I
just wanted to get that out there. So every Thursday, we're going to
be running. This week, I'm not sure what the topic is yet.
It might be about whistleblowers. So check us at eight pm Thursday evenings right
here on this YouTube channel and on KGr A Radio Live, which we are
right now, and we may take calls later on during this show in itself,
and I'm going to welcome our guests. Kevin, welcome to the show.
Thank you for having me, Martin. Like you said, roping monologue,
we've been discussing this for quite some time, and I'm thankful for you
to have me on. That's right, and you were behind me. We
were standing in that line on July twenty sixth in Washington, DC, and
unfortunately you were You should have been able to get into the room because I
was I think I was number twelve and thirteen in line with my producer,
and you were just like ten behind me. Yet you didn't get in with
all the people that kind of slid in in front of us. I just
barely get in, luckily. But it's unfortunate you went through all that trouble,
and I really feel bad for the people that waited in line. Some
people were waiting in line at you know, six thirty seven and didn't get
in that should have been able to get in, but like I said,
it's kind of who you know, and people slid in front of other people,
and some people were standing in line supposedly, you know, as a
substitute. You know, I know my friend Chris Ledo had a substitute and
they went to the wrong buildings, so it didn't work anyway. Well,
he did make it into the room, though, he did. Yeah,
he was the last person in the room. Christ So yeah, that's a
that's an interesting story because I was actually there at about six thirty as well.
And yeah, so there were some placeholders there. They're paid to hold
the place for other people, and so without naming the names of who those
people were, Yeah, there was a bunch of people that were able to
sort of jump in line, and I missed by, you know, a
couple people. That's okay. I was still there. Yeah, I was
in the overflow room and it was still a historic moment, and you know,
there were hundreds of people wound up in that hallway, and you know,
it was it was pretty awesome. They they said, I don't know
if they anyone confirmed it or not, but they thought there was over a
thousand people that showed up for that. And I don't know if there's any
way that they could have counted that, but I did talk to someone in
the hallway there and they said they never they have never seen anything like that.
So that is the key topic why this I mean that is the key
reason why this topic is such a hot topic, is because there are so
many people interested and speaking of that. I'm going to play this clip right
here. This is Chuck Schumer yesterday, I believe it was, and we're
going to talk a little bit about this the subject. Here we go,
Well, it's not related to China. House Republicans are also attempting to kill
another common sense bipartisan measure passed by the Senate, which I was proud to
co sponsor with Senator Rounds, is the lead sponsor to increase transparency around what
the government does and does not know about unidentified aerial phenomena. Unidentified aerial phenomena
generate intense curiosity for many Americans, and the risk for confusion and misinformation is
high if the government isn't willing to be transparent. The measure I championed with
Senator Rounds would create a board just like we did with the Jak assassination records,
to work through the declassification of many government records on UAPs. This model
has been a terrific success for decades. It should be used again with UAPs.
But once again House Republicans are ready to kill this bipartisan provision. Now
we're going to get the NDAA done this year, just like we have from
more than six decades. So there it is, and you know it's still
hanging in the lurch at this point. Is that right? We don't really
know what's going to happen with it. Yes, I think we should all
be proceeding as though this is still a fight that's to be had. The
ink is not dry, you know, the dye has not been cast yet.
We need to all be fighting in favor of passing the Schumer Rounds United
or I'm sorry, the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Act of twenty twenty three contained in
the National Defense Authorization Act the NDA, and keep working to make sure this
past as it was written by Senator Schumer, Senator Rounds, and another bipartisan
group of senators another three or four on each side. So yeah, we
need to keep fighting because this is not yet decided. And you know,
I usually ask people right off the bat, and I think we should back
up just a little bit and get back into this. But basically, this
is the first time you've been on this show. You know, we've been
We've talked on the phone a number of times. But let's let's find out
who you are and what is the solve advocacy? What made you start that?
And I understand you are involved and sort of what would you call it
cutting edge or things that are this was something that interested you to work in
and I know you do other things as well, So let's just if you
would just fill in our audience with who you are based. Sure, so
I've been working in Washington, d c for about twenty five years at various
capacities, research, communications, public affairs, general political sort of matters,
working on political campaigns ranging from you know, things that are as small as
you know, county executive race, to state and state senators, state representative
all the way up to you know, presidential super PACs, public affairs campaigns,
statewide ballot initiatives, nonprofits. So I've been in this game for a
very long time, but i'd seen in the last four or five years,
I've become more and more disinterested from the regular sort of political arguments and fights
and partisanship. And so it's dovetails sort of with what's going on now.
But to get to where we got to with the UFO issue is that,
you know, I started reading about consciousness studies and afterlife studies, and if
you have read about it for long enough, you realize that there is some
sort of component that seems to come together with this phenomena. And so,
you know, growing up in the nineteen eighties and nineteen nineties, you know,
you watch the X Files and those that sort of thing, and it's
of interest, and you know, I watched it. You know, the
first six seven seasons were great, but I never really gave that much thought.
So when I started delving into these other sort of fringe well what would
most people call fringe subjects, I became aware that there was some sort of
connection and correlation what's going on with this phenomena with euap UFOs, And it
became sort of like an obsession that I needed to get started getting involved.
And it became clear obviously that the government is hiding significant data from the public
and the scientific community, academic community. So about a year ago, I
decided that I was going to start working on sort of this advocacy issue,
and I started reaching out to people and trying to figure out who would be
receptive to, you know, this sort of this sort of work. And
what I found was that, you know, there's a lot of people that
are receptive to it, but they're not necessarily you know, willing to get
their hands dirty and you know, get the elbow grease and you know,
help make it work together. But that's coming together now in the last you
know, several months here, m and and you're working, you know,
we've you actually got me connected with Danny. I had talked to Danny Shean,
you know, in line and you know, asked him if you'd be
a guest or whatever, but he gave me one of his emails that he
probably doesn't look at. You were kind enough to help me get him on
the show last week, and we greatly appreciate it because it was sort of
like, we need to start getting you know, Dianal sheehan on some shows
and talking about this and advocating because we're at a situation right now. It's
a critical juncture of making sure that this you know u A p D a
h amendment to the NDA passes. So I was so happy that you were
receptive to that and helping us get him on you know, last Tuesday.
Thank you, Yeah, yeah, and uh yeah, it was it was
really an interesting show and uh lots of views on YouTube. There's a lot
of people that have uh watched that, a lot of downloads on audio as
well, So it's it's good and I'm hoping that a lot of people have
you know, done some efforts and contacting you know, the representatives, uh
to you know, not have the Shermer act go away. I was I
was now, I was a little surprised at Burchat was trying to make his
own type of act, you know, kind of too maybe dovetail or to
be something to be included in the National Defense UH Funding Act that they're to
do every year. But when I had I had had Steven Bassett on on
our Crossfire Show recently last Thursday, he basically says, no, that's not
what we want, that's not good enough. And so I wanted to get
your opinion on that. I mean, I know, I do appreciate Burchette's
really good efforts trying to get transparency, but it doesn't go as deeply as
as Schumer's. Schumer's right, Well, yes, I mean, you know,
Burshette and others who have you know, advocated for this or I think
well intentioned and well meeting because they want more disclosure of what the government knows
sooner than what the Schumer rounds eu a PDA amendment would provide. But the
problem with you know, the Burushette amendment is that, well, I mean
there's a number of it. I mean, it's three paragraphs long, is
directed only at department events, addresses unidentified aerial phenomena, which does not then
include I mean, so we have to consider the fact that in all of
this stuff, we're talking about parlance and you know, word games and word
salad and things. So if we define something as narrow as unidentified aerial phenomena,
we're not talking about the overall phenomena, which would also include like underwater
I'm sorry, unidentified submerged objects, which is a very real issue too,
which the Schumer Amendment would address because it addresses unidentified and phenomena. So when
you talk about only unidentified aerial phenomena, you're excluding a whole wide range of
other issues that are engaged or that are involved in this issue. So I
mean, that's one significant flaw. The other flaws that you know, addresses
only the Department Offense. It doesn't address the intelligence community, It doesn't address
aerospace defense contractors, it doesn't defense, or doesn't address a number of issues
here. So there are all sorts of loopholes here. It looks like sort
of like a piece of Swiss cheese that the gatekeepers are going to drive all
the information through and forget about it, you know, so well, I
guess I'll ask you this, would it be better than nothing? Or should
we not even think about that type of of that type of thought process talking
about Schumer or Burshette. Oh yeah, Burchette, I mean, yeah,
well, I think we did not even try to go in that direction at
all. If if that's what it's you know, if it's going to be
problem, well, I think there's nothing wrong with passing the Burshette Amendment to
the Schumer Amendment. It would be a tack on at the end of the
Schumer me to the NBA. So I think there's nothing wrong with passing it.
The problem is that, you know, you're not likely to get much
from it. But we're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We're going to you know, advocate here and get these amendments passed.
And then, you know, no legislation is perfect. It doesn't matter if
it's a democratic piece of legislation or Republican piece of legislation. We can always
go back and revisit them, we can amend them, we can pass new
legislation, but we can't say this isn't perfect. You know, we can't
let perfect be the enemy the good. We have to continue forward and continue
pressing Congress, continue pressing the government, advocating for truth and transparency and open
and honest government. Right right, here's a it's a good question. I
asked people if they'd put questions in caps and how's how's the dog doing that?
Very soon? Yeah, I have somebody coming to help with kids,
putting the kids to bed and stuff, so but hopefully you have very soon.
Okay, So here's I think it's a good question. Uh, we
don't really know who would be on the board or do we have any idea
who would be on that board? Well, I see the question here is
so the Shoamer board. It's not the Shoamer board, with all due respect,
U is the presidential board. So the President of the United States in
this case, Joe Biden, will nominate the nine people that will sit on
this board and then the United States Senate will confirm them or or not.
So we have lots of people that are going to probably be you know,
transmitting recommendations to the President United States and the White House. Daniel Shehann and
the New Paradigm Institute as one of those organizations that will be recommending people to
the White House for people who should be sitting on this board, which will
include a host of people of you know, a diverse sector of people that
are all civilians that have various experience and you know, sociology and history and
various things. So we're gonna have to wait and see. I mean,
first of all, we have to get this amendment passed. Once it's passed,
then we'll advocate for the people who should be on the board, and
then we will advocate you know, for or against whoever it is that the
President United States nominates to it and when it goes before the Senate for them
to confirm. So where does it do we know when this is going to
be voted on? Well, we don't know exactly, but I think we
should run under the assumption that probably by Monday, December eleventh, the dial
will be cast because the House is scheduled to leave on recess on Thursday the
fourteenth, I believe it is. So we still have a little bit of
time to advocate and you know, convince members of the Congress that they need
to support the Schumer Rounds Amendment and do so as it was written by Schumer
Rounds, Mark or Rubio, Christian Jilbrand and others, and say that this
is this is the legislation that we want, This is the one that we
demand and needs to be included. Yeah, yeah, So it's kind of
like whatever someone can do to help out there. We had information in our
last show on you know, Twitter handles things like that, but I mean
phone call anything, any type of agitation basically that you can give. That
you can give your representative, your senator. You have to basically work in
your district's type of situation. Right. Anything can be found online though through
searching wherever you live right right. But there's a lot of easy ways to
do this. For example, Danis Sheehan's new Paradigm Institute, there's a call
to action on the homepage. You click that button, and all you have
to do is put in your name and your address and zip code, and
it will organize for you who your representative is in your district and your two
home state senators, and it will automatically send a pre filled out letter that
you can also amend and add your own personal like you flavor to it,
but it'll send the email to each to your representative into both of your states
or your senators at Congress and send them that letter. So that's what we're
advocating for to do. But we could also have people, you know,
handwriting letters, because that also means a significant amount of time and investment and
care and cause that you know the district offices, will you take into account
that you have taken that time to do so so, but also make phone
calls, you know, write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper
in your district and advocate for transparency from the government and from your representative and
your senators, that this is an issue that you care about because it stands
way beyond just UAP. This is something that you know affects all of us
in a much deeper way in terms of government transparency and having an open and
honest government that works for us rather than working against us in this in the
sense that it's keeping secrets and its hiding secrets to protect itself so that we
don't know what it's doing. So we're not issue advocating, we're not doing
things. We're not voting, we're not we're just sort of like walking around
and not you know, being participants in our democracy. And so do you
you know, you obviously watched the show last week, and do you agree
with a lot of what he of what Danny said as far as you know
that that you know there's there's money involved here. At campaign funds things like
that. Do you do you think that they're actually also do you believe that
they're playing a part in what's going on here? Well, I think in
the term, you know, with regards to Mike Turner in Ohio's tenth district
and Mike Rogers in Alabama's I think the second district absolutely, you know you're
talking about. I think Mike Rogers has taken something around two point four million
dollars from offense military industrial complex donors. That's a significant amount of money over
the course of you know, his career in Congress, and I think Mike
Turner is probably taking about something like one point seven million, I believe it
is. That's a significant amount of money, you know, I mean money
crops. But I have to tell you that I think it runs deeper than
that because and this sort of gets back down to the more base level about
government transparency and what it does and working for you or working for itself,
is that you know, some of these people are more Niccolo Machoevellian than they
are Thomas Jefferson. They enjoy having that information to themselves, but they don't
necessarily want you to have it. They think that they are in a position
to determine what information that you should be allowed to have, and it's a
source of power and psuasion and a way for them to maintain that power.
But it's also a symptom of a government that we have that is really has
you know, this sort of unelected bureaucracy within it that churns and continues to
perpetuate this lie of you know, UFOs, which is something that they actually
created themselves. They created this stigma to have people not believe that this is
true, to make fun of each other so they can't have a public discourse
about it. And this gets back to them having this power because it's protecting
itself because if people were talking about UFOs and something being out there and not
being ridiculed about it, they can make an issue of it and an election
issue of it. So what they want to do is make sure they tamp
down on that and say, now that's stupid, that's ridiculous. And you
know, they've had Hollywood buy in, They've had you know, all kinds
of buy in to help perpetuate that myth. But it's really what it is
is a disinformation campaign against the American public, which is illegal. But to
continue to get away with it right, you know, for the person that's
new to this subject, and there's a lot of people that are. I
always have to keep that in mind. You know, the Robertson panel was
back in you know, nineteen I want to say, was it fifty three?
I think it was nineteen fifty three, and that basically that panel was
all about coming up with ways to get people to look away from this topic
or be afraid to talk about it basically, So that's where all the ridicule
basically started in nineteen fifty three Robertson Panel. You can look that up,
just google that. But it's an interesting way that the government was trying to
steer people away from you know, reporting and talking about it and turning it
to so they were embarrassed, would be embarrassed to talk about it. And
that's why the stigma is still out there today. The reason why was because
nineteen fifty two there was so many UFO sightings, it was just incredible.
It was a banner year, and they just didn't know what to do,
which way to turn, and so that's what they came up with. And
so that's so you can basically say since nineteen fifty two, that the topic
has been pushed as something the tinfoil hats would be interested in and all that.
But I don't know if you were looking at this topic at all,
Kevin, prior to the New York Times article coming out in twenty seventeen.
But you know, before that, I would say the less ridicule. Now
there's still some ridicule, but much less. Ever since that article came out
in the Times and people started looking at this, you know, without you
know, without thinking it was just a big joke. Yeah, that's absolutely
true. I mean, I think the veil of sort of that wall that
was built up to ridicule people and you know, put them in the corner
with the dunce hat on the tinfoil hat and say these people are crazy and
stupid, so they don't discuss it that it's certainly, you know, that
veil is sort of you know, lifting, but you know, it is
still there because the vast majority of people, you know, we're talking on
this podcast and we engage on UFO, Twitter and all these other social media
you know areas, but we're a small segment of society. Most people are
not paying attention to this issue. But which gets back to sort of more
of the disinformation campaign, which is you know, wrapped in the mainstream media
and the legacy media and convincing them that they cannot cover this issue one for
fear of you know, damaging their prestige and talking about something is you know,
ridiculous, silly as UFOs, but also that they're afraid that you know,
certain reporters and things are afraid that they're not going to get access to
the information that they've been privy to from places like the Department Offense or the
intelligence communities, or other defense contractors there or other inside sources that are you
know, tangentially involved here. That it's like Ross Coltart talks about, you
know, the drip, where if you're not getting this information, you're kind
of your writing career as a reporter is kind of finished. So you're going
to keep wanting that drip. You're going to want to keep getting that information
from that source, so you're not going to go against that source and report
against something that goes against them, which would be the truth, which is
that this is a reality, that this is happening, that this is here,
and you know it's in our atmosphere it's in our waters. The part
that you said about earlier, you were talking about you know, USOS,
you just said waters. But also along those lines, isn't it supposed to
be like they call it the All Domain Anomaly so that would include supposedly include
USOS. Yeah, I mean it's sort of like one of those Pentagon sort
of clever names that they come up with. I mean, they had the
am swag or you know what, they have, all these clever names that
they come up with to sort of continue to obfuscate and you know, confuse
people as to what's really going on. But the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office
was officially enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, sort of like
what we're trying to do this year, but it was last year. It
was in December as well, and I think the President of United States signed
it. Joe Biden signed it on Christmas Eve, actually December twenty fourth.
And in that piece of legislation, it established, you know, formerly the
AAROW Office, which would investigate you know, essentially disinformation campaigns going back to
nineteen forty five, which would predate Roswell, would investigate crash retrievals, It
would investigate reverse engineering programs, you know, a whole host of things.
So what I would say is that ARROW as it was written into law has
not fulfilled its legislative intent. It has you know, filled its office with
people who are in the intelligence community, like doctor Sean ka Patrick. You
know, I was in an event a couple of weeks ago where doctor Kirkpatrick
was you know, you know, speaking with a sort of a Q and
a thing back and forth with Washington Post reporter and it was at George Mason
University. And who was in front row It was the public affairs person from
the Department of Defense, which is Susan Susan, yeah, right handler.
You know she's sitting there taking melts. I mean, you can't make this
up. You know, there's a wordsmith salad thing that they do of all
these different names, and they just play these games, and they just keep
playing playing this game. So you know, I don't know. One of
the things I thought when I ran the Shermer clip you know, a few
minutes ago, was he made he makes a very good point. If there's
not transparency, there's going to be disinformation, and of course, you know
there's going to be more conspiracies, probably worse conspiracies than the things that they
really know, you know, So, uh it is it does seem like
it would be in their interest not to have that headache of all the disinformation
that could come about by not having this thing. However, I totally get
you know what Danny mentioned last week, where you know these are in they're
in people's pockets. There's no way they're going to and you made a really
good point too about the information. They just may want to hang on to
that, but also because it's like a power type of situation. But also
if they actually do have this incredible technology that they're working on, it would
be like the last thing in the world, and they would fight in every
which way. I believe I'm just guessing here theorizing, but I would say
that they'd fight in every which way they could possibly fight to hang on to
this otherworldly technology if it does exist. Your thoughts on that, yeah,
well, yes, I mean the military industrial complex is about weapons and weapons
platforms, right, I mean, that's what they do. So if the
allegations are true that we have recovered craft and we have seeded them to defense
contractors, then obviously the ultimate goal is to build weapons and weapon platforms and
first rike capabilities. That that's just awful if you really think about it.
I mean, my producer and I talk about this all the time. That,
yeah, it's just all the different ways we try to figure out to
kill each other. You know. It's so it's so brutal, you know,
and no wonder they don't want to ever show themselves to us, you
know, whoever they are, just because of our tribal you know, our
ways. But you know, no money is the big control or here the
money, and you know, whether it comes to natural resources or whatever,
there's always there's always a struggle. There's always you know, one one way
to conquer the other, you know, that type of situation. So what
are your thoughts? Do you think there really is this? I'm just asking
for your opinion right now, your personal opinion. Would you think there's a
pretty good bet that this there are some of these craft out there, or
you're just interested to find out. Well, personally, I'm convinced that there
are. Yeah. I mean, okay, I'm not advocating for the truth
to find out that there's nothing there. I'm advocating for the truth because there
is something there. You know, look, Senator Schumer, Senator Rounds,
and other Senators that participated in the drafting of this amendment, which is sixty
four paid as long somebody writes an amendment like timber Shehett, it's three paragraphs.
You know, an amendment isn't usually something that's so elaborate that encompasses sixty
four pages. It doesn't talk about non human intelligence. And you know,
all these various components of this amendment, if they don't already know that this
is true, I mean, anybody that tells you I see it on you
know, Twitter and other things where you know, some people make the argument
that somehow, you know, Chris Mellan and Louel Sando and David Grush and
these other people have somehow convinced really very sober, powerful people like Chuck Schumer
that this is, you know, a reality, when it really isn't.
Is just on its face preposterous and it's so absurd to even make that example.
You know, this is a reality. Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio,
Christen gillibrand Mike Rowns, these people would not put their names to a piece
of legislation and advocate for it. You know, Senator Schumer got on the
floor a couple of months ago talking about the amendment, and he listed about
four things that was in the NDA and other piece of legislation coming at the
end of the year that were a vital, critical importance. This was one
of them. He's not going to advocate this if it's not true. He
knows he's a member of the Gang of Eight. They've had whistleblowers come forward,
They've had any number of other people you know, come forward, and
they've had investigations. They've been doing this for you know, three or four
years now. You know, this isn't a joke. This is real.
This is what's going on. This is what they're pushing because they believe the
American public need to know what the government actually knows about this issue, right
you know, I I'm trying to put in this amendment PDF, and I
got to tell you that I had posted it last week and I'm just putting
it right now and so people can see it at least on YouTube and I'll
put it in the show notes. But what happened was that sixty four page
PDF all of a sudden goes nowhere. So I don't know what happened to
the link, but I found I found a new one and I just posted
that in the Live. So yeah, check that out. That is so
thorough, you know what I mean, it gets it anything. You know.
I had this question, I think I asked Danny last week, was
you know, is there any way that they can you know, try to
bury this stuff, you know, try to hide it, try to disassociate
themselves, maybe start a new corporation and kind of push it off onto them,
you know, that type of situation. He says, No, the
Schumer gets right in. Schumer's thing, gets right in there to every which
way, so they can't there's nothing they can do to basically, if they
have it, they've got to come clean with it. And I think that
would scare anyone, like you're talking about the industrial military industrial complex, anyone
that's vested in this thing. You know, they're they're going to try to
figure out different ways to stop this whole thing from happening. So well,
you know, yeah, I mean the eminent domain issue is you know,
is significant because there's an enormous amount at stake for you know, all the
parties involved. You know, we're talking about you know, if Lackie Martin
has as has been alleged a piece or intact piece of technology or whole technology
and it was seeded by the government, then you'd have all kinds of people
very upset, like the tech industry saying you gave Lockheed Martin or specific industry
this technology and give them unfair advantage in the composition industry. You also have
other issues involved here where if Lockheed Martin is filing SEC filings and saying,
you know, this is what we're doing, this is what we have,
what we're working on. Obviously they don't get into some of the black budget
issues because it's national security and top secret, but there is probably a significant
amount of potential danger there to these companies. Because they have shareholders, they
don't want to open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits. So, I mean,
this disclosure process isn't isn't easy. It's not as simple as saying to the
public, this is you know what we know, this is what we have,
this is what we don't know because it has why spread repercussions that even
if we sit down and try to gain plan all those repercussions, we might
not even think of all of them. You know. Let's just say,
for example, that people have had you know, actual physical contact with some
of these UAP or pilots of U A P, let's just say, and
they've had physiological or psychological impacts as a result. If we acknowledge that reality,
what's that impact on the insurance industry. They're going to have to start
covering you know, medical benefits and things that aren't even you know, written
into all the underwriting and things right, also life insurance policies. I mean,
those are just a couple of examples here. But you know, when
we talk about the disclosure and just everybody should have all the information all at
once or something like that, you know, there are significant issues involved with
you know, with that happening. And so to get back to the Schumer
Amendment, it's what we would call a controlled disclosure over a period of time
that allows for us to sort of digest not just the reality of this information
for the public, but also for you know, industry and legislation and regulation
and everything else to catch up. What not passing the Schumer Amendment does is
potentially open the doorway to catastrophic disclosure, which is a plethora of whistleblowers coming
forward and you know, just putting all this on the table and then we're
all like, oh my god, right, and then the chips fall down
on the table and you see where they land, and then we might be
in trouble. So it would be the best interest of Mike Rogers and Mike
Turner and Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell and everybody else involved to
pass this amendment and get this information out, but do so in a responsible
way that doesn't recap it. Now. Last Wednesday, someone sent me an
email and said one of the MIC's uh changed his course and now is you
know, agreeing that we should have this? Was that just like a rumor
going around? Do you know? Do you know anything about that? So
I think I can't say for sure exactly what you're you know, your listener
or audience member was saying, but I'm going to presume that they were probably
talking about the press conference last week with Timbershed and Representative Luna and Moskowitz and
others, where I believe it was Representative Gates said that Representative Rogers from Alabama
was on board with their amendment, which would be the Bush That's what it
is. So that's a bit of a ruse though, right. Yeah,
if you could say, you know, Michael or Mike Rodgers, Representative Mike
Rogers from Alabama District two, is on face or is in favor of disclosure
because he supports our amendment, that's that's be that's bs right, because we
already know that the Burshett Amendment has many, many deficiencies that allows you know,
the gatekeepers to travel through these Swiss cheese holes and not provide any meaningful,
substantive information in the public. So saying that somebody switched their position,
that's sort of you know, what these chameleons do in Congress is they they
make themselves look like they're doing something. You know, it's it's three card
Monty's what it is. Yeah, I do believe that those people you mentioned,
Luna er Chet and they all seem very interested in this, uh and
this happening, you know, I mean, and they all see they're really
pushing for transparency. So you know, I mean, I'm so glad that
this is a bipartisan situation, you know, where you can't really point the
finger a it's just the you know what I mentioned in the monologue when I
started how divisive our country is. So it's like it's not you know,
Republicans against Democrats. It's like everybody's on board with this happening. And just
like you know, Schumer said in the beginning that there's great public interest in
knowing what these things are. And uh, but but the end, So
if if I made, if I'm made to say real quick, yesh,
you go ahead. You know, yeah, when I speak about the brushett
amendment or that press conference from last week, it's not meant to disparage Brushette
or Luna or Moscow or Gates or anybody else. It's just I think that
their their amendment is me be well intentioned, but it is not. You
know, it's not hitting the target and it's not going to result in what
they hope or intend that it will. So but all you finished. But
I would love to talk about the bipartisanship about this because although you know,
Senator Schumer was talking yesterday on the Senate for about you know, House Republicans,
it's really about a handful of House Republicans, But this really is a
very bipartisan issue. But please go go ahead. No, I think that
was I was kind of wrapping up right there, you know that. You
know, I'm just happy that it's not. I just think that there is
great public interest in this. But then again you were speaking, You're right.
You know, us on there that tweet out or x out whatever you
want to call it today on Twitter or x whatever it is. Uh,
we are a very small percentage. Yeah, you know, it's just And
so with that in mind, do you see this type of situation and other
avenues of what you look into whoever you advocate for other other similar things or
is this kind of like a thing on its own because of the implications of
it. Well, this is very unique, but I think there are avenues
to reach way beyond, uh, sort of this niche community within like the
social media, whether it's you know Reddit, Reddit actually has you know,
if it's like our slash ufo, you know, a gigantic following, but
you know you have ufo, Twitter, you have Instagram and Facebook and there's
so there is a community. What it is relatively small in comparison to the
rest of our country. So what we have to do is find a way
to reach beyond you know, this sort of echo chamber where we're all sort
of talking about the same thing. Whether I'm on your podcast, or it's
Danie Chan or you know, Ross Coultart or Lewis Alzando or Chris Nolan or
anybody else. You know, the Richard Dolans and all these people going on
shows and you know, talking about these things and you have really the same
audience over and over and over again. We have to reach way beyond that.
And so it's my opinion that we have to go to the American public
and talk to them about this issue. But we can't just jump out there
and scream aliens. We have to talk. You know, we have to
sort of bring them along with us, because we're already you know above like
they're sort of like knowledge based, So we have to inform them and then
bring them along and then mobilize them. And you know, one of the
ideas that I have, and I hope that we're going to have an op
ed coming up in the Rosweld Daily Record soon talking about this, which is
that you know, people value and open and honest and transparent government. Polls
show that people have lost their faith in government institutions. We're at near or
historic lows in faith in Congress, in faith in the Presidency, in faith
in the Supreme Court, the judiciary, and they've also lost faith in faith
and trust in the media. So what we have to do is go to
the public or personally and make it appeal to them which they already know,
which is that the government is no longer working for them. We need to
bring them along to like lift back up that torch of liberty and say we
are going to fight for this, because you're going to start working for us.
Because what right now the government hides behind sources and methods and national security.
It is an impregnable legal shield that they use. The courts will defer
to it all the way up to the Supreme Court and say if if if
the government comes and says it's a matter of national security, we are going
to side with the government. That's no longer the case. We're going to
fight against that and say we're going to take this back from unelected officials and
bureaucrats and say that just because we allowed somebody to pass a law that becomes
you know, gives authority to somebody, we're not going to let them hide
the secrets anymore. And we're going to take this into districts and states and
advocate for it and make sure that people understand that we're going to fight for
it. Right right, we have a caller online one and let's see Ken
from New York. We only have a couple of minutes. Ken, Welcome
to the show. You have a question for our guests. Thank you.
Mit. Yes, I was curious with the situation with David Frava chasing the
tic TAC and what appeared to be a launch platform from a submarine. Do
you think that this technology could be our technology? And they were testing the
force against the Navy In my opinion though, you know, they have like
you know, you know, blue on blue and whatnot, and it would
be dangerous to test such technologies against ourselves with unwitting you know, friendly fire.
So most people, I think would say the answer to that is now.
And you know, this isn't exactly new. People have seen tic tacks
or what we're calling it tic tax which is also looks like appropriate tank or
something like that, and you have reports that is going back to like the
nineteen sixties and seventies. We certainly didn't have that technology then. So what
David Frevor and Commandery Trick and others saw, in my mind is not our
technology. It is not Russian, it is not Chinese. It is something
else. And you know, we have evidence of other things being inside the
waters of our oceans and possibly lakes. You know. When I was at
the Soul Foundation Supposium a few weeks ago, doctor Kevin Kanooth, who is
a member of the Scientific Coalition for UAB Studies and is involved with lots of
other things, you know, gave presentation about you know, sonar readings on
an underwater submerged object that was about thirty percent larger than any attack submarine that
is in US possession and did not have a water signature that would indicate something
actually moving through water. But they did have a radar ping on it,
and it was traveling at three thousand miles an hour three thousand, well twenty
nine hundred and something. But yeah, you get to the point. I
mean, it's something traveling through water without displacing water, but was able to
pick up a radar signature on it and was traveling, you know, faster
than most planes can travel in the atmosphere, but in the water. So
you know that crazy. I think that people that assert that it was just
you know, an American submarine, it was some launch platform, and it
was some American device of some sort of a drone or something. You know,
it is just isn't paying attention, has it read the literature, and
isn't doing anything about informing themselves about the historical nature about this phenomen not existing
for decades, if not hundreds or thousands of years. Right So, right
now we're just going to say goodbye, if you don't mind continuing on a
little bit here, We're going to say goodbye to everyone over at KGr A
Radio. We'll be back next week with Michael Schratt and thank you all for
listening everyone over there at KGr A. So yes, you know you mentioned
that. And I have a friend friend of this show too. He's been
on many times. And Mark di'antonio, he's an astronomer. He was on
a Navy submarine you know who Marcus, Yeah, he was, and he's
you know they had a fast walker or a fast mover or whatever it was.
H and you know that was two hundred knots. That was you know,
back many years ago. I just have to say thank you to KGr
over there, and so you know, I mean, it doesn't surprise me.
And when I had Scott Cassell, who was I had an encounter a
USO encounter, a very very interesting encounter with a cubed object. One of
the things he said was that, you know, when this thing moved,
it should have displaced water. It moved away from him. He said,
he's been near Wales when they do that and it kind of swirls you around,
you know, and this thing did nothing at all, you know,
which I think is fascinating, which doesn't make any sense that we know,
of course, like someone said on one of my shows, there's no such
thing. I think it was last week. Astrophysicists was on my show and
he said, you know, there's no magic. Aliens can't have magic,
you know. So it's something that whatever the technology is in the intelligence is
that they know how to do that that we can't understand it yet. But
there is a way to do it somehow, not displaced water, and to
go through at any speed you want. And that's always been a fascination with
me when I think about if say a UFO travels you know, forty one
year, you know, four light years let's just say from the nearest stars
four light years away, and they travel here, Well, there's an awful
lot of debris between. Even though space is mostly empty, there's still debris
out there that they could run into whatever speed they're going at. It seems
like it would destroy anything. But it's probably the same type of situation that
they can go through the media, no matter what it is, whether it's
space or anything and not have any type of collision or friction or any type
of situation, which is really fascinating to really think about, you know what
I mean, Yeah, yeah, I mean, I'm not a nuts and
bolts guy. You know, I work with the Scientific Collision for you studies,
and we have you know, a great group of scientists and engineers and
academics and things, and they're the ones that sort of study that, and
they're like really super interested in all those nuts and bolts and how would this
work, how does this? You know, how did this do this or
that? So I you know, I can't hypothesize about any of those things,
except you know, we talk about you know, anti gravity and various
things, and we go back to like the nineteen fifties and there's a lot
of literature about this sort of thing, and all of a sudden it stopped.
And the question always becomes why did it stop? Because there's probably something
to it, and there's you know, I don't want to hypothesis again,
but there's probably something about you know, this technology that puts it in some
sort of you know, bubble that allows it to do what it does that
defies gravity, that defies physics as we understand it probably doesn't defy physics entirely,
but just as we understand it in terms of our engineering and mathematics and
things like that. But clearly something's going on where it's able to do various
things like travel through the water without the water displacement, you know, do
ninety degree turns, you know, going you know, mark five, traveling
from eighty thousand feet down to sea level in a matter of you know,
a second, and traveling at thousands of miles per hour, and doing all
the things that do it does that would transform a human If it was inside
of this thing without some sort of protective bubble of some sort, it would
turn it into soup. So there's clearly something going on there that you know,
who was the wrote the book Managing Magic, I think it was Nicholas
Redfern, you know, talks about this and obviously doctor Jacques Vallet talks about
this, you know, numerous times in his books about what we see as
you know, this technology, we often think of it as magic or you
know, in you know, medieval times, we might have thought about it
as like fairies or some other thing, because it is so inexplicable and we
can't wrap our minds around how these things can do these things given the knowledge
that we have. Right yes, now, this is going back to this
whole situation about the Schumer Act and all that, and this question is I
like his icon image too. I love it. Why the lack of mainstream
media coverage on this? And that's what I've been really puzzled by, you
know, I mean ever since July twenty six, when we were at that
hearing, it seemed like there was very very little coverage. It was such
a major thing to have a hearing on, and yet there was so little
mainstream media covering it, very little. You know, there's News Nation,
there's a couple of other ones I can't remember, The Hill maybe, or
some other channels that were covering this pretty well. But what the heck what's
happening with that? So News Nation has done in terms of you know,
sort of broadcast internet news coverage. I would say that News Nation has been
leading the way. I mean they were the ones that had the first interview.
You know, it wasn't live, but it was recorded but you know
online for people to interact with David Grush with Ross coltheart. You know,
the original story was published in The Debris, which is another great publication or
you know outlet who's leading the way on UAP and science and technology. And
they led with the story I think it was in like June fifth or something,
and it was written by Leslie Kane and Ralph Blue and fall I'm sorry,
yeah, Rah Blumenthal and you know x an article and then uh you
know they did some coordination with Ross because they were all sort of you know,
working the same story. So Ross followed it up, you know,
the following week. This Nation. But as to why The Hill has also
done a great job with Joe Khalil and Merrick I'm gonna I'm gonna butcher the
name Merrik von ramakomp uh you know on the Hill. Sorry, but uh
so those three or four outlets have done, you know, a remarkable job.
The Politico has Politico has done a good job too because they've had some
guest guest opinion op ads by you know, Christopher Mellen and a few others.
But so as far as why the mainstream media isn't covering it, you
know, we sort of touched on this earlier, which is that it's been
made to be such a an issue of ridicule that they're afraid to cover it
for fear that their readers are going to, you know, say that they're
crazy and whatnot. But I think even more importantly that they're fraid of the
government no longer providing their inside sources to their reporters and giving them their inside
of information and their anonymous source articles and you know, according to anonymous sources,
you know, so and so said this about what the government's doing,
and if they report on this, they're afraid that that source is going to
dry up and they don't get that drip. Like Ross coltheart referred to on
Need to Know, which is also another great platform of great insight as to
what's going on. Yeah, I hope that answers the question for whoever asked
it, right, Yeah, yeah, So, yeah, Bryce and Ross
have both been on the show. But Bryce and I go way back,
and I'm really glad he he hooked up with Ross. It was a really
they do a really nice, really nice job. Yes, always look great.
Maybe somebody. Yeah, you never know, you never know. Yeah,
I've been I've been after Ross since uh let's see June June, and
been trying to get him back on the show. And he's just so so
busy, and he was going to try to be on next week, but
it's just it can't happen. So I'll say, uh, you know,
I really have would really respect the work he's doing and hope to get him
back, you know, within the next couple of months. He should be
on I imagine on this But he's always I've communicated with him a couple of
times over the last year. He probably doesn't even realize it, you know,
he gets thousands of emails. But I met him at the Soul Symposium
a few weeks ago, and I wanted to ask him. I didn't have
an opportunity to say, you know, you travel back and forth between Australia
and the United States so many times, like how do you like manage all
that jetla? Like like, yes, it's because it's so it's the traveling
to Australia is takes. You know, you got to You've got to have
at least a couple of days to to try to get you know, try
to get back to normal, you know. I mean it's so yeah.
So someone just I'm not sure, I don't know this for sure, but
this person is stating that the Grush will have a New News Nation interview on
December eleventh. We'll be looking. Yeah, I've seen that. Yeah,
yeah, yeah, so uh yeah. I was a little bit worried about
David Grush being on you know, several shows because I I just was really
hoping that, you know, it would kind of just see where his thing
went first before he started talking on people's shows. But so far that I've
seen now, a lot of people sent me, you know, clips and
things from Joe Rogan. I did not watch that. I don't know if
you watched it, but I did not watch that yet. But so far,
I think he's been really holding his own. I haven't seen anything out
there that makes me think, you know, think any less of him in
any type of way or whatever. He has a solid invitation to this show
that I've sent through people that know him, and so he's aware of this
show. He's uh, he watched he did watch one of my shows and
talked about it with this person. But yeah, I hope to get him
on at some point, I think. Well, to be honest, I
don't have an inside track on that. So yeah, help you, good
luck with that, Good luck with that. Yeah yeah. But so you
know, let's just say that this amendment passes or whatever. What's some other
things that you do while working for you know, transparency through your foundation on
this well, so you know, the Schumer rounds UAPDA is not perfect.
It does have carve outs and caveats and ways to continue the cover up and
not divulge information to the public, which is you know that the president United
States will have ultimately authority to say no, just like the JFK Presidential Review
Records Board. And you know President Trump in twenty seventeen and President Biden in
twenty nineteen both decided against releasing certain records, even though in twenty seventeen that's
that was the timeframe that was up for all the records to be released.
So there is potential we talk about JFK records. Yes, so the the
U A, p d A, and the and the Presidential Review Board will
be modeled after that. So there are problems with it in that we still
don't have documents today that relate to the jfk assassination, because the President of
United States has the ability to say, you know, we're going to continue
to withhold that, so that will that would exist within you know, the
Schumer Rounds Amendment, which is of course a problem. There are also other
problems too, But like I said, we're not going to throw the baby
out with the bathwater, and we're not going to you know, say,
we're this is imperfect legislation, so we're not going to continue to advocate for
it because we need to and we can improve upon it, you know,
as we move forward. And one of the things we can do is continue
to advocate for Congress to set up a Select committee or you know, short
of that, we need to have the Oversight Committee and the Intelligence community,
you know, the House Select Committee on Intelligence, that the Senate Permitent Select
Committee on Intelligence. These committees to have hearings to get this information out of
the public because you know, it's finally important that people know exactly what the
government knows. But even more importantly is you know, they say that the
cover up is more, is more important than the crime itself, And I
think that's one of the reasons why this secret has been kept for so long,
is that the government doesn't want people to know what it has done in
furtherance of this cover up. And the only word we're ever actually going to
get to know that is if we have real investigative committees doing hearings in front
of the public and letting them know, and putting people under oath and having
subpoena power to let them know what it is that the government's done to the
American people and particularly you know, certain individuals in the community over the decades
of what's transpired in furtherance of this cover up. Yes, yeah, yeah,
I've always thought that would be, you know, the tough situation,
like for them to excuse me, once it was found out that there was
things that were hidden and covered up, then they would just have so much
explaining to do, and you know, they the people would start thinking,
well, what about this and what about that? And you know this happened
then or that person was you know banished for this reason for that, you
know, I mean there's so many situations somehow some now committed suicide it's right.
Yeah, yeah, that's happened. Yeah, so, uh, solve
advocacy. Can someone reach out to you for you know, just advice on
how to help you know, I mean with this type of situation, are
you what I'm trying to say? You know, you You've gotten your documents
to me, But is there a reason people can contact you? Would there
be something that could help you with or anything like that on your website?
Sure? So, you know, I'm working with a lot of different people
in this space. But you know, my intention is to do more than
just UAP advocacy. It's to talk about a whole host of issues and help
people, you know, in what we call edge sciences, which would include
consciousness studies and other issues. But you know, so I've also been working
with Raydall Nickerson, who is the director and self financier mostly of Aerial Phenomena,
which is a wonderful documentary, one of probably the best UFO documentaries that's
ever been made, which was about the aerial school siting in nineteen ninety four
in Zeba. You know, it's historic case because it's one of the most
well documented. It's you know, John Mack, doctor John Mack from Harvard
University, went there. You know, it's it's a wonderful film. So
I work with him. You know, it helps sort of promote his film
because you know, he didn't get the proper distribution or release that he should
have gotten. Part of the had to do with the pandemic and the other
legal issues that are involved with that. But you know, so he does
screenings around the country one night exclusives where he shows up personally, you know,
discusses the film and does a Q and A afterwards, and he's got
one coming up in Oxford, Mississippi, on the seventh. I think,
so I'm giving a little plug. But you know, it's a great film,
and I like working with people that are authentic and doing something that's good.
And I'm happy to work with anybody else that wants to work in this
field, you know, and help them further the cause. Thank you.
It's been really great having on night, and I'm really glad that you sent
the first email to me and we've gotten to know each other. It's been
really yeah, stay here. I mean we've had you know, numerous phone
conversations over the last several weeks, like you know, like like you opened
up with so I really appreciate you having me on. This isn't my normal
sort of thing, but I'm happy to be on here because this issue is
really important and I think the more people that are you know, intricately involved
in this and can help facilitate, you know, this sort of process,
you know, the more people that need to get involved. So I'm happy
to do it. Excellent, Okay, thanks so much, and I'll put
your information down in the show notes and the text below on these various platforms.
Thank you very much, Kevin, you take care. Thank you,
Martin. I appreciate it. Thank you. Sure think all right everyone,
So we'll be back next week with Michael Shrat And remember if you want to
check out UAP cross Fire Thursday night on this you Tube channel and at kg
R A radio and that's at eight pm Eastern. Thanks so much, and
remember to keep your eyes to the sky. M