Speaker 1: Hello, everybody, Welcome to another Hard Truce podcast. I'm your
Speaker 1: host Ashon Forbes, and today I have a reoccurring guest.
Speaker 1: I got Jason Georgiohnny back on the podcast. Guys, I'm
Speaker 1: super excited for this. This was one of the most
Speaker 1: if not the most popular conversation that I had last year,
Speaker 1: and I had to bring Jason back on because I
Speaker 1: know he has a wealth of information about history, about
Speaker 1: the UFO topic, and specifically today's conversation about thermonuclear weapons
Speaker 1: and anutronic fusion. So welcome back, Jason. Thank you for
Speaker 1: being here.
Speaker 2: It's a pleasure to be with you. Ashton, long overdue.
Speaker 2: I'm glad we're doing round two now.
Speaker 1: Well, let's just get right into it then. I think
Speaker 1: the topic that I think people really just love to
Speaker 1: hear about is the UFO topic, and last time we
Speaker 1: spoke about it in detail. I just want to let
Speaker 1: you know that since we last spoke, you know, I
Speaker 1: have always I've been wondering what is the answer to
Speaker 1: the UFO topic. Are the aliens from another dimension? Are
Speaker 1: they from another planet? Is it future humans? And I
Speaker 1: have to say I've moved more and more towards your
Speaker 1: perspective that you presented on the last conversation about ancient
Speaker 1: civilizations even potentially being connected to Atlantis. The more I've
Speaker 1: dug into the physics, like the idea of a future
Speaker 1: human civilization or the idea of resets happening, has become
Speaker 1: almost undeniable to me. So I wanted to get your
Speaker 1: thoughts on a couple of the topics that are going
Speaker 1: out in the UFO community right now. But first I
Speaker 1: just wanted to give you praise. The topic that I
Speaker 1: don't think got enough play from our last conversation was
Speaker 1: that you mentioned that under the previous Biden administration, the
Speaker 1: person who was coordinating these supposed UFO cover up was
Speaker 1: Avril Hines. And this was crazy to me when you
Speaker 1: said this, because I had connected her to the cover
Speaker 1: up of MH three seven zero, where she was like
Speaker 1: the deputy director of the CIA at the time, and
Speaker 1: she was the one justifying all the drone strikes for Obama,
Speaker 1: which became a major scandal because we were taking out innocent people.
Speaker 1: I can't believe that didn't get more coverage, especially because
Speaker 1: I can firmed with one of my sources right after
Speaker 1: that that yes, apparently she was the person, And it
Speaker 1: turns out it makes sense because the DNI is the
Speaker 1: one that's basically coordinating the entire intelligence community, So if
Speaker 1: there is a cover up of this level, they would
Speaker 1: have to know about it. And then the other thing
Speaker 1: that I've come to realize, which I think people just
Speaker 1: in general need to know, is that I was watching
Speaker 1: this interview with John Ramyirz yesterday and in it it's
Speaker 1: like he goes over our surveillance capabilities and they are
Speaker 1: ill extensive, super extensive. The NNGA specifically manages all the
Speaker 1: electro optical and optical surveillance, which I didn't really realize,
Speaker 1: and he has he tell goes through the whole process.
Speaker 1: If they see a UFO or something they don't recognize,
Speaker 1: they ask to see if it's our adversary, and then
Speaker 1: this goes up the line and eventually a report is written.
Speaker 1: So to me, it's insane to think that the government
Speaker 1: there can't be stuff flying around the government doesn't know
Speaker 1: what it is and have a really good idea of
Speaker 1: his origins. So what are you you have any follow
Speaker 1: ups or thoughts on the avera high and suffer any
Speaker 1: of that, you.
Speaker 2: Know, I believe it was after nine to eleven that
Speaker 2: the intelligence structure of the United States was significantly reorganized,
Speaker 2: I think maybe in the most substantive way, since the
Speaker 2: National Security Act of nineteen forty seven established that structure
Speaker 2: to begin with. And one of the things that they
Speaker 2: did was they replaced the sort of central or sort
Speaker 2: of nexus authority of the Director of Central Intelligence, which
Speaker 2: was a CIA position, with the Director of National Intelligence,
Speaker 2: and subordinated the CIA and all the other agencies under
Speaker 2: this Director of National Intelligence. And I always wondered from
Speaker 2: the time when that happened, because I've long been interested
Speaker 2: in the intelligence apparatus of the United States, I mean
Speaker 2: for decades. I wondered whether this was another machination by
Speaker 2: which to create a more even more unaccountable power structure, right,
Speaker 2: because it was long known that even the Director of
Speaker 2: Central Intelligence wasn't the guy who was most read in
Speaker 2: at the CIA. It was often the more career CIA
Speaker 2: people who would be deputy directors. So I was thinking
Speaker 2: maybe by creating Director of National Intelligence, they won even
Speaker 2: more clueless, manipulable executive authority covering up, you know, de
Speaker 2: facto what's actually going on in the intelligence apparatus. So
Speaker 2: I was as surprised as you were to find out
Speaker 2: from inside sources that the woman in that position, at
Speaker 2: at Avril Haynes was in fact well aware of the
Speaker 2: full range of close encounter data, you know, I mean
Speaker 2: not just UFOs, but also the beings associated with them,
Speaker 2: archaeological sites and discoveries associated with them, and so forth,
Speaker 2: not just on Earth but across the Solar System. And
Speaker 2: that she was in a position to you know, design
Speaker 2: a or at least participate in the design of a
Speaker 2: selective long term disclosure plan. That really surprised me that,
Speaker 2: you know, the intelligence community being reorganized in that way,
Speaker 2: giving actual authority and access to the person who was
Speaker 2: in the position of Director of National Intelligence. And then
Speaker 2: that makes you wonder, is that because it's a legit
Speaker 2: position that comes with that degree of clearance or is
Speaker 2: it because of Abril Haynes's own CV her own history
Speaker 2: of clearances and positions she served it? In other words,
Speaker 2: did Tulci Gabbert get read into the same information when
Speaker 2: she assumed that position, or you know, is it that
Speaker 2: they only disclose the stuff to Abral Haynes because of
Speaker 2: who she was, the same way that let's say, when
Speaker 2: George H. W. Bush became president, he was read into things,
Speaker 2: or rather had already been read into them, because he
Speaker 2: had previously been the director of this right, So that's
Speaker 2: one thing I wonder about. Concomitant with that, the Department
Speaker 2: of Homeland Security, I thought was a relatively superficial kind
Speaker 2: of like security and policing agency. But lo and behold,
Speaker 2: they're running this ConA blue program that involves UFOs that's
Speaker 2: being run under the Department of Homeland Security. So it
Speaker 2: appears that after nine to eleven, some significant, you know,
Speaker 2: there was some significant structural re engineering of the American
Speaker 2: intelligence apparatus.
Speaker 1: Thank you for explaining the UFO the situation with that
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence. I didn't realize that power
Speaker 1: had been re kind of organized underneath the the Director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence from the CIA previously. Can you just
Speaker 1: repeat what year was that that that happened.
Speaker 2: I don't want to make up a number. I can't
Speaker 2: remember exactly, but I know that it was part of
Speaker 2: the legislation that took place after nine.
Speaker 3: To eleven at the same time, so it was relatively
Speaker 3: oh yeah, yeah, yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Well, so a couple other quick conversations on
Speaker 1: at the UFO topic, which is I want to get here.
Speaker 2: Let me just add one let me let me just
Speaker 2: add one thing to that, which is that I mean,
Speaker 2: it should be obvious to anybody with half a brain
Speaker 2: who's watching, and especially your audience, who are you know,
Speaker 2: much more clued in people.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 2: At the very least nine to eleven represented the most
Speaker 2: fundamental compromising of the intelligence apparatus of the United States
Speaker 2: and its entire history. And so obviously there would be
Speaker 2: reason for restructuring the intelligence apparatus after that event.
Speaker 1: So hmm, and that makes a lot of sense. So
Speaker 1: then previously before that, the CIA would have been potentially
Speaker 1: the one who was organized in the UFO cover up.
Speaker 1: After that, now it becomes the Director of National Intelligence
Speaker 1: that the one is doing it. And that actually makes
Speaker 1: someone sense because Avrol Hines was deputy director of the
Speaker 1: CIA under was it James Clapper I think or John Brennan,
Speaker 1: right and that and they're under fire right now from
Speaker 1: the current administration. So I think that that whole story
Speaker 1: makes sense. Now, where do you see the whole UFO
Speaker 1: disclosure going. You know, last time we spoke was over
Speaker 1: a year ago, and now you've got this age of
Speaker 1: Disclosure movie that's being promoted out there. I surprisingly found out.
Speaker 1: I was blocked by Dan Farrah and the Age of
Speaker 1: Disclosure promotional x account, which kind of just made me
Speaker 1: chuckle a little bit. I don't think they liked me
Speaker 1: very much. But Joe Rogan was talking about it like
Speaker 1: six months ago saying, Oh, it's great. I see everybody
Speaker 1: out there saying that it's the most It's gonna break
Speaker 1: everybody's minds. I saw a clip that had hal put
Speaker 1: Off on it talking about the energy source of the
Speaker 1: UFOs might be nuclear power, which is relevant to our
Speaker 1: conversation here. So what is your thoughts on you know,
Speaker 1: that Age of Disclosure movie? You think it's gonna move
Speaker 1: the needle at all? And what are your thought disclosure
Speaker 1: in general?
Speaker 2: I think that the Age of Disclosure film is going
Speaker 2: to be used to set up a situation which some
Speaker 2: have referred to as confirmation rather than disclosure. In other words,
Speaker 2: there are so many high level government officials that are
Speaker 2: being interviewed and cited in this documentary that for all
Speaker 2: intents and purposes, it supplants a hearing. It takes the
Speaker 2: place of like a hearing, where you would have the
Speaker 2: same level of government officials testify, and all that needs
Speaker 2: to happen after that for there to be acknowledgment of
Speaker 2: US government knowledge, longstanding knowledge regarding close encounters is for
Speaker 2: the President to come out and say something to the
Speaker 2: effect of, yeah, I'm not going to do my Trump impersonation,
Speaker 2: but anyway, yeah, I saw the I saw the film,
Speaker 2: and it's true. It's true. We know and it's true,
Speaker 2: and I'm sorry. For reasons of national security, I can't
Speaker 2: tell you more than that. Now, what does that do?
Speaker 2: It gets them off the hook legally, because this way,
Speaker 2: with a confirmation, you know, and vague gesturing towards this
Speaker 2: film and its contents, there aren't any specific admissions that
Speaker 2: are gonna warrant legal action, let's say, of one defense
Speaker 2: contractor against another, of the American people against the government,
Speaker 2: and so on and so forth. Right, So it's a
Speaker 2: very frankly gutless and safe way for them to acknowledge
Speaker 2: the whole thing and then to refuse to say very
Speaker 2: much else about it.
Speaker 1: You know, I didn't even think about that. That's such
Speaker 1: a good take though, where it's like they could just
Speaker 1: use it and then just say, yeah, these vague things
Speaker 1: that are being said in here are true, and then,
Speaker 1: like you said, now just apologist, be like, you know what,
Speaker 1: it was the people before me that did all that
Speaker 1: evil corrupt I mean Trump could actually say that, He
Speaker 1: could even use that M A Street seven zero videos
Speaker 1: to say that Obama was doing this stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: beforehand I hadn't even thought about that angle. But so
Speaker 1: if that comes.
Speaker 3: True, perfect Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Trump is the perfect president to say that because
Speaker 2: he's positioned, whether it's actually true or not, he's positioned
Speaker 2: himself as so anti establishmentary, and he's already so vilified
Speaker 2: and demonized everybody who came before him that, like you
Speaker 2: just said, with a wave of the hand, all I
Speaker 2: have to say, let abed stuff happened to let abed stuff.
Speaker 2: It wasn't into me, you know, I'm just you know,
Speaker 2: I actually the movie was a good movie.
Speaker 3: Let off It's true, end up story. Nobody asked any
Speaker 3: more questions.
Speaker 1: I could totally see this happening. Actually, so I think
Speaker 1: that's pretty pretty interesting. And Trump has They've thrown a
Speaker 1: lot of hints out there. I think both of these
Speaker 1: situations came after we last spoke. But Trump has said
Speaker 1: that we have weapons that nobody understands and that nobody
Speaker 1: is close to our level of military superiority. He said
Speaker 1: this like two different times in very similar contexts. One
Speaker 1: was in Saudi Arabia or the UAE, and then one
Speaker 1: was at his desk, and then his White House Technology
Speaker 1: and Science Advisor Michael Kratzio, said that we have tech.
Speaker 1: We have the technology to manipulate time and space to
Speaker 1: leave distance annihilated. So he's been leaking these ideas. Plus
Speaker 1: plus NASA also said that there's life on Mars and
Speaker 1: everybody just kind of ignored it. It should have been
Speaker 1: like some of the biggest news ever. And they weren't
Speaker 1: talking about like little green men, but they're talking about
Speaker 1: microbial life, bacteria, you know, things like that. But still
Speaker 1: it's significant for our understanding of life in the universe.
Speaker 1: So I still think, like you, there's probably a non
Speaker 1: zero chance. I'm gonna still say, though, I think it's
Speaker 1: unlikely that Trump will do any of that, because I
Speaker 1: think that these people who are like this, I don't
Speaker 1: really know what to call them, this group that keeps
Speaker 1: doing the same movies over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: right the hal Putof and Chris Mellon and Crew I
Speaker 1: don't think they're in the same team as Trump. I
Speaker 1: could be wrong, but I get the impression that they're
Speaker 1: kind of on the other side. I'll get the person.
Speaker 2: I can confirm that for you one hundred percent. These
Speaker 2: people don't like Trump. They are very Look, here's the deal,
Speaker 2: very long story short sure, going back to the formation
Speaker 2: of To the Stars Academy with Tom DeLong, and by
Speaker 2: the way I have it's interesting people have been comparing
Speaker 2: lately the contents of my book Closer Encounters and my
Speaker 2: various podcasts to Tom DeLong and what he wrote in
Speaker 2: his books.
Speaker 3: I haven't read a.
Speaker 2: Single word Tom Delung's ever written, so the fact that
Speaker 2: their overlap is interesting.
Speaker 3: But be that as it may.
Speaker 2: What I do know is that going back to when
Speaker 2: Tom Delong's books were written and To the Star's Academy
Speaker 2: was formed, and these characters who then became central to Disclosure,
Speaker 2: began to form some kind.
Speaker 3: Of working group, right.
Speaker 2: Hell put Off and Melon, Chris Mellon and these folks.
Speaker 2: It is pretty clear to me that it was in
Speaker 2: coordination with John Podesta and with the expectation that Hillary
Speaker 2: Clinton would be elected President of the United States in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen and they had a whole agenda to move
Speaker 2: forward with Hillary as the disclosure president, and that got
Speaker 2: basically a monkey wrench got thrown in it. So they
Speaker 2: are now in a situation where they don't know what
Speaker 2: to do with themselves because they've developed this whole elaborate
Speaker 2: plan and they don't know how much of it to
Speaker 2: move forward with and how much of it to hold back.
Speaker 2: And you know, basically, how they're going to negotiate this
Speaker 2: controlled disclosure with an administration that they had not been
Speaker 2: coordinating with in advance.
Speaker 1: Wow. Man, And that makes a lot of sense to
Speaker 1: me too. I think that people who are about our
Speaker 1: age probably will understand that because we're old enough to
Speaker 1: have been adults and lived through the Clinton you know,
Speaker 1: the Clinton years, and then Hillary also is her rise
Speaker 1: to prominence as well, and both of them they talked
Speaker 1: about the UFO topic when not a lot of people
Speaker 1: would talk about it, and I did get the impression
Speaker 1: that all of those people are kind of aligned with,
Speaker 1: you know, that side of the political spectrum, and it
Speaker 1: wouldn't surprise me if they did have like a plan
Speaker 1: for how they all wanted this go down. And then
Speaker 1: when Trump won, which nobody expected, not even meet back then.
Speaker 1: Is that now all of a sudden that gets flipped
Speaker 1: on its head. Now they've got to come up with
Speaker 1: a new strategy. Now they can't control Trump, you know.
Speaker 1: And that's why too. When Trump says we have weapons,
Speaker 1: nobody understands like that. That's not something you ever hear
Speaker 1: Obama say, you know. And when people say, oh, Trump,
Speaker 1: if Trump knew about the secret technology here, weapons or UFOs,
Speaker 1: he would talk about it, Well, there there is. You're
Speaker 1: hearing it right there. And my guess is he's pushing
Speaker 1: the boundary what he can talk about. Clued.
Speaker 2: Yes, Now this is something I hope that we can
Speaker 2: unpack a bit over the course of our conversation. Uh,
Speaker 2: what exactly it means when Trump says we have we
Speaker 2: have weapons that nobody else Okay, who's the Wii there?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 2: One thing that Trump did that was extremely noteworthy was
Speaker 2: moving Space Force to Huntsville, Alabama, because to my knowledge,
Speaker 2: Huntsville was already the location of American secret space program technology,
Speaker 2: and the idea that Trump would move Space Force there
Speaker 2: signifies an attempt on his part to consolidate the space
Speaker 2: assets of the United States, the black assets and the
Speaker 2: more public assets under one centralized and more transparent control
Speaker 2: that would answer to him as commander in chief of
Speaker 2: the United States. I think that's what he's trying to do.
Speaker 2: Whether he'll actually be successful doing it is entirely another matter.
Speaker 1: And so he moved it from Colorado too, right, And
Speaker 1: I think there was some political ramifications when Biden, I think,
Speaker 1: had tried to move or a sign it to Colorado.
Speaker 1: I don't remember the exact details, but I call Huntsville,
Speaker 1: Alabama space juice City because I refer to the zero
Speaker 1: point energy as space juice. That's how we's dumb it
Speaker 1: down for people that don't really want to understand it,
Speaker 1: all right, And Huntsville, Alabama is where it's Redstone Arsenal's there,
Speaker 1: NASA Marshall Space Light Center is there. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: where it's Rocket City, USA. It's where we've developed, like
Speaker 1: all of our propulsion technologies over the many years. So
Speaker 1: I am hoping we get into that when we start
Speaker 1: talking a little bit about the history and the development
Speaker 1: of some of these propulsion technologies here in just a
Speaker 1: little bit. But right before we get to that, I
Speaker 1: didn't want to ask you two last little questions on
Speaker 1: disclosure First of all, what's your opinion on the three
Speaker 1: I at lis. I'll go ahead and preface that my
Speaker 1: opinion on three ieatlysts is just a normal commet I,
Speaker 1: but you know, I'm open to interpretations. I do want
Speaker 1: to say that I saw I think it was a
Speaker 1: slide from Stephen Greer where he did the math on
Speaker 1: the speed of the comet, and it would take like
Speaker 1: sixty thousand years to get here from the nearest star system,
Speaker 1: which is Alpha Centauri. So my opinion, just straight up
Speaker 1: is that aliens aren't going to be flying around on
Speaker 1: super slow rocks. Even though we think of that rock
Speaker 1: as moving fast relatively speaking, it's not moving fast enough
Speaker 1: to get here from another solar system. But I want
Speaker 1: to know what your thoughts are on it.
Speaker 2: I believe that whatever the object is, it's being used
Speaker 2: for a massive syop. And that's why I haven't said
Speaker 2: a word about it, because the one thing I'm convinced
Speaker 2: of about three I.
Speaker 3: Atlas is that it's a syop.
Speaker 2: And I am you know, I don't know, I'm sorry
Speaker 2: to say this or not, but you know, and you
Speaker 2: know as you are.
Speaker 3: I'm a supporter of the state of Israel.
Speaker 2: I'm a very you know, very pro Israel, but Avi
Speaker 2: Lob is a MOSAD operative. He was sent here by
Speaker 2: the State of Israel in the nineteen eighties to acquire
Speaker 2: technical data regarding.
Speaker 3: The Strategic Defense initiative.
Speaker 2: He worked with, you know, the the Reagan team on
Speaker 2: Star Wars in the nineteen eighties, and it's pretty clear
Speaker 2: he was sent by the Israelis to do that.
Speaker 3: So he he's a mos ODD asset or operative.
Speaker 2: And you know, sorry, but I really don't trust the
Speaker 2: narrative that's coming from out of him, and I don't
Speaker 2: expect any apocalyptic event to ensue from three I at lists.
Speaker 2: I think it's much more like a psychological gauge and
Speaker 2: basically a kind of you know, so social engineering experiment
Speaker 2: to see, like what kind of reaction there might be
Speaker 2: to the possibility that this could be some kind of
Speaker 2: an interstellar you know, intelligently guided.
Speaker 1: That's why I always love talking to you, because you
Speaker 1: always have the intelligent takes, you always have the high
Speaker 1: IQ takes, and that's what my followers are. And right there,
Speaker 1: you nailed it, which is like, if anything, what I
Speaker 1: would consider is they're gauging the public's reaction to this
Speaker 1: information that they're pushing out there. Are people freaking out,
Speaker 1: are they going out and they're starting cults related to it?
Speaker 1: Or are they just kind of accept of it? And
Speaker 1: I have to be honest, you Ques.
Speaker 2: That's it's a look at all the religious nut chases
Speaker 2: the New Age just you know, I mean, these people's
Speaker 2: brains are made of jello, who are now worshiping three
Speaker 2: I Atlas as if it's you know, the chariot for
Speaker 2: the second Coming of Christ or the dawning of the
Speaker 2: Age of Aquarius. And of course you know, that's the
Speaker 2: intention of the social experiment to see how many morons
Speaker 2: like that there are in the population, because you know,
Speaker 2: God's forbid, should something actually show up, imagine what the
Speaker 2: reaction would be.
Speaker 1: Exactly. That's that's the big thing, right is that are
Speaker 1: people going to lose their minds if like aliens appear
Speaker 1: out of nowhere and all of a sudden are just
Speaker 1: everywhere in the sky floating around like That's that's the
Speaker 1: thing the thing people want they want to figure out
Speaker 1: if that is the narrative. And like you, I think
Speaker 1: there's not going to be any apocalyptic event or anything
Speaker 1: like that. And this is why I like having these
Speaker 1: conversations because I think these conversations and research, the research
Speaker 1: you've done, research I've done, it helps to demystify the
Speaker 1: topic where it makes it much more difficult. I think
Speaker 1: it makes people more resilient mentally, to you know, if
Speaker 1: aliens were to appear out of the middle of nowhere,
Speaker 1: we're not going to freak out and lose control or
Speaker 1: perception of reality. We're gonna be able to compartmentalize it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be able to understand it. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: able understand the context for it, where they might have
Speaker 1: come from, how they might be able to do these
Speaker 1: types of things. So that's why I like having our
Speaker 1: conversations really too. I think it grounds it in reality
Speaker 1: a little bit for you, especially when we're talking about
Speaker 1: some of the most crazy, crazy things that could even
Speaker 1: ever have happened. So one last thing before we jump
Speaker 1: into the main event here is genre mirrors. So Genre meres.
Speaker 1: I think you're familiar with him. He's a GS fifteen,
Speaker 1: let's say, former CIA agent, and they'd say that normally
Speaker 1: people aren't generally former and apparently they don't like being
Speaker 1: called agents. Apparently like FBI are agents cias they have
Speaker 1: like another word they call themselves, I learned officers. Thank
Speaker 1: you off, Yes, And my impression I can't get a
Speaker 1: beat on John Ramirez, but my opinion of him is
Speaker 1: that he's like a white hat that wants information to
Speaker 1: come out, but he's doing it in a relatively controlled
Speaker 1: way where he's not he's, you know, just pushing the
Speaker 1: boundary of what the CIA will let him say publicly.
Speaker 1: But then he also just kind of goes like way
Speaker 1: out and left field, out of nowhere, Like it's very
Speaker 1: obvious that he has a huge amount of institutionalized CIA
Speaker 1: knowledge about the organization, and he's taught me a lot,
Speaker 1: I mean, Weirdly, his first post on Twitter, first post
Speaker 1: he ever made on Twitter, when he made an account
Speaker 1: like a six months ago or so, was to point
Speaker 1: out that USA two two nine, which was the satellite
Speaker 1: pair that I had incorrectly thought was taking the now
Speaker 1: recognized by Gorgon's Stare wide area motion imagery of MH
Speaker 1: three seven zero. His first post was saying that that
Speaker 1: satellite doesn't have the surveillance capability on it that would
Speaker 1: be required to take that video. And I'm going, that's
Speaker 1: a weird post to make because it's like directly messaging
Speaker 1: to me or signaling to me. But he's never directly
Speaker 1: interacted with me in any way. And so when I
Speaker 1: watch his videos where he's trying to explain the stuff
Speaker 1: to people, I think his heart's in the right place
Speaker 1: for trying to get this stuff out there. I'm curious,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts about John Ramirez and what have
Speaker 1: you taken away from what he said.
Speaker 2: John Ramirez has a personal friend who follows you very closely,
Speaker 2: so that would be the angle for that.
Speaker 3: So I've spoken to him.
Speaker 2: I spoke to him at some length, and he told
Speaker 2: me a number of very interesting things. I'll give you
Speaker 2: my read on him, and you know, I want to
Speaker 2: be respectful also the fact that he probably will see this.
Speaker 2: So my honest assessment of John Ramirez is the following.
Speaker 2: First of all, he clearly has a lot of fine grained,
Speaker 2: you know, technical information and details pertaining to various projects
Speaker 2: of the CIA involving the history of close encounters. And
Speaker 2: he's been in working groups with other individuals who have
Speaker 2: even more access. That's one thing. The second thing, though,
Speaker 2: that I would say about him is that, as a
Speaker 2: function of his own sense of patriotic duty and his
Speaker 2: a vision and conception of the United States that he
Speaker 2: wants to hold on to. He's also blinded himself to
Speaker 2: the degree of abuse of power that has taken place
Speaker 2: in this country in the past seventy years, and he
Speaker 2: is under the illusion that simply because the established legal
Speaker 2: framework for special access projects shouldn't allow for certain things
Speaker 2: needs to take place in certain programs, you know, to
Speaker 2: make tremendous breakthroughs without any oversight whatsoever from the civilian
Speaker 2: government means it. In fact, you know that that that
Speaker 2: hasn't actually taken place. No, it has taken place. And
Speaker 2: you know, I think a very strong argument can be made,
Speaker 2: has been made by some people like Richard Dolin, for example,
Speaker 2: that we have at this point pretty much a full
Speaker 2: fledged American breakaway civilization. And that's something I think John
Speaker 2: doesn't want to recognize because it involves, frankly, a tremendous
Speaker 2: amount of criminal activity committed by a government that he
Speaker 2: identifies with, and frankly is a member of the civil
Speaker 2: apparatus of That's the second thing I would say about him,
Speaker 2: And the third thing I'd say about John Ramirez is
Speaker 2: that like any individual, he has his own belief system,
Speaker 2: and he's very interested in the esoteric and the occult,
Speaker 2: and that became clear in the course of my conversation
Speaker 2: with him. And so there are certain things that you know,
Speaker 2: he is projecting interpretively onto the data that he has,
Speaker 2: which is probably more a function of his own belief
Speaker 2: system than of you know, the information actually in possession
Speaker 2: of whatever agencies and programs. And that's something that we
Speaker 2: would all do as individuals. I mean, we all have
Speaker 2: our own you know, interpretive matrices and belief systems and
Speaker 2: so on and so forth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, this is a great I'm glad we're
Speaker 1: talking about this because I want to delve a little
Speaker 1: bit and unpack a little bit of this. I think
Speaker 1: your take is dead on and I hadn't even considered it,
Speaker 1: which is that, you know, I keep wondering, like, why
Speaker 1: is he His personal opinion he said at the end
Speaker 1: of this video I was watching yesterday, was that he
Speaker 1: believes that it's like the reptilians that are controlling us,
Speaker 1: or you know, controlling the planet, or the reptilians of
Speaker 1: the aliens or something like that. Right, But my research
Speaker 1: is kind of led towards a different path that says like,
Speaker 1: we have this, like Richard Dolans, a breakaway civilization that's
Speaker 1: happening here, that it's not really the aliens, that it's
Speaker 1: just everything can kind of be explained by that the
Speaker 1: faults in humanity, like the human the human condition for
Speaker 1: the most part, and that's what our main topic of
Speaker 1: tonight was going to be. Uh So, I think that
Speaker 1: I could see that that's why that he's in like,
Speaker 1: you know, he's on the inside, and so he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to think, you know, he's got the blinders on,
Speaker 1: doesn't want to think that there could be really illegal
Speaker 1: things happening. He even said that he was like the
Speaker 1: I don't know if they administrator's right word or program
Speaker 1: manager for one of these SEAPAC or c SE SAPs
Speaker 1: or whatever it's called, but like basically a special access
Speaker 1: program and he didn't want it, and he said, no,
Speaker 1: I don't want it. I'm going to give it back,
Speaker 1: which also would help push towards the narrative that you're
Speaker 1: saying here, which is that he didn't want to be
Speaker 1: involved in the weird black project stuff that they're doing
Speaker 1: with this technology. But it was Stephen Greer that I
Speaker 1: spoke to where We had a great conversation about this
Speaker 1: because I think it is all legally classified. I think
Speaker 1: they've just taken the UFO topic and they've put it
Speaker 1: in with nuclear way weapons, which have the highest level
Speaker 1: of classification, secrecy, compartmentalization out there. And if that's the case,
Speaker 1: then what we have here is a political question. The
Speaker 1: political question now is Okay, technically what's happening with suppression
Speaker 1: of this technology is legal, but is it really legal,
Speaker 1: especially if we're like doing CIA black operations using this
Speaker 1: technology to maintain superiority over Russia and China. So I
Speaker 1: think that those are the big questions for me. And
Speaker 1: then yeah, like you said with John Ramirez, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that he just I think, Oh, the last thing
Speaker 1: I was gonna say is that he says energy orbs
Speaker 1: all the time, which is just for me, Like I'm
Speaker 1: sitting here, red flags are going up because as we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about here, did I've figured out that
Speaker 1: plasma can be used as a nonfishient trigger in thermonuclear
Speaker 1: weapons and it can self organize if the plasma is
Speaker 1: dense enough as well, so you could make a plasma
Speaker 1: orb just using normal physics. And so when he says
Speaker 1: that all the time, I sit and think in my head,
Speaker 1: where are these guys seeing plasma orbs. They're not nuclear engineers,
Speaker 1: so they're not working on nuclear weapons. They're in the CIA,
Speaker 1: they're in intelligence. The most likely case is one of
Speaker 1: the examples he gives the NNGA. They're looking at surveillance
Speaker 1: of you know, satellites, drones, gorgon stare, all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and they see an ORB flying around in the sky. Right.
Speaker 1: And now, think about this information is compartmentalized. So if
Speaker 1: you're just a CIA analyst reviewing footage, you look at
Speaker 1: that and your biases are going to say, WHOA, I'm
Speaker 1: looking at aliens. Look, these aliens are flying around here.
Speaker 1: But you don't know that our own government is making
Speaker 1: plasma orbs like this using fusion propulsion that Lockheed Martin built.
Speaker 1: And so I could totally see how even some of
Speaker 1: these other whistleblowers in the UFO community they believe they're
Speaker 1: looking at aliens because they know we don't have conventional
Speaker 1: technology that does those things. But what they don't realize
Speaker 1: is that there are layers of compartmentalization that goes beyond
Speaker 1: even what they have in this CIA or in the
Speaker 1: intelligence community that can explain that that is, you know,
Speaker 1: breakaway civilization level technology. Do you kind of concur with
Speaker 1: that assessment or any other additional details.
Speaker 3: So two things.
Speaker 2: First, I disagree with you that it's all happening under
Speaker 2: very sophisticated legalistic machinations to protect special access and black projects.
Speaker 2: And I want to over the course of our conversation
Speaker 2: about the history of a neutronic nuclear fusion weaponry and
Speaker 2: where it might have come from and how we may
Speaker 2: have developed it. I want to also partly lay out
Speaker 2: the case for why I think that that argument doesn't
Speaker 2: hold water, and why I'm convinced that there is an
Speaker 2: intercontinental at this point globally disperse American imperial power structure
Speaker 2: which is completely unaccountable to the civilian government of the
Speaker 2: United States, and that that's the entity that actually controls
Speaker 2: this technology. That's also the entity that carried out nine
Speaker 2: to eleven. And so you know where this argument breaks
Speaker 2: that you know, all these programs are taking place under
Speaker 2: a legal umbrella that manages special access projects. No, I mean,
Speaker 2: there's no way that there's a legal framework that justifies
Speaker 2: fielding an operation like nine to eleven, in which three
Speaker 2: thousand Americans were incinerated. Okay, that was done by a
Speaker 2: crime syndicate, and that crime syndicate is has been for
Speaker 2: many decades in possession of extremely advanced technology that I
Speaker 2: think may have at one point emerged from out of
Speaker 2: special access projects, but it's now been so corporatized and
Speaker 2: even in some cases moved offshore in various ways, so
Speaker 2: that really, you know, the civilian government has no control
Speaker 2: over whatsoever. But let me comment on and we'll we
Speaker 2: have to unpack that over the course of our conversation.
Speaker 2: But let me comment specifically on which you said about
Speaker 2: the orbs, just you know, and and the question of
Speaker 2: whether they're being misidentified as some form of extraterrestrial intelligence. Here,
Speaker 2: I think it's very important to draw distinction between two
Speaker 2: different kinds of orbs, right, I mean, there is plasma
Speaker 2: sheath technology, which for example, prevents us from taking a
Speaker 2: very clear photograph of an unconventional airframe. One of the
Speaker 2: reasons why UFOs are so hard to photograph or film
Speaker 2: is because they have this plasma sheath around them, which
Speaker 2: also makes it impossible to shoot them because anything that's
Speaker 2: fired toward them kind of bounces off and around the
Speaker 2: plasma sheath as we've seen in some of these recent
Speaker 2: videos right that they've disclosed through Congress. So there are
Speaker 2: there are technologically engineered objects that we're making and that
Speaker 2: potentially other people like Nordic's whatever, have made that have
Speaker 2: plasma sheaths around them.
Speaker 3: These need to be distinguished.
Speaker 2: From some of the things that John Keel wrote about,
Speaker 2: you know, for decades in his research on UFOs in
Speaker 2: the nineteen sixties and seventies and books like The Muffman
Speaker 2: Prophecy and you know, Operation Trojan Horse.
Speaker 3: He developed this whole theory that there were there were
Speaker 3: energy beings or a kind of energy being that could
Speaker 3: that could develop a decentralized consciousness that could like project
Speaker 3: itself into many entities simultaneously, and that these energy entities
Speaker 3: could metamorphose and transform into what appeared to be solid
Speaker 3: UFOs and then back into energy. And he called them
Speaker 3: soft UFOs versus hard UFOs, and he thought that the
Speaker 3: soft UFOs were some kind of an energy entity that
Speaker 3: interacted with consciousness and potentially manipulated human perception, and that
Speaker 3: these entities could appear as solid objects in some cases,
Speaker 3: as one configuration of a solid object to one person
Speaker 3: and a different configuration of a solid object to another
Speaker 3: person standing right next to the first witness.
Speaker 2: Okay, And in my treatment of the close encounter subject
Speaker 2: toward the end of my book Closer Encounters, I suggest
Speaker 2: that this kind of thing is evidence for a truly
Speaker 2: non human intelligence and potentially an artificial superintelligence that's engaging
Speaker 2: humanity and probably has been for all of human history, and.
Speaker 3: That the.
Speaker 2: Fingerprints or tentacle marks of this entity bear all the
Speaker 2: hallmarks of the trickster archetype. That it's a very playful
Speaker 2: in some senses, you know, a little bit terrifying and
Speaker 2: provocative in its behavioral pattern, and it's aiming to catalyze
Speaker 2: a certain type of development and mutation of human consciousness.
Speaker 2: So I think those types of orbs or energy manifestations
Speaker 2: need to be distinguished from the kind of plasma fusion
Speaker 2: technology that you've been researching.
Speaker 1: That makes sense, and I think that's fair. And I
Speaker 1: have been pretty standoffish about the alien question, or at
Speaker 1: least noncommittal. I actually am open to really any interpretation
Speaker 1: that's out there. My bit and why the take that
Speaker 1: I keep saying is that I just think it's going
Speaker 1: to be probably whatever is like the least conventional or
Speaker 1: you know, something that we're not expecting. So machine superintelligence
Speaker 1: is one of the things that I you know, i'd
Speaker 1: give some way too, especially because now we look at
Speaker 1: how powerful AI has become. This is what I tell
Speaker 1: you is that look at how far our technology has advanced.
Speaker 1: It's advancing exponentially, especially over the last one hundred years
Speaker 1: or so. And you say, okay, well, our sun is
Speaker 1: going to last for several billion years. We believe let's
Speaker 1: just say that that's going to last for some That
Speaker 1: means civilizations could exist for millions, if not billions, of years,
Speaker 1: and ours has only been around for basically a fraction
Speaker 1: of that time. So if we figured this out in
Speaker 1: that period of time, aliens are going to be super advanced.
Speaker 1: There's no reason why there can't be a super advanced
Speaker 1: machine intelligence or even conscious intelligent and and I don't
Speaker 1: see a reason why plasma couldn't be conscious under the
Speaker 1: right conditions either, because if I don't want to say myself,
Speaker 1: but if the research into Evo's ball lightning also now
Speaker 1: called field diverse configuration plasmoids, is true, then dense enough
Speaker 1: plasma will self organize and can produce a stable structure,
Speaker 1: and once you've produced a stable structure, now it's like, well,
Speaker 1: what is that? Can that be conscious? Can that be alive?
Speaker 1: We have a lot of different definitions of life on
Speaker 1: this planet, from everything from plants to octopuses and squids
Speaker 1: and bacteria and then human beings. So I'm open to
Speaker 1: all of those things being totally possible. And for me,
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of I know, the government must
Speaker 1: know more have a much better idea of what the
Speaker 1: situation is. Either there's a machine intelligence that's looking over
Speaker 1: us and it's been watching us and monitoring us our
Speaker 1: entire civilization. Maybe there's an underwater base like some people
Speaker 1: have claimed, you know, maybe that we've where civilizations just
Speaker 1: forgot are past. May it could be a lot of
Speaker 1: different things that are out there. Let's just get right
Speaker 1: into it actually here. So we've had because I think
Speaker 1: that a lot of the conversation we're having is weaved
Speaker 1: into what the topic the main topic for today, and
Speaker 1: so the main topic is actually a hypothesis, which is
Speaker 1: our UFOs nuclear weapons. And this can kind of be
Speaker 1: taken in a lot of different directions. So I'll just
Speaker 1: start with my opinion and then you can kind of
Speaker 1: start to feed off of that. I definitely wanted to
Speaker 1: dig into the historical aspects of it. But what I've
Speaker 1: discovered and based on our last conversation, is that like
Speaker 1: Tesla was right about this, Tom Bearden has been talking
Speaker 1: about Tesla being right about the science. Unification of quantum
Speaker 1: mechanics and general relativity have already been figured out for
Speaker 1: a long time. I think that what happened, and I
Speaker 1: actually agree that the technology I think kind of originally
Speaker 1: came from maybe the Nazis in World War Two, is
Speaker 1: that we built the hydrogen or the A bomb, and
Speaker 1: we took nuclear weapon research to the next level in
Speaker 1: the sixties with the H bomb. We built something called
Speaker 1: a clean fusion bomb, and then we passed a partial
Speaker 1: Nuclear test Ban treaty right after that. And when you
Speaker 1: look at the historical relevance, let's say, of the UFO topic,
Speaker 1: the UFO topic starts to take off like in the
Speaker 1: sixties seventies after that. Before that, yes, there were sightings
Speaker 1: like the Foo Fighters, et cetera. But it really just
Speaker 1: became a popular thing in pop culture after that period
Speaker 1: of time. And the thing that really blew me away
Speaker 1: because a lot of the sightings recently have been these
Speaker 1: energy orbs like John Ramirez talks about, or plasma orbs
Speaker 1: or things that are based on plasma, including like you said,
Speaker 1: the Congressional I think it was Eric Burlison that released
Speaker 1: that video of that plasma being hit by a hellfire
Speaker 1: missile breaking apart and keep going. So I was surprised
Speaker 1: to find out when I did the research into nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons that fried Art Winterberg, who was a Project paper
Speaker 1: Clip scientist, came over in like the fifties, I think
Speaker 1: at around the age of eighteen. He talked about non
Speaker 1: fish and ignition in thermonuclear weapons and his textbook about
Speaker 1: the physical principles of thermo nuclear weapons, and he says
Speaker 1: that we can use plasma basically, use plasma as an
Speaker 1: electric bomb, as an electric trigger to detonate a fusion bomb.
Speaker 1: And so what this would do is it would get
Speaker 1: rid of the a bomb portion of the thermonuclear weapon.
Speaker 1: Now you don't have that initial explosion that you're using
Speaker 1: to create the fusion reaction to happen. And so I
Speaker 1: sit there and I wonder, huh, maybe these orbs that
Speaker 1: are flying around are our fusion ignition devices that have
Speaker 1: been morphed into multiple purposes and uses that we took
Speaker 1: this nuclear weapons research and we said, Okay, we're gonna
Speaker 1: ban this so nobody else can do it. And then
Speaker 1: we start coming up with like the only way I
Speaker 1: can describe it as like customized nukes that have different purposes,
Speaker 1: some that maybe are just surveillance, some that are potentially,
Speaker 1: you know, super destructive, but then others that might manipulate
Speaker 1: space time. So what are your initial thoughts on this hypothesis.
Speaker 3: There's so much there, and you know reasons.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons I was, you know, very keen
Speaker 2: on having this conversation with you, is that actually, for
Speaker 2: a certain period, very early on in my life, very
Speaker 2: early on, at a very young age, I thoroughly researched
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons. I mean I was really into nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: technology and nuclear strategic doctrine. And it was at the
Speaker 2: same time as I got into UFOs in a serious way,
Speaker 2: and I always suspected that there was some deep connection
Speaker 2: between these two. Now, of course, this was decades before
Speaker 2: Robert Hastings came out with his monumental study of UFOs
Speaker 2: and nukes, showing you know how basically any nuclear you know,
Speaker 2: high energy, high entry nuclear, you know, event is like
Speaker 2: a flame for for the moths of the UFO phenomena.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're like you know, bees drawn to honey
Speaker 2: in terms of any nuclear signature.
Speaker 3: So he's he's extensively documented that.
Speaker 2: But you know, decades before that, I had the suspicion
Speaker 2: that there's some connection here and that you know, ultimately
Speaker 2: also justifies the classification of UFOs under nuclear secrets classification
Speaker 2: in the United States. So but you know, it was
Speaker 2: when I really started researching the technology of Nazi Germany
Speaker 2: and it's transferred to the United States in the late
Speaker 2: nineteen forties that I found a lot of information that
Speaker 2: I think is corroborative of what you've discovered, and it's
Speaker 2: very disturbing information, frankly, So let me just say it's
Speaker 2: not you know, it's not lost on me that what
Speaker 2: I'm about to share with the you know, listeners is
Speaker 2: deeply disturbing, especially for somebody who loves our country.
Speaker 3: Okay, and this is some stuff.
Speaker 2: That I've also written about in greater detail on my
Speaker 2: sub stack. I have two pieces relevant to it, but
Speaker 2: one is called Nuking the Matrix, and I'll come to
Speaker 2: why I titled it that, and the other one is
Speaker 2: called the breakaway culture. And I think I'm also going
Speaker 2: to probably come out with one more piece timed together
Speaker 2: with whenever you release this conversation that focuses more specifically
Speaker 2: on the nuclear angle.
Speaker 3: So here's the deal.
Speaker 2: Okay, First of all, nuclear weapons were invented by Nazi Germany.
Speaker 2: They were not invented by the United States. Okay, nuclear
Speaker 2: fusion was discovered by Otto Haan and Fritz Strassmann in
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty eight, and I think that by nineteen thirty nine,
Speaker 2: in very short order, they had already recognized the weapons
Speaker 2: application of this. And one thing that few people know
Speaker 2: is that the term Manhattan Project doesn't really come from
Speaker 2: the fact that you know, at Columbia University and at
Speaker 2: Los Alamos in various other places they were trying to
Speaker 2: figure out what the Germans meant by a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: It's because, beginning right there in nineteen thirty nine nineteen forty,
Speaker 2: the Germans had devised a plan to drop one of
Speaker 2: these on Manhattan. And there are these maps that the
Speaker 2: Allies discovered after the war that show Lower Manhattan as
Speaker 2: a nuclear target. They even flew these the largest cargo
Speaker 2: planes that they had, which was the what was it
Speaker 2: the yunkers, the Yunkers JU three ninety, which was a
Speaker 2: comparable nuclear payload capable plane as Thenola Gay that dropped
Speaker 2: the bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki. They flew these Yunkers three
Speaker 2: ninety right to the coast of Manhattan, photographed Manhattan.
Speaker 3: And flew back to Germany, in other words, as a
Speaker 3: kind of test run.
Speaker 2: So Manhattan Project comes from this, the term Manhattan Project.
Speaker 2: And I think there's good evidence to suggest and this
Speaker 2: evidence has been dug up primarily by let's say three researchers.
Speaker 2: One is Plimpton Carter Heidrich, who wrote a book called
Speaker 2: Critical Mass. Then you had this German author who wrote
Speaker 2: a book called Hitler's Bomb. What was this guy's name,
Speaker 2: I'll come back to it, but the book is called
Speaker 2: Hitler's Bomb. And then of course Joseph Farrell also has
Speaker 2: researched this, and specifically in his book Reich of the
Speaker 2: Black Sun. So there's evidence to suggest that the Heisenberg
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons program was a ruse and a red herring,
Speaker 2: that the Germans deliberately basically diluted and distracted the Allies
Speaker 2: by fronting this false nuclear program led by the most
Speaker 2: likely candidate. You know, the most brilliant nuclear physicist of Germany,
Speaker 2: you know, Werner Heisenberger, the guy you'd expect to be
Speaker 2: running the program, but that actually there was another secret
Speaker 2: program that was run by Kurt Deabner, Walter Gerloch and
Speaker 2: Hans Kammler and Ronald Richter. And so Walter Gerloch is
Speaker 2: important in this regard because Walter gerloch specialization was spin
Speaker 2: polarization and electromagnetic torsion. And Hans Kommler is significant because
Speaker 2: Hans Kammler has been identified as the leader of a
Speaker 2: project outside Prague in Czechoslovakia, in Celicia, where the Reich
Speaker 2: at the Skota Works was constructing this device that says
Speaker 2: hitherto been known as Degloca the bell, or another one
Speaker 2: of its names was the beehive the beaninstock because it
Speaker 2: made a bee buzzing sound when it was activated. And
Speaker 2: what this thing was was two counter rotating drums filled
Speaker 2: with a serum of mercury and thorium isotope and subjected
Speaker 2: to first extreme torsion by electromagnets, and then the plasma
Speaker 2: state that the nuclear isotope would go into would be
Speaker 2: magnetically compressed into fusion. That's what this bell device seems
Speaker 2: to have been. And meanwhile you've got Walter Gerloch also
Speaker 2: on this project, associated with Hans Kammler, specializing in spin
Speaker 2: polarization and electromagnetic mechanisms. Now there's a particular document in
Speaker 2: the National Archives that's really relevant here. It's called the
Speaker 2: Zenser Affidavid. It's an affidavit of a German pilot by
Speaker 2: the name Hans Zenser, who was We have in this
Speaker 2: memo the specific location that he took off from and
Speaker 2: what his flight root was, and the observation that he
Speaker 2: made in October of nineteen forty four of a detonation
Speaker 2: on the Baltic Sea coast of Germany where he saw
Speaker 2: a mushroom cloud with a pressure wave extending out from it,
Speaker 2: and inside the mushroom cloud various multi color lights fizzling,
Speaker 2: which is a sign of leftover fissile material continuing to
Speaker 2: react in a mushroom cloud. He also experienced the emp
Speaker 2: effects his radio went out as he was flying near
Speaker 2: this detonation. So it appears that what Hans Zinser is
Speaker 2: describing an October of nineteen forty four is some kind
Speaker 2: of a Nazi nuclear test. It'd be one thing if
Speaker 2: that was the only piece of documentation we have. There's
Speaker 2: also a report from an Italian journalist called Luigi Romersa,
Speaker 2: and what Luigi Romersa tells us is that Benito Mussolini
Speaker 2: sent him and a few other Italian dignitaries to Rugen
Speaker 2: Island in the Baltic Sea on October eleventh, nineteen forty four,
Speaker 2: and he says that when he got there, he saw
Speaker 2: there were a few other Italian dignitaries also sent by Mussolini,
Speaker 2: and there were some Japanese dignitaries. And what Romersa claims
Speaker 2: is that the Germans had them, quote unquote, put on
Speaker 2: something that looked like diving suits and go into a
Speaker 2: bonker on Rugen Island, and they witnessed the detonation of
Speaker 2: a device that flattened a bunch of the trees and
Speaker 2: some structures that they had set up there, I guess
Speaker 2: for structural stress tests. And after this they had to
Speaker 2: take shelter for a certain period of time, and then
Speaker 2: Romersa was flown to Berlin to be debriefed before he
Speaker 2: was sent back to Mussolini.
Speaker 3: I believe there are also.
Speaker 2: Some Japanese communicates that were in intercepted by the Allies
Speaker 2: around the same time where the Japanese are talking about
Speaker 2: a German test of a tremendous new weapon that had
Speaker 2: taken place. So we have two different accounts of this
Speaker 2: event from let's say October eleven to twelve on Rugen
Speaker 2: Island in the Baltic Sea. And then we have another
Speaker 2: account which comes from this guy Rayner Karl's book, Hitler's Bomb,
Speaker 2: of potentially a second test in March of nineteen forty
Speaker 2: five in an area known as the Thuringian Forest, near
Speaker 2: a town called Ordruf in the Thuringian Forest region. And interestingly,
Speaker 2: when the Allies were advancing on Nazi Germany, Hitler, Hitler
Speaker 2: whatever whoever was actually in charge at that point, which I,
Speaker 2: by the way, I don't think was Hitler, they prioritized
Speaker 2: the defense of this area over the defense of Berlin.
Speaker 2: They prioritize the defense of the Thuringian Forest area and
Speaker 2: of the Skoda works where Kammler was building the bell
Speaker 2: over the defense of Berlin, which tells you a lot.
Speaker 2: So apparently radiation tests in this area of the Thuringian
Speaker 2: Forest have picked up like traces of you know, potentially
Speaker 2: a nuclear detonation having taken place there.
Speaker 3: And there are.
Speaker 2: Witness accounts of German soldiers saying that like they brought
Speaker 2: concentration camp inmates there and their shadows were impressed on
Speaker 2: the stones like you would have seen it, you know, Hiroshima.
Speaker 2: But it was a very small blast. From witness accounts,
Speaker 2: it would have been something like three kilotons. So you
Speaker 2: have these, you know, accounts of German potential nuclear tests.
Speaker 2: Then there's the fact that, and this is coming mainly
Speaker 2: from Carter Heydrich's book Critical Mass, the memos exchanged between
Speaker 2: Oakridge and Los Alamo's laboratories in the months leading up
Speaker 2: to the Trinity test in July nineteen forty five showed
Speaker 2: that there wasn't anywhere near enough you we did not
Speaker 2: have anywhere near enough uranium for the Trinity device or
Speaker 2: for the Hiroshima bomb.
Speaker 3: The Nagasaki bomb was plutonium. And also they hadn't figured
Speaker 3: out the trigger mechanism properly for the Nagasaki bomb, the
Speaker 3: plutonium bomb. So lo and behold.
Speaker 2: In May of nineteen forty five, this German submarine comes
Speaker 2: over and on board is a nicely wrapped gift of
Speaker 2: a shit ton of uranium, and this guy Schlick, I
Speaker 2: think his name was Hans Schlick, who was an expert
Speaker 2: in the timing of plutonium bomb detonation, in other words,
Speaker 2: the equal application of the charge over the fisile material
Speaker 2: in the plutonium. But this was his expertise, and he
Speaker 2: just happens to be on the submarine with a shit
Speaker 2: ton of uranium which never was accounted for, and all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, our deficit of uranium that we see
Speaker 2: in the memos between Oakridge and Los Alamos is solved,
Speaker 2: and we do the trinity test, and you know, we
Speaker 2: manufacture the Hiroshima bomb. By the way, the Hiroshima bum
Speaker 2: design was never tested before we dropped it in Japan.
Speaker 2: Really yeah, that particular one was never tested. The plutonium
Speaker 2: one had been tested, but the uranium one wasn't. Why
Speaker 2: didn't we test Probably because we knew that it.
Speaker 3: Would work, because the Germans had already tested it.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's really compelling. And so I want to touch
Speaker 1: on a couple of those things that you said, which is,
Speaker 1: first of all, with the connection of nuclear weapons. I
Speaker 1: agree with you that there is this lore of the
Speaker 1: UFOs being connected to nukes and the idea goes that,
Speaker 1: you know, I think if you believe like Robert Bob Solace,
Speaker 1: for example, has got a pretty famous story about the
Speaker 1: UFOs shutting down nukes. So there's been this connection even
Speaker 1: with the nuclear power plant meltdown in Japan as well,
Speaker 1: that they claimed that they saw UFOs over that. But
Speaker 1: it always felt like there's gotta be more to it,
Speaker 1: which is why why I'm really glad we're doing a
Speaker 1: deep dive into this here, because I think you can
Speaker 1: just directly connect UFOs to nukes in a much more
Speaker 1: significant way, starting with the energy source and also with
Speaker 1: the classifications, because when we look at it, we go
Speaker 1: why is the Department of Energy the lead? Why are
Speaker 1: they over the UFO topic? If it's about aliens, it
Speaker 1: wouldn't wouldn't it be like literally anybody but the Department
Speaker 1: of Energy that would be in charge of it. But no,
Speaker 1: it's the Department of Energy because the question is what
Speaker 1: is the power source for these UFOs that are flying around?
Speaker 1: And then connecting it to the I mean, I'm going
Speaker 1: to give you even more to connect it to what
Speaker 1: you just said, just corroborate some of the stuff that
Speaker 1: you're saying here is that Heisenberg. Heisenberg was actually Frii
Speaker 1: Wrot Winnerberg's mentor, the guy that I was just mentioning
Speaker 1: whose textbook I read about thermonuclear weapons, that was his mentor.
Speaker 1: Was Heisenberg. That Heisenberg, the guy that we pulled over
Speaker 1: from Project paper Clip. And the shadows on the walls
Speaker 1: that you described that story that spooks me because that
Speaker 1: reminds me so much of them. Ah three seven zero
Speaker 1: video where you see the reflection of the plane, because
Speaker 1: it's if I'm right, and that's a we're looking at
Speaker 1: total internal reflection where which is just a physics phenomenon
Speaker 1: of waves, and you could see how if they use
Speaker 1: some kind of fusion bomb or experimental nuclear weapon on people,
Speaker 1: maybe it wormholed them somewhere else or rip them to
Speaker 1: shreds or something, and all that was left was their
Speaker 1: shadow on the wall, which is, like you said, horrific
Speaker 1: to even think about. I mean a lot of what
Speaker 1: we're talking about here, guys, is might trigger you if
Speaker 1: you are sensitive to any of these topics. So I apologize.
Speaker 1: The other thing I want to say is the deglock
Speaker 1: the Deglox connection is obviously been connected to the UFO
Speaker 1: phenomenon for a while. I find it to be the
Speaker 1: most credible explanation for anti gravity research. If you go
Speaker 1: back in the history of anti gravity research in general,
Speaker 1: you lead back to that. Two things that you mentioned
Speaker 1: related to it that I think hold a lot of
Speaker 1: weight when it comes to the physics. One is the buzz,
Speaker 1: the buzzing sound that it makes. Why is there a
Speaker 1: buzz Because we're using pulsed current. So when you use
Speaker 1: high frequency pulse current, is gonna sound just like a
Speaker 1: buzzing sound, just like a be wo sound. And that
Speaker 1: seems to be a very consistent requirement. And a lot
Speaker 1: of this anti gravitational or gravitational manipulation technology that I
Speaker 1: find is that you need to take a pulse current
Speaker 1: and you need to flow it through that potentially very
Speaker 1: high frequencies. Salvator Paist was actually just on my podcast
Speaker 1: last week talking about this idea that time itself is
Speaker 1: connected to frequency, and that if you have a rapid
Speaker 1: change or increase in frequency, you can potentially have a
Speaker 1: reversed and pooral excursion, which means that you can actually
Speaker 1: reverse the flow of time if you rapidly shift your frequency,
Speaker 1: which could then explain really all these anti gravitational effects
Speaker 1: that we're seeing. And then the last thing is the mercury,
Speaker 1: the mercury aspect spinning mercury, and I think you said
Speaker 1: thorium as well. But one thing I found was really
Speaker 1: interesting from a video I was watching a very smart
Speaker 1: individual who was doing research into plasma physics and like
Speaker 1: photon plasma physics, messing with light and stuff like that
Speaker 1: to get plasma to light up and to follow certain paths.
Speaker 1: He said that metal could almost be considered a plasma
Speaker 1: because if you look at what it requires to be
Speaker 1: a plasma, plasma has free electrons. We've ripped the electrons
Speaker 1: off of our atom, and so now we've got our
Speaker 1: free electrons, and we got this soup of electrons and
Speaker 1: positively charged ions together. And metal actually has a very
Speaker 1: high electron drift rate, so the electrons relatively free in
Speaker 1: metal as well. So you could actually imagine that there
Speaker 1: could be like a phase transition that happens in the
Speaker 1: mercury or what have you that basically has it act
Speaker 1: like a plasma.
Speaker 2: Now at that exactly, and also notice that mercury is
Speaker 2: particularly electromagnetically reactive, so for tortion, it's ideal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you can even just see if you go
Speaker 1: on X or on social media, you'll find videos of
Speaker 1: people just taking mercury and connecting a circuit to it
Speaker 1: and then it just are to spin, you know, starts
Speaker 1: to spin as well. So I find all of that
Speaker 1: to have a huge amount of credibility with respect to
Speaker 1: the kind of story. So I guess what we're saying
Speaker 1: here is that, or at least the story is being presented,
Speaker 1: is that the United States basically stole nuclear weapons from
Speaker 1: the Nazis.
Speaker 2: Well, let me give you a few more data points
Speaker 2: before we still lead jump to conclusion, because I think
Speaker 2: the picture is even darker than that. Okay, okay, now
Speaker 2: before I'm going to lay out a couple more very
Speaker 2: specific data points that have to do with this. But
Speaker 2: just as a as a preface to that, I can
Speaker 2: only say this in a really abbreviated form right now,
Speaker 2: because otherwise we're going to go down the whole other
Speaker 2: rabbit hole. But let me point people to again a
Speaker 2: couple of articles on my substack, one called the Breakaway
Speaker 2: Culture and the other one Nuking the Matrix, in which
Speaker 2: I discussed this. I also discussed it in my book
Speaker 2: Closer encounters that people always talk about Operation paper Clip.
Speaker 2: They get that the Central Intelligence Agency was created through
Speaker 2: the integration of General Reinhardt Galen's Eastern European Nazi spy
Speaker 2: network into the OSS. Okay, Because we had to then
Speaker 2: shift our focus to the Soviet Union as the enemy,
Speaker 2: and the Nazis already had an extensive spy network in
Speaker 2: Eastern Europe behind Soviet enemy lines, the OSS made a
Speaker 2: deal to incorporate Galen's entire network into the United States,
Speaker 2: which became foundational for the CIA. Okay, So the CIA
Speaker 2: that's conducting paper Clip and bringing over all these Nazi
Speaker 2: scientists is an organization now co constituted by.
Speaker 3: SS officers, you follow.
Speaker 2: Okay, Now, what cards did General Galen have to play
Speaker 2: in order to make that deal? What cards did Martin
Speaker 2: Bormann have to play when somehow he convinced our allies,
Speaker 2: the British, particularly you know agent Ian Fleming, who went
Speaker 2: on to write the Bond Novels to facilitate eight Bormont's
Speaker 2: evacuation to Argentina, where Bormon, Martin Bormon, went on to
Speaker 2: have a joint bank account with one Paron into the
Speaker 2: nineteen sixties. Bormon, who supposedly died three times. There's three
Speaker 2: conflicting accounts of his death. Is still writing checks in
Speaker 2: his own name in Buenos Aires through Chase Bank in
Speaker 2: the late nineteen sixties. Okay, and he's got a joint
Speaker 2: bank account, joint Swiss bank account with one paron. All right,
Speaker 2: all that's necessary preface for the couple of data points
Speaker 2: that I'm going to give you now. In nineteen forty six,
Speaker 2: one year before Roswell, there are news reports coming out
Speaker 2: of Spain, some of which were translated into the United
Speaker 2: States and did appear. I've seen the clippings in English,
Speaker 2: also talking about how Atto Skorzeny, the master of psychological
Speaker 2: operations of the Reich, is in Spain with General Francisco Franco,
Speaker 2: the only remaining Fascist lead in Europe, and they're launching
Speaker 2: quote rocket shaped saucers unquote toward the United States. And
Speaker 2: these rocket shaped saucers are quote nuclear powered unquote. It
Speaker 2: says it in the newspaper reports nuclear powered saucer shaped rockets.
Speaker 2: Because I didn't know what the fuck to call these things, right,
Speaker 2: so that's what they called them.
Speaker 3: And lo and behold. A year later Roswell.
Speaker 2: Okay, and what's found in the roswell Craft velcrow kevlar
Speaker 2: night vision. Does this shit sound like you know, space
Speaker 2: alien technology to you, No, it sounds like what the
Speaker 2: Germans were testing in the North African desert cutting edge,
Speaker 2: you know, German military technology. So there's that as one
Speaker 2: data point. Now another data point. Nineteen fifty to fifty one,
Speaker 2: the German nuclear physicist Ronald Richter is in Bariloche, Argentina,
Speaker 2: with the protection and backing of one Parone who is
Speaker 2: promising the Argentine people that Richter will use this massive
Speaker 2: facility that's been built on Humo Island off Bariloche to
Speaker 2: produce fusion, clean, clean nuclear fusion power for Argentinians in
Speaker 2: the form of get this one Leader or half Leader
Speaker 2: devices One Leader half Leader devices with clean nuclear fusion.
Speaker 2: In nineteen fifty two, the IAEA and local Argentines do
Speaker 2: a whole investigation into this and they say, no, we
Speaker 2: don't understand what the fuck this is. This isn't any
Speaker 2: fusion that we understand this. It must be a fraud,
Speaker 2: and the whole thing goes black. After that, Ricter remains
Speaker 2: under one Paron's personal protection, but this technology is never
Speaker 2: shared with the Argentine people, and eventually Richter goes to
Speaker 2: all kinds of interesting places Libya and other places. You know,
Speaker 2: the Germans also had an interesting footprint in the Arab
Speaker 2: world after World War Two. But then he comes back
Speaker 2: and he lives out the rest of his life in
Speaker 2: peace in Argentina. So what was this clean fusion? And
Speaker 2: by the way, to the day he died, Ronald Richter
Speaker 2: said it was not a fraud. I was not lying.
Speaker 2: This was a real technology, and you know, we did
Speaker 2: this thing. So and when they went into his facility,
Speaker 2: what they found were extremely high voltage electro magnets that
Speaker 2: were being used to compress plasma. Okay, that's nineteen fifty one. Wow,
Speaker 2: we achieved dirty fusion neutronic fusion in nineteen fifty two.
Speaker 2: What this suggests is that people well placed in the
Speaker 2: US intelligence community and probably a large number of corporatists
Speaker 2: who backed the rise of the Nazis in the first place.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about the Rockefellers, the Carlisles, the Bush family,
Speaker 2: and you know the people who set up the OSS.
Speaker 2: These people made a deal with Martin Bormann and Hans Kammler,
Speaker 2: and they had access to the kind of technology that
Speaker 2: the Bell Project represented, and the kind of technology that
Speaker 2: Ronald Richter was continuing to develop in Bariloche, and the
Speaker 2: kind of technology that was on board those sauce or
Speaker 2: shaped rockets that you know, Otto Skorzeni was launching across
Speaker 2: the Atlantic from Spain toward the United States. So what
Speaker 2: that presents to you is an argument for the Germans
Speaker 2: having achieved a neutronic nuclear fusion plasma fusion by nineteen
Speaker 2: fifty one. Now that makes a lot more sense out
Speaker 2: of why they would have been willing to give up
Speaker 2: the A bomb to America, because they had something that
Speaker 2: made atomic bombs look like matchsticks by comparison.
Speaker 1: And that's the same exact thing that you'll see some
Speaker 1: of these Black Project engineers say all the time. They'll
Speaker 1: say zero point energy makes nuclear weapons look like firecrackers. Right,
Speaker 1: So they're saying the same thing about UFO zero point
Speaker 1: energy technology that we're saying about fusion bombs. You just
Speaker 1: had something that really spooked to me. By the way,
Speaker 1: you mentioned the Carlisle Group, and the Carlisle Group was
Speaker 1: actually part of a private consortium of equity firms that
Speaker 1: acquired Freescale Semiconductors in two thousand and six for seventeen
Speaker 1: point six billion dollars. Twenty engineers from that company were
Speaker 1: on the plane Malaysian Airlines Flight three seven zero that
Speaker 1: disappeared without a trace. That there's two videos of the
Speaker 1: plane being zapped by I can only describe plasma orbs,
Speaker 1: which I think is an anutronic fusion bomb that they
Speaker 1: used on the plane. So if that that is true,
Speaker 1: then you could almost draw a direct connection between the
Speaker 1: people that have figured out fusion and covered it up
Speaker 1: since nineteen fifty three and twenty fourteen, when a plane
Speaker 1: full of engineers flying to China happens to just disappear
Speaker 1: off the face of the earth and no one seems
Speaker 1: to know what happened to it anymore. Let me address
Speaker 1: a couple of things that you just mentioned, though, because
Speaker 1: you brought some really great points here, and we're starting
Speaker 1: now to get into how did the United States incorporate
Speaker 1: the Nazi technology, the Nazi intelligence and engineers and information
Speaker 1: from them. Joseph P. Ferrell I actually was able to
Speaker 1: finally communicate with him a little bit on email. Brilliant guy.
Speaker 1: He mentions Ronald Richter and the idea of clean fusion
Speaker 1: in some of his interviews. Before I talk about that, though,
Speaker 1: I want to say that, going back to the UFO
Speaker 1: topic excuse me, related to like the flying saucer that
Speaker 1: you just mentioned. Isn't it kind of interesting how UFOs
Speaker 1: have seemingly changed shape in the last thirty years. Like
Speaker 1: in the nineties, when I was younger, it was all
Speaker 1: about flying saucers. That's what everybody was seeing, that's what
Speaker 1: everybody was reporting, And that seems to go back to
Speaker 1: the deglock et cetera. But now I don't nobody really
Speaker 1: talks about flying saucers anymore. Now it's all about plasma
Speaker 1: ORBS energy ORBS, et cetera. So are the aliens getting
Speaker 1: smarter and advancing while they're watching us? Or is it
Speaker 1: really just us getting better and getting more advanced? And
Speaker 1: now we're going from rudimentary gravity manipulation technology to really
Speaker 1: getting more advanced with microengineering, microelectronics, fabrication of microchips, things
Speaker 1: like that, to the point now where we can make
Speaker 1: some pretty scarily advanced stuff. That's just the thought. But
Speaker 1: I want to mention right now the clean fusion because
Speaker 1: this is like the second half.
Speaker 3: Real Q, really quick, just real quick.
Speaker 2: On that note, I saw your interview with Salvator Paies,
Speaker 2: the recent one, which was fantastic.
Speaker 3: I love that guy's attitude.
Speaker 2: He mentioned at one point, and you are surprised about
Speaker 2: biological organic components of computational systems, and you know there
Speaker 2: there recently have been stories about growing let's say, uh,
Speaker 2: neuronal organisms like you know, brain and a Petri dish
Speaker 2: kind of stuff, like growing aspects or elements of a
Speaker 2: human brain and connecting it to microchips and developing a
Speaker 2: hybrid you know, cybernetic.
Speaker 3: Computational system which.
Speaker 2: Would incorporate the quantum computational properties of the human brain
Speaker 2: together with the binary computational properties of like microchip you
Speaker 2: know based system.
Speaker 1: The brain chips are coming, and so is the like
Speaker 1: biological engineering. That's probably why we've banned cloning and why
Speaker 1: we've tribably put this huge stigma on like the nots
Speaker 1: trying to develop the perfect soul, the super soldier, because
Speaker 1: that's where this is all going. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: all headed in a direction where we are going to
Speaker 1: integrate with advanced the machine intelligence, and there are gonna
Speaker 1: be people that are being born where you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a question of, hey, do you want to have a
Speaker 1: brain chimp and planted in you when you're a baby,
Speaker 1: or are you gonna opt out of the of this?
Speaker 1: And if you're opted in now you have a permanent
Speaker 1: connection to everybody else. You have an Internet in your
Speaker 1: mind that you can just you know, communicate with anybody
Speaker 1: you want all the time. I think that's totally wild.
Speaker 1: But going back to the main topic here, the clean fusion.
Speaker 1: To me, that's the big secret. And so when you
Speaker 1: mentioned that oh Richter was promising clean fusion for the world,
Speaker 1: we had dirty fusion. So let me explain what this
Speaker 1: is for the audience, just in case they're not familiar.
Speaker 1: The thing that releases the radiation and the heat in
Speaker 1: the fusion bomb is the neutrons. The neutrons get released,
Speaker 1: and the neutrons are the heat. Those are the radiation.
Speaker 1: So when they talk about a clean fusion bomb, which
Speaker 1: you hear this referenced all the time, clean fusion, clean
Speaker 1: fusion bomb. But people go, what does that mean? That
Speaker 1: means there's no neutrons or minimum neutrons that are being
Speaker 1: released in the interaction. Turns out this is a real thing.
Speaker 1: It's called a neutronic fusion. That's the name for it.
Speaker 1: There are several companies that are actually doing this right now,
Speaker 1: including Trialpha Energy and Helium Fusion. Helium Fusion was initially
Speaker 1: funded by the Department of Energy. They got Mythral Capital,
Speaker 1: Peter Thiel's company that invested in them, and now Sam
Speaker 1: Altman is the chairman of Helium Fusion as well. And
Speaker 1: the way that it works is it comes down to
Speaker 1: the fuel source that you use. So it was actually
Speaker 1: Joseph P. Farrell clip that I was watching where I
Speaker 1: think he says it was Richter that I believe was
Speaker 1: working on the bomb, working on the hydrogen bomb, and
Speaker 1: he goes or he may have been talking about the
Speaker 1: Castle Bravotes. I can't remember the exact contact, but he says,
Speaker 1: I added a little bit of boron to my lithium
Speaker 1: plasma mix. Add a little boron to it, and that's
Speaker 1: how I was able to get this massive reaction. I
Speaker 1: think he was talking about the Castle Bravo detonation. I
Speaker 1: could be wrong on that.
Speaker 3: So because it had a much higher than they anticipated.
Speaker 1: Did They anticipated six megatons I believe, but it was
Speaker 1: like fifteen instead, And so he gets asked, what was
Speaker 1: the thing that you did? Oh, I added a little
Speaker 1: bit of boron. So here you go. There are three
Speaker 1: a neutronic fusion fuels, just three. I found out about
Speaker 1: them because I was taking a look at a two
Speaker 1: thousand and five JANF presentation which is like Joint NASA,
Speaker 1: Air Force, Navy, et cetera. And they're talking about fusion
Speaker 1: the whole PowerPoint and it goes next generation fusion fuels.
Speaker 1: Number one helium three. That stuck out to me because
Speaker 1: I went, wait, isn't everybody talking about mining helium three
Speaker 1: on the moon? Like why do I didn't know what
Speaker 1: we need helium three four? But I'm went, oh, if
Speaker 1: helium three can be used as a new chronic fusion
Speaker 1: fuel clean energy, and then what are the other two?
Speaker 1: One of them wasn't even listed, but the other one
Speaker 1: was boron eleven proton boron eleven fusion is a neutronic
Speaker 1: turns out, this is the goal that helium fusion is
Speaker 1: aiming for. Is they're trying to aim for boron eleven fusion. Now,
Speaker 1: the downside, people say is that it takes a much
Speaker 1: higher temperature to achieve this level of fusion than conventional
Speaker 1: neutronic fusion. And so they say, oh, well, if we
Speaker 1: can't do neutronic fusion, then why would we even bother
Speaker 1: with something that's even more difficult with the temperature requirement,
Speaker 1: energy requirements even higher than that. The third fuel, which
Speaker 1: is harder to find out about, is lithium six lithium seven.
Speaker 1: Turns out, lithium six and lithium seven are used in
Speaker 1: thermonuclear weapons, and so it's very controlled in terms of
Speaker 1: who potentially has access to it. I did do a
Speaker 1: little bit of research and found out that the public
Speaker 1: sentiment is that that lithium won't work for a neutronic
Speaker 1: fusion due to the reaction how much energy is being
Speaker 1: released from it. I'm a little skeptical of those claims,
Speaker 1: just because we're literally using it in thermonuclear weapons. So
Speaker 1: maybe it's just something you mix in there. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: So how does this become clean energy? How does this
Speaker 1: become unlimited energy? Well, the people that realize that we
Speaker 1: people realize that we potentially don't need to hit ignition
Speaker 1: to get over unity from these devices. So helium fusion
Speaker 1: has come out and said, well, we're not even aiming
Speaker 1: for ignition, that we can actually create our electrical system
Speaker 1: that harnesses this energy by recuperating the input energy, just
Speaker 1: like with the electric car, how the electric car breaks
Speaker 1: and recuperates the energy. They so that we can actually
Speaker 1: get the input energy down so low that we can
Speaker 1: achieve excess output energy from creating these plasma reactions at
Speaker 1: a lower temperature than ignition. And an ignition we would say,
Speaker 1: because I've talked to some prominent people, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to say exactly who, but they always ask me, why
Speaker 1: is a neutronic fusion gonna be the answer compared to
Speaker 1: these other fusion companies, And I tell them one, it's
Speaker 1: direct energy conversion. So you say, okay, what does a
Speaker 1: clean h bomb look like? What does that actually look like? Well,
Speaker 1: we just said that a clean bomb has no neutrons
Speaker 1: or minimum neutros, So that means there'll be no heat
Speaker 1: and no radiation, So what does that actually look That
Speaker 1: just means that what you're releasing is pure energy, pure electricity,
Speaker 1: if you want to think of it like that. And
Speaker 1: so I say it, of course, if I'm aiming for fusion,
Speaker 1: shouldn't I be aiming for the thing that produces direct electricity?
Speaker 1: Whereas normal nuclear reactors right now basically just heat up water,
Speaker 1: boil it it creates steam and then we spin a
Speaker 1: turbine with the steam. If you believe David Kirkley, who's
Speaker 1: the CEO of helium Fusion, and I do, then the
Speaker 1: difference in efficiency is about thirty percent of fish agency
Speaker 1: for an a neutronic or a neutronic fusion reaction, and
Speaker 1: an anutronic reaction is ninety percent or higher efficiency and
Speaker 1: direct energy conversion to electricity. So it turns out a
Speaker 1: neutronic fusion is the thing that we all thought about
Speaker 1: when we were kids, how we thought nuclear power work.
Speaker 1: That's actually how it really works. And then if we
Speaker 1: don't need to hit ignition, this is the other big
Speaker 1: critical thing. They say, well, the reason why we're not
Speaker 1: aiming for this is because ignition level of temperature is
Speaker 1: so high and we can't even figure that out. But
Speaker 1: David Kirkley says, no, actually we can. Our optimal run
Speaker 1: temperature is not even at ignition levels. Is that we're
Speaker 1: not with ignition. What we're trying to is make a
Speaker 1: little sun. We're trying to make a sun that self
Speaker 1: perpetuates so that it sits there forever and it just
Speaker 1: keeps going forever. With helium fusion, they're just doing short
Speaker 1: bursts of plasma at each other, so they're not trying
Speaker 1: to get this permanent sun to exist. And when they
Speaker 1: do this, according to their math, they can achieve over
Speaker 1: unity at temperatures that are ten times lower than ignition.
Speaker 1: So this gets around all of the problems that people
Speaker 1: have related to it. And so just to add on
Speaker 1: and kind of close out this thought process is that
Speaker 1: I could absolutely see a world where this gets figured
Speaker 1: out in the fifties, in the sixties, and now we
Speaker 1: have inertial confinement fusion, which is what confining the plasma
Speaker 1: with magnetic fields is all about. We've got inertial confinement fusion.
Speaker 1: But now we've got a major problem on our hands
Speaker 1: here because now we have the answer to unlimited green
Speaker 1: energy for the rest of all of civilization, for the
Speaker 1: rest of all of civilization basically, And it's also tied
Speaker 1: to extremely dangerous weapons, weapons that are beyond what we
Speaker 1: think of as what we did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Speaker 1: Weapons that can potentially manipulate space time itself and could
Speaker 1: annihilate the whole planet, maybe the whole Solar system in
Speaker 1: just the blink of an eye. So this is where
Speaker 1: I want to say. One last thought is that three
Speaker 1: of my favorite authors are Arthur C. Clark, Isaac Asimov,
Speaker 1: and Robert Heinlend Heinland apparently, and all these guys they
Speaker 1: pushed this idea of what did they call it, basically
Speaker 1: hard sci fi, the idea that the science fiction they
Speaker 1: would write would be based on real physics. And Heinland
Speaker 1: believed that the only way that we wouldn't annihilate ourselves
Speaker 1: with thermonuclear winter would be that if we created a
Speaker 1: one world government. How interesting is that given the context
Speaker 1: of the potential secrecy of these weapons, the collusion potentially
Speaker 1: between the Nazis and the United States, and then the
Speaker 1: massive implications of the weapons, which I think I first
Speaker 1: heard you talk about on Danny Jones saying that we
Speaker 1: can't give everybody a time machine because if these weapons
Speaker 1: are able to manipulate space time, now you're giving people
Speaker 1: a literal time machine. So now you've created pretty much
Speaker 1: an ultimate weapon.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, So now I'm going to share something with
Speaker 2: you that's even creepier, and that has to do with
Speaker 2: the potential engineering, re engineering of space time metrics using
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons. Yes, and again I would refer people to
Speaker 2: my essay called nuking the matrix. And I'll tell you
Speaker 2: why I called it that it may surprise many people
Speaker 2: to discover that the first scientist, first serious person to
Speaker 2: ever consider the possibility that we're living inside a computational matrix,
Speaker 2: was the German computer scientist Conrad Zeusa. Conrad Zusa was
Speaker 2: the Nazi Alan Turing, and Turing was racing against Zusa.
Speaker 2: So Zusa actually was in the lead in computer development
Speaker 2: of World War Two, working with much better, smaller transistors
Speaker 2: than the ones that we had. The German subsidiary of
Speaker 2: IBM was found to be about ten years ahead of
Speaker 2: American technology when we went into Nazi Germany. So Conrad
Speaker 2: Zusa is the Nazi Alan Turing.
Speaker 3: And guess what he figures out in the nineteen forties.
Speaker 2: He looks at all the anomalies on the quantum level,
Speaker 2: like wave particle duality and quantum entanglement, and he says,
Speaker 2: you know what this looks like to me? This looks
Speaker 2: like some kind of a efficient computational process. It looks
Speaker 2: to me like a computational system is trying to efficiently
Speaker 2: process information. And that's why we have things like the
Speaker 2: fact that a particle isn't rendered unless it's being observed.
Speaker 2: Comes up with this on the nine teen forties. And
Speaker 2: here's the more disturbing thing that he says. Based on
Speaker 2: the model he develops, which he calls Rechinander realm calculating space.
Speaker 2: In other words, space itself is a calculating medium, he says.
Speaker 3: You know, if this.
Speaker 2: Model is correct, the system generally can render local reality
Speaker 2: very rapidly and consistently and in a stable manner. But
Speaker 2: if it's locally disrupted by an extremely volatile, high entropy event,
Speaker 2: you might.
Speaker 3: Start to see glitches in the matrix.
Speaker 2: They would be observable on the level of quantum experimentation,
Speaker 2: like shooting photons and stuff, you'll start to get experimental
Speaker 2: results that are off if there's a very high entropy
Speaker 2: dynamic event taking place. And what did he consider the
Speaker 2: best candidate for such an event in nuclear explosion.
Speaker 1: Oh, let me add on to that real quick, which
Speaker 1: is so, when I investigated the people that developed the
Speaker 1: H bomb and advanced the H bomb, John Knuckles Lowell Wood,
Speaker 1: for example, they actually proposed paper in nineteen seventy four
Speaker 1: to test general relativity using thermonuclear weapons. And what were
Speaker 1: they implying? The exact same thing that you just said,
Speaker 1: that thermonuclear weapons might be manipulating space time, they might
Speaker 1: be producing gravitational ripples, gravitational waves. Why were they thinking
Speaker 1: that in nineteen seventy four, Why were they publishing public
Speaker 1: scientific papers about that. They had to have known that
Speaker 1: that's exactly what was going on. And this is where
Speaker 1: I say, oh, my goodness, it must the UFO topic
Speaker 1: must be connected to nukes. And let me even take
Speaker 1: it a step further, because now in retrospect, to me,
Speaker 1: it's obvious. You go, wait a minute, how do they
Speaker 1: say that we would manipulate space time? How would we
Speaker 1: manipulate gravity? Well, we need a huge amount of mass,
Speaker 1: they say. In order to make a wormhole, we need
Speaker 1: the mass of Jupiter right here. If I had a
Speaker 1: massive je if I had a Jupiter right here, then
Speaker 1: space time would be getting bents all around Jupiter because
Speaker 1: it's producing all this grap We all understand that. Take
Speaker 1: it to the next level, Einstein said, E equals mc squared.
Speaker 1: That means there's an exchange of energy and mass. That means,
Speaker 1: when we talk about these calculations, we can interchange mass
Speaker 1: and energy with one another. That means we don't just
Speaker 1: need the mass of Jupiter. We can take the energy
Speaker 1: mass of Jupiter and that will do the exact same thing. Now,
Speaker 1: what were we doing with thermonuclear weapons, Well, we were
Speaker 1: trying to make them very, very powerful. Remember we just
Speaker 1: said about Castle Bravo. It was two and a half
Speaker 1: times more powerful than what we expected. And then we
Speaker 1: took it even further. Then John Knuckles in the sixties said,
Speaker 1: you know what, I can make it even more efficient.
Speaker 1: If I use geometry and get our waves to collapse
Speaker 1: perfectly onto a point, I can amplify that even higher,
Speaker 1: increase the gain, increase the amount of energy output relative
Speaker 1: to the amount of energy input. So now you have
Speaker 1: to start to wonder, Wait, how much did they really
Speaker 1: amplify that energy, and especially if they did it anutronically,
Speaker 1: which is three times more efficient than neutronic fusion bomb
Speaker 1: might be last thought is this So now we've connected, Okay,
Speaker 1: we can potentially get this huge amount of energy, which
Speaker 1: is what we would need to manipulate space time. But
Speaker 1: are there scientific papers that support it? Yeah? There is.
Speaker 1: In fact, there's a really famous one by a guy
Speaker 1: named Harold Pudoff where Timbershet of Congress held up his
Speaker 1: scientific paper in twenty twenty three during the UFO hearing,
Speaker 1: he said, here's a little light reading for you. What
Speaker 1: is the name of that paper, Polarizable Vacuum Model Spacetime
Speaker 1: metric Engineering by hal Putoff, And in that he says
Speaker 1: that we can unify electromagnetism in general relativity. And this
Speaker 1: basic idea is that electromagnetism will manipulate space time to
Speaker 1: zero point energy to allow anti gravity manipulation as well
Speaker 1: as potentially a wormhole in theory. So now we've got
Speaker 1: all the basis to put it all together. Plus just
Speaker 1: another little tidbit for you. I just watched a video
Speaker 1: or hal Putoff is sitting next to Edward Teller at
Speaker 1: dinner telling him his theories. And you're sitting here going,
Speaker 1: wait a minute. People are saying, Edward Teller is like
Speaker 1: the guy that knows all the secrets. Right. They had
Speaker 1: probably a whole crisis of conscience when the guy who
Speaker 1: died because we had to pass these secrets onto somebody else.
Speaker 1: So why is hal Putoff now sitting in the meeting
Speaker 1: with him? So this is where I think you can
Speaker 1: pretty much draw a straight line between thermonuclear weapons directly
Speaker 1: to space time manipulation and the UFO topic.
Speaker 2: Good, yes, and I can add a couple of elements
Speaker 2: to that that even fill out the physics in a
Speaker 2: more compelling way.
Speaker 3: You have to add the work that was done by.
Speaker 2: Ralph Landauer in the nineteen sixties, also a German, although
Speaker 2: a Jewish German who was escaping the Nazis, and then
Speaker 2: John Archibald Wheeler. And what took place between Ralph Landauer
Speaker 2: and John Archibald Wheeler was the recognition that it's not
Speaker 2: just energy and matter that are interconvertible, you know, ala Einstein.
Speaker 2: They realized that there's a third term in this interconvertibility,
Speaker 2: which is information. And this speaks to why you know, observation,
Speaker 2: the the the the integral element of the observer in
Speaker 2: the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics already
Speaker 2: tells us that information processing, namely by an observer, is
Speaker 2: integral to fundamental physics.
Speaker 3: And what.
Speaker 2: John Archibald Wheeler developed, building on Rolf Landauer, was the
Speaker 2: idea that energy and matter are different states of information.
Speaker 3: Now, Conrad Zusa already realized this.
Speaker 2: The Nazi German computer scientists Conrad used in the nineteen
Speaker 2: forties and what zeus say is saying is that when
Speaker 2: a nuclear bomb goes off, the computational system can't catch
Speaker 2: up with the disruption to the normal rendering algorithm, so
Speaker 2: the mesh of the matrix is sheared locally. Now, if
Speaker 2: Wheeler is right, and if what people want more detail,
Speaker 2: I wrote about this in my book Satanion. If Wheeler
Speaker 2: is more If Wheeler is right about this, then what
Speaker 2: we call dark matter is actually an informational cloud. It's
Speaker 2: a form of matter that's not electromagnetically detectable, but that
Speaker 2: contains information and has gravitational effects, massive gravitational effects. Now,
Speaker 2: if we're living in a computational similachrum and the space
Speaker 2: the spatial matrix what Conrad Zusa called the Rechnander around
Speaker 2: the calculating space gets torn locally around the nuclear explosion,
Speaker 2: it could be that that opens up cracks through which
Speaker 2: we have access to dark matter that is much more massive,
Speaker 2: and that dark matter then could warp the space time
Speaker 2: matrix locally in an even more significant way. In other words,
Speaker 2: if our similarchrum is nested inside a larger quantum computational
Speaker 2: system and it's being projected from outside, some kind of
Speaker 2: from out of some kind of cloud informational processing medium
Speaker 2: like dark matter. Cracks in the local space time mesh
Speaker 2: could allow a denser, more gravitationally disruptive form of matter
Speaker 2: to also further impact the.
Speaker 3: Space time.
Speaker 2: In the environs of a nuclear explosion, which brings me to.
Speaker 3: The other thing. Yes, it could be that nukes.
Speaker 2: Are surveiling nuclear power plants and surveiling nuclear stockpiles, and
Speaker 2: there's a great deal of evidence for that that Robert Hastings,
Speaker 2: you know, is laid.
Speaker 3: Out in his book on UFOs and nukes.
Speaker 2: But there's another possibility as well, and they're not mutually exclusive,
Speaker 2: and that's that some of the UFOs that we see,
Speaker 2: you know, Beatrice Villaroil's recent study of the Palomar plates
Speaker 2: from the nineteen fifties seems to suggest that tens of
Speaker 2: thousands of these things would show up, especially like within
Speaker 2: hours of a nuclear explosion. And one possibility is that
Speaker 2: they're coming from other dimensions. That when a nuke locally
Speaker 2: shears the fabric of space time, cracks open that allow
Speaker 2: access to other dimensions, and that you know, craft that
Speaker 2: come from basically other simulacra are breaking through into ours.
Speaker 2: That's also a possibility, and David Lynch played with that
Speaker 2: in a very interesting way in the third season of
Speaker 2: his Twin Peaks television series. It's basically built on this
Speaker 2: idea that you know, beginning in nineteen forty five, when
Speaker 2: we started setting off nukes, we sort of compromise the
Speaker 2: space show temporal fabric in a way that allowed things
Speaker 2: from other dimensions to get in to our world. So
Speaker 2: that's another thing, you know, worth considering here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let me jump out. Yeah, because John Wheeler,
Speaker 1: I mean, guy's a legend. Although he doesn't get probably
Speaker 1: nearly enough credit, he was also one of the help
Speaker 1: developers of the h bomb. Originally, he's the guy that
Speaker 1: coined the term wormhole and black hole. Actually, so when
Speaker 1: he's talking about these concepts, people should probably listen because
Speaker 1: he's one of the people that was on the forefront
Speaker 1: of these ideas back in the fifties and the sixties.
Speaker 1: Out there, I think you conceptualize it very well. Personally,
Speaker 1: I have a slightly different take on the dark energy.
Speaker 1: I just think the dark energy dark matter is just
Speaker 1: zero point energy. It's the latent energy of space time itself.
Speaker 1: And yes, I do think we're absolutely making cracks in it,
Speaker 1: we're bending it, we're manipulating that. I think this you
Speaker 1: could think of as the zero point energy, as space
Speaker 1: time itself, as the reason why there's distance between here
Speaker 1: and I.
Speaker 3: Disagreeing with you at all. I'm not disagreeing with you
Speaker 3: at all.
Speaker 2: No, No, I'm just saying that it's an informational medium.
Speaker 3: Zero an informational medium.
Speaker 1: And let me add to that. So, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if you know about Charles Chase, but he's a legendary
Speaker 1: Lockheed Martin engineer. He was a leader of the Revolutionary
Speaker 1: Technologies division of the Lockheed Martin skunk Works. And I
Speaker 1: know Jesse Michael spoke to him because Jesse Michael said,
Speaker 1: I spoke to the guy who is a leader of
Speaker 1: the Revolutionary Technologies of it, and I'm going I know
Speaker 1: who that guy is. That's Charles Chase. And Charles Chase
Speaker 1: replied to one of my emails. These guys almost never
Speaker 1: replied to my emails, by the way, and when hal
Speaker 1: Pudaff responds, they not only got back like five word
Speaker 1: answers from him, even though I wrote out like the
Speaker 1: whole history of his research. But Charles Chase said something
Speaker 1: really interesting about zero point energy. I actually asked him,
Speaker 1: do you believe in the ether, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: this idea of this extra dimension of energy, and he says,
Speaker 1: I do think the idea of that ether is real.
Speaker 1: And he says, I think that also it has a memory.
Speaker 1: So this speaks directly to what you're saying about space
Speaker 1: time being an informational medium. Is that what Charles Chase
Speaker 1: is implying is that what we do is remembered in
Speaker 1: space time. Space time is rendering kind of what is happening.
Speaker 1: And this is also connected to coherence and decoherence with
Speaker 1: you know, the double slit experiment and quantum mechanics. So
Speaker 1: one more thing I want to say in quant mechanics
Speaker 1: is that tunneling is directly.
Speaker 2: At Nikola Tesla believed that Nikola Tesla became friends with
Speaker 2: Swami Vivekananda and they had long conversations about Sanskrit metaphysics together,
Speaker 2: and Tesla came aloud around to believing that the ether
Speaker 2: was an informational medium that stored.
Speaker 3: Memory, that was, it was a memory storage system.
Speaker 2: And he said, basically, the Hindus were kind of on
Speaker 2: the right track when they called it the Akasha.
Speaker 3: The acoustic record of the cosmos.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me this is perfect. I had this up
Speaker 1: on my screen right here. This is perfect. So I've
Speaker 1: got this thing about Tesla, told Lord Kelvin at his
Speaker 1: visit with the median German freesser Hermann von Helmholtz. Helmholtz
Speaker 1: is pretty famous physicists as well, and they talked about
Speaker 1: the idea of ether and vortex rings. He says in
Speaker 1: the question what passes on the impulse? Kelvin came to
Speaker 1: the conclusion are they are vortices in the ether. With
Speaker 1: that he had found an answer and experience with his students,
Speaker 1: he built boxes with which he could produce smoke rings
Speaker 1: to be able to study and demonstrate and experiments the
Speaker 1: special properties of ring like vortices and their flow. Technical analogy.
Speaker 1: So what these guys believed, these basically pioneers of electromagnetism.
Speaker 1: They believe we were in a medium and they believe
Speaker 1: vortex motions somehow interacted with that medium. I think that
Speaker 1: what we found now recently, especially as if you guys
Speaker 1: look up like optical traps, we're using light to measure vortices,
Speaker 1: and I think that that's what we're essentially doing. But
Speaker 1: with much more advanced technology and experimentation nowadays compared to
Speaker 1: what we did in the past. And I think what
Speaker 1: we're realizing is, yes, there really is a medium, and
Speaker 1: we know it for a fact. The question is how
Speaker 1: do we interact with it in a meaningful way. Salvator
Speaker 1: Paist would say that, and I don't want to be
Speaker 1: speaking for him, but I believe he would say that
Speaker 1: we need to break make our system go far from equilibrium.
Speaker 1: And also I think just from in general my research,
Speaker 1: that you only begin to see some of these effects
Speaker 1: at very high energy levels, which also imply that we
Speaker 1: need this huge energy level to break through that medium.
Speaker 1: You get close enough to that threshold, then you start
Speaker 1: to see those effects, but before that you don't really
Speaker 1: see them. And this is the reason why when people
Speaker 1: are doing small scale experiments for anti gravitational technologies, they
Speaker 1: don't get major effects. This is why, like Eugene Popklanov,
Speaker 1: when he talks about spinning superconductors to produce these thrust
Speaker 1: why it's so easy to debunk it because the measurements
Speaker 1: are so tiny and the margin of air is so
Speaker 1: high that people can say, oh, well, it's just within
Speaker 1: the margin of air. You didn't really prove that the
Speaker 1: thing is real. But this is why high energy physics
Speaker 1: is so important, because the people that are doing the
Speaker 1: highest energy physics, they're going to be the ones that
Speaker 1: are going to see this because you've got to get
Speaker 1: up to this threshold. First, do you have any comments
Speaker 1: on that? And then I have a couple other things ahead.
Speaker 3: Yes, so no, I agree with all of that.
Speaker 2: I agree with the brunt of it, but I would
Speaker 2: like to add this that you know, when you think
Speaker 2: about aneutronic fusion, in other words, clean thermonuclear detonations, you
Speaker 2: also have to realize that the main reason we haven't
Speaker 2: had a nuclear war is because of the danger of fallout, right,
Speaker 2: the danger of radioactive contamination of the areas where detonations
Speaker 2: take place, and then fallout patterns that, because of the
Speaker 2: nature of weather systems, will deposit the radiation over hundreds
Speaker 2: of miles across oceans in some cases. I mean, look
Speaker 2: what happened with Fukushima. I mean cattle in Washington State
Speaker 2: and Oregon were radiated. So the reason we haven't had
Speaker 2: a nuclear war is mainly because of the radiation that
Speaker 2: comes from the fusion, sorry, the fission trigger, the neutronic
Speaker 2: fission trigger in a fusion bomb. That's why nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: were never used on a large scale. Now, if it
Speaker 2: were known that it was possible, and of course this
Speaker 2: is why the Nazis interested in this in the first place, Right,
Speaker 2: I mean, the best nuke is a nuke you can
Speaker 2: set off in a target area and then your soldiers
Speaker 2: can move in immediately without fear of radiation. Right, So,
Speaker 2: if it were known that you could use nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: on a large scale without any danger of radioactive contamination,
Speaker 2: nuclear war would be a lot more likely. Now, consider
Speaker 2: what we were saying about Conrad Zeus's observations, or rather
Speaker 2: Congrad Zeus's speculation about how the extremely high entropy dynamic
Speaker 2: energetic event of a nuclear detonation could shear or compromise
Speaker 2: the rendering of local space time. What would be the
Speaker 2: effects of hundreds of a neutronic thermonuclear weapons going off
Speaker 2: simultaneously on the planet. Could it be that at that point,
Speaker 2: like you see in the movie The Thirteenth Floor, where
Speaker 2: you know, the guy sees the mesh of the matrix,
Speaker 2: He drives to the edge of fake Los Angeles and
Speaker 2: there the road ends and he sees the mesh of
Speaker 2: the matrix. Could it be that if we had a
Speaker 2: global nuclear war from a nuclear war but using a
Speaker 2: neutronic fusion devices, it would so thoroughly fuck up the
Speaker 2: spatiotemporal matrix that we would basically see the mesh of
Speaker 2: the computational system that we're inside of. And maybe that's
Speaker 2: why the entities on the other side of the UFO
Speaker 2: phenomenon are obsessed with making sure that we don't set
Speaker 2: off nuclear weapons on a large scale, because it might
Speaker 2: show us something about the nature of the world that
Speaker 2: we're living in that they don't want us seeing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sorry, So I think that I want to address
Speaker 1: a few of those points, and I do want to
Speaker 1: talk about this idea of breaking the matrix, but a
Speaker 1: couple other points on the science of it real quick.
Speaker 1: On an internal nuclear weaponson with throughout there is tunneling.
Speaker 1: Quantum tunneling is used in fusion. In fact, that's how
Speaker 1: we break the Coulon barrier. So if we have two
Speaker 1: ions that are positively charged, two positively charged things should
Speaker 1: repel each other. So when we get fusion happening, the
Speaker 1: idea is that we're creating so much pressure and heat
Speaker 1: that we're forcing these things together to get over that
Speaker 1: Coulon barrier. Now, if you research cold fusion and some
Speaker 1: theories around cold fusion, you'll find there's a resonance model
Speaker 1: of it that how are we able to get fusion
Speaker 1: to happen at these low temperatures that don't require that?
Speaker 1: And they say, oh, well, it's resonance that will allow
Speaker 1: that to happen at certain resonant frequencies. Just like with
Speaker 1: the diagloc we were talking about pulse frequencies, you have
Speaker 1: your cross section of fusion goes way up, goes way
Speaker 1: up weirdly at certain frequencies. That's what happens. And the
Speaker 1: idea is like, imagine you're like vibrating your hands back
Speaker 1: for at some point like you're gonna be like over
Speaker 1: the top of one another. And this is a quantum
Speaker 1: mechanical effect that we see where we can have two
Speaker 1: things at the same point, where normally we can't have that.
Speaker 1: Every things that are fermions can't generally be at the
Speaker 1: same position. But according to general relativit and quantum mechanics,
Speaker 1: that becomes possible. Now. So the other thing I want
Speaker 1: to point out is computers. You mentioned computers, and this
Speaker 1: idea that nukes are you know, almost you could imagine
Speaker 1: the patterns as being a computational pattern. Well, it turns
Speaker 1: out we were literally building computers for thermonuclear weapons. One
Speaker 1: of the big things that Knuckles was working on when
Speaker 1: he was doing building his H bombs, his clean H bombs,
Speaker 1: was he was doing the computations. They were putting it,
Speaker 1: plugging in old IBM cards to do the computers. So
Speaker 1: you can actually draw a direct line between computer advancement
Speaker 1: and thermonuclear weapons. Then John Kramer, he's an experimental nuclear
Speaker 1: physicist out of a University of Washington, he said he
Speaker 1: got asked, and it was one of my favorite clips
Speaker 1: where he gets asked, what do they use quantum computer for?
Speaker 1: Nobody really knows what they're practically using quantum computers for,
Speaker 1: and he goes, oh, use it for nuclear weapons calculations.
Speaker 1: The computer can do the calculations, these complex integrals just
Speaker 1: like that, where it's very extremely difficult, time intensive for
Speaker 1: a human being to try to do those things. I'm
Speaker 1: just sitting here going, I mean, you you just told
Speaker 1: me the secret here, which is that, like we developed
Speaker 1: computers for nuclear weapons and then we needed quantum computers
Speaker 1: that were even more powerful to be able to do
Speaker 1: these complex integrals and these fusion reactions with quantum tunneling
Speaker 1: and stuff happening, and we needed to be able to
Speaker 1: react in real time too, as our plasma is like,
Speaker 1: you know, interacting what have you? Is that That's I
Speaker 1: think where AI and quantum computers come from is probably
Speaker 1: that direct technology. And so absolutely I could see a
Speaker 1: situation where we're afraid for multiple reasons. This is where
Speaker 1: I want to start to move to the geopolitics side
Speaker 1: of this, which is what are the implications if we're right,
Speaker 1: this hypothesis is true that thermonuclear weapons are able to
Speaker 1: manipulate space time. Now we're talking about time travel and
Speaker 1: a lot of people ask me, what is the impact
Speaker 1: on the zero point energy on space time itself? If
Speaker 1: we're doing this, will the zero point energy just kind
Speaker 1: of come in and fill the gaps? And if so,
Speaker 1: is there a limit to that? Are we using up
Speaker 1: all of the space time when we're you know, either
Speaker 1: pulling energy from it or doing these detonations. Is it
Speaker 1: impacting other realities? Are there other realities? And is there
Speaker 1: a multiverse? And then the bigger thing and to me
Speaker 1: that I think that honestly, seeing the matrix is the
Speaker 1: least the thing I'm least afraid of. The thing I'm
Speaker 1: more afraid of is someone's gonna mess up the time
Speaker 1: stream and we're gonna get caught in some kind of
Speaker 1: time loop. Hell, maybe we are. Maybe our reality is
Speaker 1: a time loop where somebody did something like that. So
Speaker 1: those are just some of my thoughts.
Speaker 3: What do you think, Oh, I agree with all of it.
Speaker 2: I think that our timeline has been broken and we're
Speaker 2: already in some fucked up time loop or buros serpent
Speaker 2: eating its own tail kind of thing that you see
Speaker 2: like in the German TV series Dark. And then about
Speaker 2: us messing up other realities with nuclear weapons detonations. You know,
Speaker 2: I have often accused the Nordics who appear to contact
Speaker 2: these in the nineteen fifties of being extremely duplicitous, deceptive individuals. However,
Speaker 2: I do have to note that one of the things
Speaker 2: that they did say to multiple contact these was you've
Speaker 2: got to stop these nuclear detonations because they're messing with
Speaker 2: the world that we come from in ways that you
Speaker 2: don't understand.
Speaker 3: So who knows me.
Speaker 1: There's a theory called the twin paradox or twin universe
Speaker 1: theory too, which is the idea of like there's always
Speaker 1: duality in physics, So you have positive charge, you have
Speaker 1: minus charge, and we see that everywhere in physics, So
Speaker 1: why wouldn't there be like an alternate flip side of
Speaker 1: our reality like in the Stranger Things, you know, what
Speaker 1: are they called the underworld or whatever they call it,
Speaker 1: So you could see, like, what if this situation is
Speaker 1: like we're every what if all the energy we barre
Speaker 1: is an energy from another universe and with the energy
Speaker 1: they borrows energy from our universe, And so you could
Speaker 1: see a situation where like we do something like that,
Speaker 1: and yes, maybe we're either opening a hole to that
Speaker 1: universe or we're just taking from that universe. Those are
Speaker 1: just some thoughts that I personally had when I thought
Speaker 1: about this idea of like why the UFOs would show
Speaker 1: up if they do come from another dimension. But my
Speaker 1: personal opinion, and this is the thing where we can't
Speaker 1: know the truth until we like experiment it, of course obviously,
Speaker 1: but my opinion is that there isn't another Bizarro dimension,
Speaker 1: but there is another dimension that's out there, and the
Speaker 1: dimension is how we can basically take a shortcut through
Speaker 1: our perceivable reality, like I use that extra dimension to
Speaker 1: hop to Mars and now I'm just on Mars instantly,
Speaker 1: as opposed to you know, six months or three months later,
Speaker 1: however it gets over there. But even in the scenario
Speaker 1: like that, you could still say that the Aliens are
Speaker 1: extra dimensional if they're coming from you know, you know,
Speaker 1: the Andromeda Galaxy, which would be completely impracticle from a
Speaker 1: distance perspective for us to get to without some sort
Speaker 1: of extra dimensional space hop if you want to think
Speaker 1: of it like that, a couple last.
Speaker 2: Topics, A bit of a word game becomes a bit
Speaker 2: of a word game at that point, because yes, I mean,
Speaker 2: if they're using extra dimensions to get here from Mars
Speaker 2: or from Andromeda or wherever, then technically speaking it's extra
Speaker 2: dimensional because they're using an extra dimension to get here,
Speaker 2: just like you know, if there are humans on Mars,
Speaker 2: and let's say there were humans on Mars, you know,
Speaker 2: one hundred million years ago the way that you know,
Speaker 2: John Brandenburg thinks there's evidence for that, and you know,
Speaker 2: the the Viking Probe brought back these photos of ruins
Speaker 2: that were subsequently used as remote viewing targets that showed
Speaker 2: you know multiple remote viewing teams that there were humans
Speaker 2: living on Mars one hundred million years ago.
Speaker 3: Now, if those humans use.
Speaker 2: You know, extra dimensional jump gates to get to places
Speaker 2: on Earth, then they're both extraterrestrial because they're coming from
Speaker 2: Mars technically even though they're human, and they're extra dimensional
Speaker 2: because they're using another dimension to get here. Right, So
Speaker 2: it becomes a bit of a word game at that point.
Speaker 2: You know, the important thing is that they're human. They're human,
Speaker 2: They may be from another planet, therefore extraterrestrial. They may
Speaker 2: be using hyperdimensional technology to get here without actually traversing space,
Speaker 2: which means they're extra dimensional. But bottom line, if it
Speaker 2: walks like a human, it talks like a human, and
Speaker 2: quacks like a human, it's a human, okay. And I
Speaker 2: think that's one of the most egregious UH deceptions and
Speaker 2: misdirections that's going on in the current disclosure discourse is
Speaker 2: the degree to which these gatekeepers of disclosure want us
Speaker 2: not to think about how many humans appear to be
Speaker 2: involved with UFOs coming out of UFOs, taking people, you know,
Speaker 2: being seen on UFOs and John Ramirez to go back
Speaker 2: to him for a moment. One of the things that
Speaker 2: he did tell me. You know, he said he read
Speaker 2: my book Closer Encounters, and he said there were other
Speaker 2: people who were reading my book Closer Encounters. And he's like, listen,
Speaker 2: we don't understand how you got like eighty percent of
Speaker 2: this right. I mean eighty percent of what you have
Speaker 2: in this book. And he wouldn't tell me what twenty
Speaker 2: percent I got wrong, But eighty percent of what you
Speaker 2: have in this book lines up with what the CIA
Speaker 2: is concluded. And he said, in particular, what the whistle
Speaker 2: so called whistleblowers who aren't whistleblowers because they go through
Speaker 2: adopts or clearance process, which means they're actually spokesman in
Speaker 2: any case. What the two things they're never allowed to
Speaker 2: talk about are the connection to the Nazis and Atlantis planteans.
Speaker 3: Meaning the human dimension of the UFO phenomenon. Very interesting.
Speaker 1: That is really interesting because that's the conclusion I've reached,
Speaker 1: is that it's the whole disclosure movement is basically to
Speaker 1: give plausible deniability for the people that are actually using
Speaker 1: this technology in a legal way. I think other people
Speaker 1: that would agree, are, you know, Stephen Greer for sure,
Speaker 1: even though he you know, he believes that the ets
Speaker 1: and stuff are there, but he also thinks that we're
Speaker 1: using illegally. Timothy Aberino who's shared his story of Peru
Speaker 1: where the face peelers or people being attacked, you know,
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of people out there that I
Speaker 1: think they're on the other side of it, that are
Speaker 1: looking at and going even if it does come from
Speaker 1: some other origin, non human intelligence origin, we at this
Speaker 1: point it's pretty apparent that the evidence is that we're
Speaker 1: using it in corrupt ways, ways that are at minimum
Speaker 1: morally ambiguous, possibly just straight up illegal ways in which
Speaker 1: the public would never be able to wrap their brain
Speaker 1: around most likely. And that's what I want to get
Speaker 1: into in the next part here is that right before
Speaker 1: I do that is I want to talk about the
Speaker 1: geopolitical implications. And the way I want to segue into
Speaker 1: this is that I read the nuclear critical nuclear classification codes.
Speaker 1: I didn't know anything about it. I figured, hey, if
Speaker 1: this is nuclear weapons, maybe there's some clues in how
Speaker 1: we classify this stuff. First thing I find out is
Speaker 1: we called sigmas, So there's sigma classifications for different let's
Speaker 1: say properties of thermonuclear weapons, not always defined based on
Speaker 1: property In fact, they read Obama redid them all in
Speaker 1: twenty eleven, and so now they're super vague. Now it's
Speaker 1: just like anything related to the operation and knowledge of thermonuclears.
Speaker 1: But before they were actually specific. Sigma number one, very
Speaker 1: first sigma is magneto hydrodynamics control of plasma with electromagnetic fields.
Speaker 1: That's the very first sigma categorization. So they use these
Speaker 1: categorizations like we do a test and it'll say Sigma one,
Speaker 1: and that's how they can just black it out, so
Speaker 1: that only like the president and people with their super
Speaker 1: severe Yeah. So there you have it, and you want
Speaker 1: to know the other one. I read through them the
Speaker 1: two that I thought were the most interesting. Number one
Speaker 1: magnetohydrodynamics that connects plasma directly to thermonuclear weapons, which isn't
Speaker 1: that surprising, But if we think about the plasma non
Speaker 1: fishion triggers for clean fusion bombs, there you go. The
Speaker 1: other one, Sigma eleven, which is just straight up inertial
Speaker 1: confinement fusion, and I go, wow, okay, because there you go,
Speaker 1: there's your connection to Richter and his clean fusion. And
Speaker 1: it turns out who are the pioneers of inertial confinement fusion. Well,
Speaker 1: Friibert Winterberg, the guy that I mentioned who was Heisenberg,
Speaker 1: was his mentor on his textbook. On the cover of
Speaker 1: his textbook says, inertial confinement fusion is the secret to
Speaker 1: unlimited green energy for humanity, right on the front of
Speaker 1: the cover of the textbook. Just is It're right there?
Speaker 1: And who are the other pioneers? Well, John Knuckles turns
Speaker 1: out the literal guy that was developing the clean fusion
Speaker 1: bomb is the guy that started the National Ignition Facility,
Speaker 1: the NIF, which we've finally just achieved in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: They achieved coefficient and performance or a Q factor they
Speaker 1: call it now greater than one, which means more energy out.
Speaker 1: It was for a very brief period time, but it
Speaker 1: shows the idea that it's possible. So this takes me
Speaker 1: to the next part where it starts talk about the
Speaker 1: geopolitical implications. And I want to segue into this through
Speaker 1: something called the Jasons, because I want to get your
Speaker 1: opinion on the Jason Group. This is idea, this Jason group,
Speaker 1: and it's real, one hundred percent real. They have the
Speaker 1: ideas that they are essentially professors that are that are
Speaker 1: knowledgeable about black projects if they're not included in the
Speaker 1: black projects. And they meet with the CIA every summer
Speaker 1: and they have a list of topics that they're going
Speaker 1: to talk about, and the idea is that they determine
Speaker 1: where the line is between the public knowledge of the
Speaker 1: physics and national security essentially. And I can give two
Speaker 1: examples real quick of when there were tribunals done by
Speaker 1: the Jayson Group. One was actually Lowell Lowell Wood himself,
Speaker 1: John Knuckles's colleague. He was written up by the Jasons
Speaker 1: in like the seventies, maybe it was the eighties, but
Speaker 1: I think the seventies because apparently he shared with the
Speaker 1: Chinese some equations, some probably like you know, geometric equation
Speaker 1: type stuff that we use to make their a nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: So they wrote him up and it diminished his reputation significantly.
Speaker 1: Turns out he got off on kind of a technicality
Speaker 1: where somebody was able to find a public scientific paper
Speaker 1: that talked about those equations at least, so the story goes,
Speaker 1: But this damaged his reputation and he ended up not
Speaker 1: getting certain positions later on. So this is how they
Speaker 1: damage your careers. This is how they keep it secret.
Speaker 1: They make sure that everybody where the engineers stay in line.
Speaker 1: And then one other example, which is a really interesting one.
Speaker 1: A lot more recently in the two thousands, a guy
Speaker 1: named Robert M. L. Baker, also known as Bob Baker.
Speaker 1: He had an extensive about twenty or more papers on
Speaker 1: high frequency gravitational waves. Laboratory produced gravitational waves, including communications, telescopes,
Speaker 1: literally anything you could a kind of a meagre propulsion
Speaker 1: related to them. His friend Gary Stevenson, who's a Boeing,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna call him up lack project engineer. I don't
Speaker 1: know that for a fact, but let's just say I'm
Speaker 1: pretty confident. Gary Stevenson tells this story to Tim Ventura
Speaker 1: and he says, Robert M. L. Baker was actually written
Speaker 1: up by the Jasons by a guy named Ron Pandolfi
Speaker 1: of the CIA. They put it on the agenda one
Speaker 1: summer and Gary Stevenson goes with Robert M. L. Baker two.
Speaker 1: I think it was San Diego where the tribunal was
Speaker 1: being held, basically with the agenda, and they determine whether
Speaker 1: or not Robert M. L. Baker shared too much information
Speaker 1: with China. China once again about gravitational waves, and he
Speaker 1: also got a slap on the wrist where they argued.
Speaker 1: Apparently it was argued that the Gershenstein effect or reverse
Speaker 1: gershion Stein effect was not powerful enough to produce significant
Speaker 1: gravitational waves, therefore what he shared with China wasn't a
Speaker 1: matter of national security. Blah blah blah. So those are
Speaker 1: just a couple of examples. How in my mind, they've
Speaker 1: basically been able to control academia as well as these
Speaker 1: nuclear engineers and scientists working on black projects so that
Speaker 1: it doesn't leak out because everybody's always I would tell
Speaker 1: me out there, if this was real, people would know
Speaker 1: about it would be leaking out. But they built this
Speaker 1: culture of secrecy around the Manhattan Project that keeps it
Speaker 1: secret from even America, even public. So what do you
Speaker 1: have any thoughts on the Jason situation and know any
Speaker 1: information about that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean I'm named after the same myth,
Speaker 2: you know. They're named after Jason and the Argonauts and
Speaker 2: the Quest for the Golden Fleece, which is a rather
Speaker 2: romantic iconography, you know for such an.
Speaker 3: Organization that they're really like they're in search of the
Speaker 3: Golden Fleece.
Speaker 2: And they're going to go to this alien land and
Speaker 2: fight monsters on the way to bringing back the Golden Fleece. Right,
Speaker 2: And of course, remember Jason was involved with the sorceress Medea,
Speaker 2: with whom he had children, and then she goes crazy
Speaker 2: and kills his children. So that's a hell of a
Speaker 2: myth to base the name of an organization on, you know,
Speaker 2: the Jasons. Now, there's been some speculation that the term
Speaker 2: MJ twelve refers to the twelve inner most high level
Speaker 2: members of the Jasons, that it's you know, Jason one
Speaker 2: through twelve, member of Jason twelve. I asked John Ramirez
Speaker 2: about that, among other things, and he said that that's
Speaker 2: not the case. I don't know whether he knows that
Speaker 2: for a fact, that you know, this group, which has
Speaker 2: also sometimes been called Majestic or Majestic twelve, is a
Speaker 2: different group from the Jason's But some people have said
Speaker 2: it's the same thing, and the first twelve Jasons are
Speaker 2: the MJ twelve, which would then mean that they were,
Speaker 2: at least in the time of Eisenhower and probably Kennedy,
Speaker 2: the control group for you know, UFO Tech in the
Speaker 2: United States. So that's what I would say about them.
Speaker 3: But you know you're mentioning China is really also relevant
Speaker 3: to the question of the Jasons.
Speaker 2: And the way that brings me back to something we
Speaker 2: said at the outset of the conversation about Trump's framing
Speaker 2: of these weapons systems as our technology that's unrivaled in
Speaker 2: the world. If you ever have the chance to speak
Speaker 2: with John Ramirez, one thing you might ask him about,
Speaker 2: which I'm not going to get into here, is the
Speaker 2: level of technology transferred to the People's Republic of China.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to say anything else about that, but.
Speaker 2: What I will say is that if we have a
Speaker 2: group of basically like wizards in the various scientific disciplines
Speaker 2: and domains of technological development, who are ultimately responsible for
Speaker 2: perpetuating the hegemony of the United States and you know,
Speaker 2: guaranteeing our national security, why is it that we've allowed
Speaker 2: the Chinese and the Russians in other countries to catch
Speaker 2: up with this technology over the last seventy years When
Speaker 2: the paper trail suggests that by nineteen fifty one, working
Speaker 2: with our dear incorporated Nazi allies, we had this aneutronic
Speaker 2: fusion technology already. What explains this geopolitical strategy where we
Speaker 2: gave our rivals seventy years to try to catch up
Speaker 2: to the point where now we've got Chinese drones over
Speaker 2: in New Jersey and lordoswhere else that appear to be
Speaker 2: demonstrating some level of this electrogravitics technology.
Speaker 3: Right, So that bothers me.
Speaker 1: What's your take on that question. I'm actually wondering that myself.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, I think here's where we need to look
Speaker 2: at nine to eleven for example. And here I think
Speaker 2: Joseph Farrell's got it absolutely right that nine Okay, Look,
Speaker 2: we brought in and when I say we brought in,
Speaker 2: what I mean is that there were various vested interests
Speaker 2: in the United States, corporate elites, people controlling major industries
Speaker 2: and elements of the government that were already beholding to
Speaker 2: those corporate industrialists Rockefellers, Carlisles, Astors, Carnegie, the Bush family
Speaker 2: who to begin and Morgan, oh JP Morgan who in
Speaker 2: the first place, and the Dulles brothers who were in
Speaker 2: business with Morgan and with the Rockefellers, and who all
Speaker 2: funded the rise of the Nazis, the rise of the
Speaker 2: Nazis and of Mussolini.
Speaker 3: That's the we here Okay, So.
Speaker 2: The people who brought the Nazis home in Operation paper Clip,
Speaker 2: which was kind of a homecoming are the people who
Speaker 2: created fascism in Europe to begin with, all right, now,
Speaker 2: they also appeared to be the people who fielded the
Speaker 2: operation on nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: They had enough.
Speaker 2: Access to various les levels of security and operational capability
Speaker 2: in this country to be able to carry out that
Speaker 2: operation and to confuse the normal security apparatus.
Speaker 3: Of the United States on that day, to.
Speaker 2: Confuse NORAD, to confuse the military, you know, with various
Speaker 2: exercises and so forth, and to know, for example, that
Speaker 2: the Twin Towers would come down the way that they did.
Speaker 2: Because you know what a lot of people don't know
Speaker 2: is that the largest realtor in the Twin Towers was
Speaker 2: the National Security Agency and that the most important NSA
Speaker 2: facility outside of Fort Meade was in the World Trade Center,
Speaker 2: where the NSA was monitoring basically all the information from
Speaker 2: Wall Street, all signals, intelligence of financial transactions from Wall
Speaker 2: Street were being monitored by the NSA from the World
Speaker 2: Trade Center. So that was an incredibly sensitive intelligence facility
Speaker 2: which at this was wired from the day the building
Speaker 2: was built.
Speaker 3: Those poor people.
Speaker 2: And you know, I'm in a native New Yorker, and
Speaker 2: there were stories all the time I was growing up
Speaker 2: in New York. People used to call the World Trade
Speaker 2: Center those tombs. Those tombs because it was rumored that
Speaker 2: the buildings were wired from the time they were built,
Speaker 2: so that in case they ever lost control of the
Speaker 2: World Trade Center to a terrorist, to a natural disaster,
Speaker 2: who knows whatever, and that data was potentially going to
Speaker 2: be compromised, they were gonna pull the building.
Speaker 3: They were gonna bring it down to control demolition. Okay,
Speaker 3: So whoever carried out that operation on eleven knew that too.
Speaker 3: They knew that too.
Speaker 2: Anyway, one thing that nine to eleven shows you is
Speaker 2: that there is a substratum of the American deep state
Speaker 2: which has so thoroughly differentiated itself from the civilian government
Speaker 2: of the United States and from mainstream American culture, or
Speaker 2: the lack thereof whatever our culture has become, that it
Speaker 2: attacked the United States on nine to eleven. See and
Speaker 2: what's nine to eleven two thousand and one, It marks
Speaker 2: one decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union, who was.
Speaker 3: The arch rival of the Nazis.
Speaker 2: The Soviet Union, so a bunch of Nazis were brought
Speaker 2: home to the people who financed.
Speaker 3: Them in the first place.
Speaker 2: They were used for like fifty years to collapse communism
Speaker 2: and successfully defeat the Soviet Union. And then round about
Speaker 2: two thousand and one these people declared some kind of
Speaker 2: a divorce from the US government in the attack of
Speaker 2: nine to eleven. And so again, this problematizes President Trump's
Speaker 2: statement that we have technology that nobody else has. Well, no,
Speaker 2: they have technology that nobody else has, and whether we
Speaker 2: can get control of that technology back is very much
Speaker 2: an open question. And you have to ask yourself again,
Speaker 2: why did they allow the rivals of the United States
Speaker 2: to start to develop the same kind of technology? Are
Speaker 2: they intending to oversee the destruction of what we consider
Speaker 2: to be the United States or the American Republic in
Speaker 2: a war with these rivals, and only over the ashes
Speaker 2: and rubble of that confrontation emerges some kind of a
Speaker 2: new imperium?
Speaker 3: Is that the plan here that concerns me gravely?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's pretty much a conclusion that I was thinking
Speaker 1: you were making, too, which is that it goes back
Speaker 1: to the one World government. I guess I'll call it
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theory. But I happen to think that's probably
Speaker 1: where this goes to because I've constantly wondered, if we've
Speaker 1: had this figured out since the sixties, potentially unlimited energy,
Speaker 1: why are we letting China and Russia catch up? Now?
Speaker 1: We're not letting Iran do it. We just bombed Iran,
Speaker 1: we just destroy We let the Masad assassinate their nuclear scientists,
Speaker 1: we bomb their facilities, so we didn't let them do it.
Speaker 1: And did you notice that China and Russia did literally nothing.
Speaker 1: We sent bombers over there, blew them up, flew back,
Speaker 1: and Russian China said nothing in response, even though the
Speaker 1: Iran's ally. It feels to me like there's some handshake
Speaker 1: agreements behind the scenes, or there's a couple different angles
Speaker 1: to it. One could be that we all know that
Speaker 1: with this technology exists, and we're just not gonna let
Speaker 1: the primitive countries of the world ever have it, and
Speaker 1: it's just like you're either in the club and we're
Speaker 1: just kind of pretending to be adversarial when we're not.
Speaker 1: The other angle of it is, well, the corporation aspect
Speaker 1: of it. The corporations are really the ones that own it.
Speaker 1: The defense contractors have gotten kind of out of control.
Speaker 1: And this is the part where I think I'm leaning
Speaker 1: towards this, And what you're potentially saying is that these people,
Speaker 1: these organizations that are you know, at this point transgenerational
Speaker 1: corporate companies that have been around since the turn of
Speaker 1: the century of the nineteen hundreds, are the ones that
Speaker 1: really control the information, control the technology. And yes, there
Speaker 1: are clearly ties to the government, like we can pull
Speaker 1: the strings. And that's what makes me think that maybe
Speaker 1: Trump in his administration, you know, we talked about how
Speaker 1: him being elected kind of disrupted the Hillary Clinton plan.
Speaker 1: Maybe he's actually starting to pull some of this, pull
Speaker 1: this back a little bit. I mean, I pretty much
Speaker 1: I hope that's what's going on. And that's the reason
Speaker 1: why he's saying stuff like that, because I don't know
Speaker 1: why else he would be dropping little hints like that
Speaker 1: here there. But that's one of my thoughts. And then
Speaker 1: the question from this is where is the line. But
Speaker 1: my other problem is, well, if we have this super
Speaker 1: advanced technology, then it's just a crime against humanity to
Speaker 1: not be Why do we have so many poor people,
Speaker 1: why do we have so many homeless people in America?
Speaker 1: If we have unlimited green energy and we've had it
Speaker 1: for six years. To me, that's the part where I
Speaker 1: look at that. I go, they don't have the American
Speaker 1: people's best interest at heart. Whoever has this technology, they
Speaker 1: don't have it at that interest at heart. And so
Speaker 1: that's why I agree with you in terms of, you know,
Speaker 1: the people are hiding this that are nefarious, that you
Speaker 1: can argue are evil hiding this technology. But then the
Speaker 1: question is, well, what is the right thing to do?
Speaker 1: So the flip side of that is I go back
Speaker 1: to you actually when you talk to Danny Jones and said, well,
Speaker 1: we can't give everybody a time machine. If these are
Speaker 1: literally time machines. We've built these miniatureized clean fusion bombs
Speaker 1: that can manipulate space time, we've made it that advanced.
Speaker 1: Then this is where it gets dark for people out there.
Speaker 1: And this is where people start to get really upset
Speaker 1: with my political opinions because I've got black pilled when
Speaker 1: I was researching this, and I'm going, we can't give
Speaker 1: this to people, Like I'm even sitting here wondering like
Speaker 1: why are we letting China and Russia get this? And
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be letting them get this, we should be
Speaker 1: letting anybody else get this. And as much as it
Speaker 1: sucks to say, we can't let Iran have this, we
Speaker 1: can't let any culture on this earth that would strap
Speaker 1: a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up can never
Speaker 1: have this technology. Ever, Like, that's probably a hard stance view.
Speaker 3: What do you think, Well, in the case of Iran,
Speaker 3: what you really mean is the Islamic Republic. I mean,
Speaker 3: the vast majority of Iranians are against this retarded theocratic
Speaker 3: regime and actually, probably demographically, Iran is the most pro
Speaker 3: American country on the face of the earth, much more
Speaker 3: pro American than any of the European countries at this point.
Speaker 3: The Iranian people love America. So, you know, if Iran
Speaker 3: were governed by a regime that was representative of its people,
Speaker 3: then that might be another question. But I think the
Speaker 3: bigger problem is this that China and Russia are hierarchical,
Speaker 3: quasi feudal control systems where their governments could out and say,
Speaker 3: guess what, folks, we have this shit and we're using it,
Speaker 3: you know, for the glory of the Chinese people or
Speaker 3: for you know, the Russian Empire, and we're not going
Speaker 3: to share it with you in the civilian sphere, and
Speaker 3: people will just accept that because those are tyrannical regimes
Speaker 3: and you can get away with that in China and Russia,
Speaker 3: but you can't get away with that in America.
Speaker 2: So we're at a significant disadvantage there because of the
Speaker 2: socio political culture and constitutional principles of this country. So
Speaker 2: what would be required to mitigate that would be some
Speaker 2: tremendous cultural revolution in this country, which you.
Speaker 3: Know, is very far fetched.
Speaker 2: Frankly, you know, the idea that you're going to take
Speaker 2: a country where on the one hand, you have a
Speaker 2: bunch of evangelical, medieval minded backwater people who you know,
Speaker 2: are now increasingly framing UFOs exclusively in terms of the
Speaker 2: angels and demons from the Bible. And on the other hand,
Speaker 2: you have a bunch of you know, SJW. Libtar lefties
Speaker 2: who want to basically burn down Western civilization because of
Speaker 2: all of its supposed transgressions against colonized people. With this
Speaker 2: kind of polarity that essentially sums up the political landscape
Speaker 2: of America, I don't understand how these gatekeepers are supposed
Speaker 2: to release this.
Speaker 3: Technology to the citizen. You see, we were left with it.
Speaker 2: And see that's where I fit into this conversation because
Speaker 2: I'm not a ufologist. I'm a philosopher, and so what
Speaker 2: I've been trying to come up with in you know,
Speaker 2: the fifteen books I've written so far, is some kind
Speaker 2: of a philosophical framework for not just a political revolution,
Speaker 2: but a cultural revolution, a social and psychological reorientation of
Speaker 2: our people and our civilization without which it's a pipe
Speaker 2: dream to think that this is ever.
Speaker 3: Going to be public sector technology.
Speaker 1: That's a great point, and I think that's what the
Speaker 1: the UFO people really want to have happened. But I
Speaker 1: just don't think. I think it's a lot more challenging
Speaker 1: than they ever imagined, which is they need we need
Speaker 1: a psychological perspective shift, you know. And I think they think, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we tell everybody that the aliens are real, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, everyone will just change and be like, oh,
Speaker 1: we've got to be better now, because there we're not
Speaker 1: we know our place in the universe now. And I
Speaker 1: don't see that happening at all. And I think that
Speaker 1: what the examples you gave are perfect examples of the
Speaker 1: divide and why both sides are not ready for it
Speaker 1: is that I don't hate how everybody's talking about, oh,
Speaker 1: they're angels and their demons. Now you know, we've got
Speaker 1: the evangelicals that are all about that, because now I
Speaker 1: see that, Okay, we're gonna reveal these this nuclear weapon technology,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna go, it's demonic. The Satan made these weapons,
Speaker 1: and you know they're gonna take it to this extreme angle.
Speaker 1: I already see it happening, right, And then the other side,
Speaker 1: you've already.
Speaker 2: Keeps talking about how, oh where did nuclear weapons come from?
Speaker 3: You know where nuclear weapons came from.
Speaker 2: It must have been demons whispered nuclear weapons into the
Speaker 2: years of our scientists like Jackass go study the history
Speaker 2: of nuclear physics in Nazi Germany. That's where nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: came from.
Speaker 3: The Nazis are demons.
Speaker 2: Our entire post war military industrial complex is based on them.
Speaker 2: So we incorporated the demons thoroughly. If that's the case,
Speaker 2: and we'd be nothing without them.
Speaker 1: That's the thing that you you nailed it, which is
Speaker 1: if Tucker is right, then we are the demons. We
Speaker 1: are this Satan is the one making the weapon. Werner
Speaker 1: von Braun made. Nasts came over here from the Nazis, like, guys,
Speaker 1: that's the thing that I and so I heard that too,
Speaker 1: and I got really triggered kind of like you just
Speaker 1: did right there as well. And I am I'm worried
Speaker 1: about that narrative spreading. And then I guess on the
Speaker 1: other side, I'm just worried that the the lib tarted,
Speaker 1: you know, brainwash people that are out there that are
Speaker 1: they don't even know what they're protesting, you know, they
Speaker 1: have no I feel like they don't even have any
Speaker 1: purpose anymore. They're just out there looking for a reason.
Speaker 1: On the positive side, I could see this giving people
Speaker 1: purpose is that if we if they were to admit
Speaker 1: that we have this technology, people would go, oh wow,
Speaker 1: star Trek, we could actually Star Trek is a real
Speaker 1: thing that we could be trying to achieve. Now, I
Speaker 1: could see it giving these people some level of hope.
Speaker 1: But the flip side is these are the kinds of
Speaker 1: people that won't believe anything unless the authority tells them.
Speaker 1: And the problem is the authority is not the people
Speaker 1: they believe. Now, they're only gonna believe it if like
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's corpse comes out and says, you know, the
Speaker 1: aliens are real and we've got this technology, they're never
Speaker 1: gonna believe it if Trump says it, you know, so
Speaker 1: we've got ourselves stuck in this situation where we This
Speaker 1: is what blackpills me the most is I don't see
Speaker 1: a path forward where we're gonna get to a point
Speaker 1: where we can manage this as a civilization. And this
Speaker 1: is the main reason why I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: you from a philosophical perspective about you know, is humanity
Speaker 1: even ready for this technology? And when will we be?
Speaker 1: I think the gatekeepers might be right. I think that
Speaker 1: all the stuff we've talked about about the suppression since
Speaker 1: the sixties, I think it might all be with good reason.
Speaker 1: I think that people in the sixties, when they figured
Speaker 1: this out, and maybe even before that, they met in
Speaker 1: a smoky room right the MJ twelve or the Jay
Speaker 1: Songs or whoever it was, and they decided this is
Speaker 1: too dangerous, We're not ready for this, and they probably
Speaker 1: built a plan, like probably Edward Teller was making plans
Speaker 1: about what year is this going to be really okay?
Speaker 1: When twenty fifty comes along, then we'll release this bit
Speaker 1: of information about it. You know, I could totally see
Speaker 1: a scenario where that plays out. And then so for me,
Speaker 1: the scary part that is like, Okay, well, am I
Speaker 1: even doing the right thing in revealing this? And I've
Speaker 1: kind of come to the conclusion that we just like
Speaker 1: I said, we have to teach people, We have to
Speaker 1: demystify it. We can't. We can't pretend like we're gonna
Speaker 1: be the ones to reveal disclosure. Instead, it has to
Speaker 1: be a learning and awakening process. And I think that
Speaker 1: that doesn't happen from us talking about demons, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't happen about us talking about little green men from
Speaker 1: other plants. I think it happens from us talking about
Speaker 1: the science right, talking about the science and the physics
Speaker 1: of it and the history of it. I think that's
Speaker 1: what we'll bring it down to earth for people, and
Speaker 1: that's where people will be able to absorb it. Because
Speaker 1: here's where I think will happen if we let's just
Speaker 1: say we get this disclosure about all this technology comes
Speaker 1: out right away. I mean, just think about the impacts
Speaker 1: of this. You're gonna have possibly wars are gonna break
Speaker 1: out right over this technology. I think you'd agree on that.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have economic collapse every power source now all
Speaker 1: like what happens to the value of companies that are
Speaker 1: using obsolete technology goes to zero overnight? And then uh,
Speaker 1: I think the big thing is that people's minds are
Speaker 1: gonna break. Like people's minds will actually break. And you've
Speaker 1: already seen people's minds breaking over relatively trivial matters in politics.
Speaker 1: If you were to tell them like, hey, yeah, we
Speaker 1: actually like hit all this technology from you and sorry
Speaker 1: about that, like we've kind of been lying without lying
Speaker 1: to you directly, people are gonna act actually like you know,
Speaker 1: spoil like uh, you know, warning the risk he or whatever.
Speaker 1: But they're gonna hurt themselves, right, They're gonna like take
Speaker 1: their own lives potentially, like a significant number of people
Speaker 1: not like you know that, right. So I look at
Speaker 1: it and I see all those And this is where
Speaker 1: hal Putoff was on Joe Rogan. Hal Putoff went on
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan and he's talking about I think he told
Speaker 1: the story where he went to DC and they all
Speaker 1: the spooks met up together and they were like, oh,
Speaker 1: they just put some numbers on age and they were like, oh,
Speaker 1: it turns out it's negative outcome. So we're just not
Speaker 1: gonna do disclosure. To me, that was the greatest how
Speaker 1: Pudoff mentioned because you're just like, this is how flippant
Speaker 1: they are about a topic, that this is this huge.
Speaker 1: It's like, we're just gonna decide this by having a
Speaker 1: bunch of old white dudes go in a room and
Speaker 1: put some numbers on a page and then if it
Speaker 1: comes out negative, well then sorry, no free energy for
Speaker 1: the world this year, this decade. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: What are your thoughts, Yeah, listen to a bunch of
Speaker 3: old white dudes. That's true.
Speaker 2: But if I recall correctly that happened under Obama, and
Speaker 2: I can understand that Obama, being the first black president
Speaker 2: of the United States, didn't want to be responsible for
Speaker 2: the destruction of the economy of the United States and
Speaker 2: absolute social mayhem. Right, So he's the last person who's
Speaker 2: going to agree to be the disclosure president, especially after
Speaker 2: put Off in company presented him with this study showing
Speaker 2: how catastrophic the consequences of disclosure would be.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I agree with.
Speaker 2: You, and I really increasingly believe that the only way
Speaker 2: forward is if we can look is humanity ready for disclosure?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, not, absolutely, under absolutely under no circumstances in a
Speaker 2: world where you know, like what half the world is Muslim,
Speaker 2: and like, you know, like Africa's in the state that
Speaker 2: it's in.
Speaker 3: And you know, Indians believe in the day of us.
Speaker 2: You know, they literally worshiped the entities which we can
Speaker 2: see in the Mahabarata and Ramayana are associated with UFOs
Speaker 2: and antiquity. Right, so if any entities emerge, immediately, they're
Speaker 2: gonna fall down flat on their face and raise their
Speaker 2: arms and worship them. Right in a world where China,
Speaker 2: if it's told by whatever overlords, this is the celestial hierarchy,
Speaker 2: we are your ancestors. We have the mandate of Heaven.
Speaker 2: They're gonna get their entire high minded population to fall
Speaker 2: in line with that, and they're gonna then perpetuate tyranny
Speaker 2: over the rest of the planet with whatever hegemonic means
Speaker 2: they have. Okay, in such a world, humanity is not
Speaker 2: ready for disclosure, no question about it.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Is the culture of Star Trek ready for disclosure? Is
Speaker 2: the country of Star Wars ready for disclosure? Maybe maybe
Speaker 2: some subset of Americans who truly represent the American pioneering
Speaker 2: frontier spirit are ready to step into a wider world
Speaker 2: and do whatever it takes to retain their independence. But
Speaker 2: in order to protect that culture and to secure its
Speaker 2: dominance even in our own territory, let alone globally, what's
Speaker 2: going to have to take place as a coupdeta.
Speaker 3: It's going to have to be a cupdata. There is
Speaker 3: no way forward but for.
Speaker 2: Somehow us to inspire a coup within the American deep
Speaker 2: state and identify the individuals who, in their heart of
Speaker 2: hearts still believe in the American spirit. And you know,
Speaker 2: the manifest destiny of America in the sense.
Speaker 3: In which Manly P.
Speaker 2: Hall understood it when he talked about the secret destiny
Speaker 2: of America. You know where on the obverse of our
Speaker 2: Great Seal it says Novus ordo seclorum a new order
Speaker 2: of the ages. Is that America still alive? Are there
Speaker 2: people in these deep black projects, in this emerging breakaway
Speaker 2: civilization who still believe in that vision of the future
Speaker 2: and are willing to fight for it? That's ultimately the
Speaker 2: question is whether there's a vision can emerge that's both
Speaker 2: inspiring enough and constructive enough to compel some of these
Speaker 2: people to carry out a kudata. That's the only way,
Speaker 2: and I'm sorry to tell you it's going to be
Speaker 2: extremely ugly. It's going to be ugly domestically, and it's
Speaker 2: going to be absolutely horrific globally, horrific globally. People talk
Speaker 2: about the American Empire, especially the lefties, these lefties communist socialism,
Speaker 2: the American Empire is the American empire that, folks, you
Speaker 2: have no fucking clue what an American empire would look
Speaker 2: like if one actually ever emerged with aneutronic fusion technology,
Speaker 2: you have no fucking clue. And whether or not an
Speaker 2: American empire actually emerges in a constructive and positive sense
Speaker 2: will depend on whether you know a philosophically sophisticated vision
Speaker 2: that distills the essence of Star Trek and Star Wars
Speaker 2: and their visions of the future can actually win the
Speaker 2: hearts and minds of some of the maybe younger people
Speaker 2: within the extent power structure.
Speaker 1: Really well said, and I think this is why I've
Speaker 1: now moved my focus towards AID neutronic fusion, is that
Speaker 1: I think that aidentronic fusion is basically tapping directly into
Speaker 1: zero point energy, tapping into an unlimited energy source that
Speaker 1: is out there and will change everything. Now I already
Speaker 1: said that there's all these negative reasons why disclosure can
Speaker 1: never happen. You even agreed, And I think one of
Speaker 1: the other ones that I didn't even mention was the
Speaker 1: legal implications. This gets mentioned by the UFO people too,
Speaker 1: is that, Oh, well, it turns out Lockheed Martin, for example,
Speaker 1: built a compact fusion reactor. Charles Chase built it for
Speaker 1: him in twenty fourteen. It went dark in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: but his resume says that it was successful and it
Speaker 1: is breathing on its own. So he built a compact
Speaker 1: fusion reactor for them. So what happens to Lockheed Martin
Speaker 1: when it turns out that the government's been playing favorites
Speaker 1: for sixty years and now that's that's the only reason
Speaker 1: why they're a you know, whatever billion dollar company that
Speaker 1: they are. They're gonna get sued. They're gonna get sued.
Speaker 1: So you've built these perverse incentive structures where now the
Speaker 1: corporations that have been developing this technology for the military
Speaker 1: industrial complex, they don't want it to come out because
Speaker 1: they're gonna go bankrupt if they do. Their shareholders they're
Speaker 1: beholding to their shareholders so that's a big concern for me.
Speaker 1: But I think disclosure is gonna happen anyway, and I
Speaker 1: think that they know it, and that's what they're afraid of.
Speaker 1: I think that when they put those dates out there,
Speaker 1: they say twenty twenty seven, twenty thirty, whatever, they don't
Speaker 1: know the exact date. But what they know is that
Speaker 1: we're not ready. But the information, the technology advancing so
Speaker 1: fast that they can't slow it down enough that yes,
Speaker 1: it's been sixty years, that may seem like a long time,
Speaker 1: but in the cosmic scheme of the universe, that's just
Speaker 1: the blink of an eye, and that yes, they've been
Speaker 1: hiding for sixty years. But I think that they hope
Speaker 1: that they could hide it for hundreds of years as
Speaker 1: opposed to hiding it for just sixty And I think
Speaker 1: they know, especially now with AI, that the AI is soon.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna start spitting out the answers to these gravitations.
Speaker 1: Get the AI can pay runs do what you and
Speaker 1: I are doing at this point already. And so it's
Speaker 1: gonna start spitting these answers out and people are gonna
Speaker 1: be going But wait, no, nukes shouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: manipulate space time. They didn't tell me they could do that.
Speaker 1: And then AI's been like, yeah, keam, they figured it out.
Speaker 1: It was you know, Richter and Knuckles and what have you.
Speaker 1: So I think that's the thing. And then with respect
Speaker 1: to well, how does it change, I also want to
Speaker 1: address this last at this point, and then I'll I
Speaker 1: think we can do some final thoughts here as well.
Speaker 1: This is kind of my final thoughts is that I
Speaker 1: agree that it's never gonna come out from the current
Speaker 1: power structure as it's been developed, because they built the
Speaker 1: system in a way for it to never be able
Speaker 1: to come out, and that's how they were able to
Speaker 1: hide it for sixty years. But that's the way. There's
Speaker 1: no pathway for it to come out legally, and I
Speaker 1: think that's why you're seeing the hal putoffs that Eric Davis's.
Speaker 1: Eric Davis just had an interview yesterday where he said
Speaker 1: he would need either an executive order or a pardon
Speaker 1: before he would go talk to Congress, because otherwise he
Speaker 1: would lose his pension, go to prison, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: I think that that's part of the reason, is that
Speaker 1: the system was set up in a way for it
Speaker 1: to never be able to come out, which means that
Speaker 1: the only way we could get it out is basically
Speaker 1: a coup d'ta or some sort of overthrowing of the system.
Speaker 1: And that's what I'm afraid of because I think that
Speaker 1: would be very ugly.
Speaker 2: Like you mentioned, go ahead, yes, it'll be very ugly,
Speaker 2: but there's absolutely no other way forward. And you know
Speaker 2: what you started to say, you know, at the beginning
Speaker 2: of that in terms of lockheed and litigation is just
Speaker 2: another example of it. I mean, look, there is no
Speaker 2: way that our current legal structure and even our current
Speaker 2: you know, corporate organization and infrastructure, like corporate organization in
Speaker 2: the sense of like electricity providers, you know, the petroleum industry,
Speaker 2: the auto industry, Like this fucks everything. You're going to
Speaker 2: need to like fundamentally re engineer our society, and that
Speaker 2: cannot happen except around a new idea or a new
Speaker 2: interpretation of the American idea. Otherwise, if it happens in
Speaker 2: a vacuum, it's going to only lead to one place,
Speaker 2: and one place fast.
Speaker 3: And that's totalitarianism, okay.
Speaker 2: In other words, just brute totalitarianism with no greater vision
Speaker 2: or idea behind it. So again, I returned to my
Speaker 2: closing thought that what we are in need of in
Speaker 2: this country, more than anything else, is a new philosophical
Speaker 2: vision of the American destiny. What it was that the
Speaker 2: founders of this country, who were brilliant wise men, were
Speaker 2: reaching torque as best as they could in an era
Speaker 2: before Darwin. Okay, we need to post Darwinian, post Heisenbergian,
Speaker 2: you know, evolutionary quantum understanding of the relationship between me
Speaker 2: and the cosmos that the founders of this country intuited rightly,
Speaker 2: That's what we need and until nonetheless certain elements of
Speaker 2: our deep state can be inspired by that, there's no
Speaker 2: way forward.
Speaker 1: Couldn't agree more. Jason, I think this has been my
Speaker 1: favorite conversation that I've ever had on my podcast. We
Speaker 1: seem to have bangers every single time. So I just
Speaker 1: want to thank you so much for this conversation. I
Speaker 1: just want to give you a quick minute to plug
Speaker 1: you know, your content where people can find you and
Speaker 1: get in touch with you, and just thank you once again,
Speaker 1: so so much for this conversation.
Speaker 3: So go ahead, Jason.
Speaker 2: Reza Georgianni on Substack and Jason Georgianni on X and
Speaker 2: my latest book, thanosis. There are links to that on Exit.
Speaker 2: Actually just came out today officially. It's a book on death, rebirth,
Speaker 2: on the afterlife. Very metaphysical, Ashton, My thanks also to
Speaker 2: you for your intrepid, very courageous and tenacious research. I
Speaker 2: know that it doesn't win a lot of friends sometimes,
Speaker 2: but I applaud you for it.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, sir. Let's do this again soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Let's do it