Speaker 1: Hello everybody, and welcome to another episode of Heart Shrews podcast. Today,
Speaker 1: I have a very special guest. His name is Jason Georgeohnny.
Speaker 1: He is an author and philosopher. Jason, thank you very
Speaker 1: much for being my guest on Heart Truth. How are
Speaker 1: you doing today?
Speaker 2: It's an absolute pleasure to be with you, Ashton, and
Speaker 2: I'm glad we finally got to meet. I've been following
Speaker 2: your work for a few what is it a couple
Speaker 2: of years now, Yeah, And let me just start off
Speaker 2: by thanking you for the incredible research that you've done.
Speaker 2: I'm sold on your case for the plane, so we'll see.
Speaker 2: I mean it looks like a pretty sound hypothesis to me.
Speaker 1: Well, this is gonna be a great crossover event that
Speaker 1: we got going on. So right off the bat, I
Speaker 1: want to know a little bit about your origin story
Speaker 1: and how you got involved in this. I first saw
Speaker 1: you on Danny Jones. I started looking at your research
Speaker 1: and your work. You started talking about zero point energy
Speaker 1: and that I always ring some bells for me because
Speaker 1: I consider myself influencer zero point energy. So how did
Speaker 1: you get involved in looking into all of this advanced technology,
Speaker 1: breakaway civilization stuff and you know the crossover the UFO community.
Speaker 2: Well, I came out with a book in twenty sixteen
Speaker 2: called Prometheus and Atlas, and it was an expansion of
Speaker 2: my doctoral dissertation about twice the length of the dissertation version,
Speaker 2: and it won the twenty sixteen Book Award of the
Speaker 2: Parapsychological Association. And I also joined the Society for Scientific
Speaker 2: Exploration in the same year as Prometheus anatlyss won the
Speaker 2: PA Book Award. So I began to make a number
Speaker 2: of connections in the parapsychology community, and interestingly enough, I
Speaker 2: found that, especially through the SSEC, that community overlapped a
Speaker 2: lot with the UFO community, which dovetails with zero point
Speaker 2: Energy research and so forth. I mean, there are people
Speaker 2: like you know how put off that have cross listed
Speaker 2: membership between these two organizations. By the way, let me
Speaker 2: ask you for a small ashton. I hate looking at
Speaker 2: myself on recordings, which is why I never do you know,
Speaker 2: individual podcasts, so so stay with me as much as
Speaker 2: you can, so I'm not left here, you know, looking
Speaker 2: at my own lug anyway. So you know, I began
Speaker 2: to make a lot of connections in that community, and
Speaker 2: at that time I was also doing shows with Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Misch Love on New Thinking Aloud, and he had a
Speaker 2: lot of other guests on that show that were part
Speaker 2: of the same community. So I started to meet people
Speaker 2: like Jacques Vallet, I mean, Jacques Valais reached out to me,
Speaker 2: I think within a few months of Prometheus and Atlas
Speaker 2: having come out. He read the book, invited me to
Speaker 2: his home. I had a very nice dinner with him
Speaker 2: and his then wife, second wife, and so so, you know,
Speaker 2: I started to make a lot of connections people in
Speaker 2: the remote viewing community, people in military and eleigence, and
Speaker 2: wound up at the nexus of what eventually would become
Speaker 2: the so called UFO disclosure movement. Except that at just
Speaker 2: the moment when you know, I was, you know, basically
Speaker 2: becoming the nexus of all these connections, and you know,
Speaker 2: a promising young theorist in this domain, I was defamed
Speaker 2: in in what I eventually found out was an intelligence operation.
Speaker 2: And I think the reason for that, which will come
Speaker 2: clearer as we you know, on packs discussion over time,
Speaker 2: is that the kinds of arguments that I advanced in
Speaker 2: my book on Close Encounters are are things that would
Speaker 2: have been severely disruptive to the type of narrative that
Speaker 2: the gatekeepers of UFO disclosure are forwarding today.
Speaker 1: So what do you think That's a great question, great segue,
Speaker 1: which is what what do you think the narrative they're
Speaker 1: trying to spread is, and what narrative do you think
Speaker 1: they're afraid of? And who do you think these people are, like,
Speaker 1: who are they connected to? What are your opinions of
Speaker 1: the UFO community as well?
Speaker 2: Look, it's actually very complex. So you know, one of
Speaker 2: the fallacies that a lot of people who engage in,
Speaker 2: you know, conspiracy theorizing fall prey to is the overly
Speaker 2: simplistic view that the deep state is monolithic. It's really not,
Speaker 2: maybe unfortunately not, because you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: really dangerous chaos at play behind the scenes. You I
Speaker 2: think had been interested in, you know, inquiring into who's
Speaker 2: behind this slow drip model for disclosure, And so let
Speaker 2: me start there. I think maybe you know best to
Speaker 2: flesh things out from there. I can tell you based
Speaker 2: on two individuals who worked with the former Director of
Speaker 2: National Intel. Well yeah, at this point, former Director of
Speaker 2: National Intelligence, Avril Haines, I can tell you, based on
Speaker 2: two different individuals one of whom is a CIA officer
Speaker 2: who worked with her as a colleague in UFO working
Speaker 2: group meetings UAP working group meetings roundtables basically, and from
Speaker 2: another individual who worked directly under her as a private
Speaker 2: contractor and who also had very high level contracts with
Speaker 2: the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which is the same organization
Speaker 2: that David Grush is coming from out of RIGHTA. So
Speaker 2: I have two independent points of confirmation about you know
Speaker 2: what the slow Drip disclosure agenda was, and it was
Speaker 2: an agenda being run from out of April Haines's office,
Speaker 2: apparently with her as the director of it. And the
Speaker 2: agenda was this, Okay. First of all, their priority was
Speaker 2: to make it as if the United to make it
Speaker 2: appear as if the United States government was not investigating
Speaker 2: UAPs in any serious way prior to, like, I don't know,
Speaker 2: fifteen twenty years ago, prior to the Nimtz incident and
Speaker 2: these videos of the TikTok and so forth that they released. Okay,
Speaker 2: So they wanted a clean slate approach where they're not
Speaker 2: going to be held legally accountable for anything that they
Speaker 2: had done in the preceding. I don't know what seventy
Speaker 2: years or more. Actually we'll get into the more because
Speaker 2: this goes actually back to the airships of eighteen ninety
Speaker 2: seven and so forth. But so that that was their
Speaker 2: number one priority make it look like everything started with
Speaker 2: the nimits and these types of incidents. And interestingly enough
Speaker 2: to first this was like a four or five phase
Speaker 2: plan that they have that was supposed to be unfolded
Speaker 2: over the course of something like fifteen to twenty years.
Speaker 2: And the first phase I was told was that they
Speaker 2: were going to use the James Web telescope, this new
Speaker 2: telescope that they have out there, to basically release to
Speaker 2: the public imagery of apparent artificial structures on distant bodies
Speaker 2: in our Solar system, so not necessarily planets, but maybe
Speaker 2: on the moons of Jupiter and the moons of Saturn.
Speaker 2: There were going to be structures that were unambiguously artificial,
Speaker 2: and that those were the first things that will be
Speaker 2: released to the public, because the idea was, Okay, well,
Speaker 2: these are far away, they don't present any imminent rep
Speaker 2: people are not going to panic. Then the next phase
Speaker 2: was that they'd identify structures on the moon, on our
Speaker 2: own moon, and on Mars that are artificial. And the
Speaker 2: third phase was that they were going to try to
Speaker 2: connect these structures on the Moon and Mars to anomalous
Speaker 2: archaeological sites on Earth, wow, like for example, the Osyrian
Speaker 2: at Abydos in Egypt or Tiajuanaku in Bolivia, and they
Speaker 2: were going to note structural similarities between some of these sites, like,
Speaker 2: for example, it appears that the site on the Dark
Speaker 2: Side of the Moon involves a construction technique with something
Speaker 2: like a poured stone, like a kind of as if
Speaker 2: you could, you know, subject stone to some kind of
Speaker 2: chemical compound that would liquefy it and turn it into
Speaker 2: something like concrete, where then you could shape the stone,
Speaker 2: or maybe some kind of a sonic resonance could be
Speaker 2: used to molecularly destabilize the stone and then shape it.
Speaker 2: And that they were going to note that the same
Speaker 2: kind of construction techniques had been employed on these sites
Speaker 2: on Earth, so maybe there's a common builder. Then the
Speaker 2: fourth phase and so now we're like ten years out
Speaker 2: in their plan of slow disclosure. The fourth phase was
Speaker 2: going to be anthropologie that they were going to excavate
Speaker 2: remains of humanoids who they believed were responsible for these
Speaker 2: engineering anomalies on the moon Mars, other moons in the
Speaker 2: Solar System, and also for anomalous sites on Earth, and
Speaker 2: that these were going to be these very tall people,
Speaker 2: you know, who were referred to as I don't know,
Speaker 2: nephilem and giants and so forth, and various mythological traditions,
Speaker 2: and then they were going to do DNA testing on
Speaker 2: these people.
Speaker 1: And this was all.
Speaker 2: Step by step, slowly going to lead to the disclosure
Speaker 2: of these people themselves as the pilots of UAPs.
Speaker 1: Interesting, that was the original.
Speaker 2: Now here's the interesting thing, Ashton, is when David Gresh
Speaker 2: came out, and this speaks to the you know, deep
Speaker 2: state not being a monolith. When David Gresh came out
Speaker 2: with his leaks, quote unquote, these people were incensed. They
Speaker 2: had no idea what was going to happen. They did
Speaker 2: not authorize him to be saying the things he was saying,
Speaker 2: and mainly they were so outraged because he was directly
Speaker 2: implicating the United States government cover up on all kinds
Speaker 2: of levels, from the you know, cover up of the
Speaker 2: technology and reverse engineering efforts to cover up of biological
Speaker 2: entities and so on and so forth, and so he
Speaker 2: basically threw a monkey wrench in their phased disclosure plan.
Speaker 2: And what that immediately says to me is there we're
Speaker 2: dealing with at least two factions, because you know, Grush
Speaker 2: is not a Whistleblowerrush was an hunt man for people
Speaker 2: within defense intelligence who have their own agenda of what
Speaker 2: should be released when. So here we've got at least
Speaker 2: two different competing agendas, and then we can get into
Speaker 2: why I think there's a third and maybe even a
Speaker 2: fourth agenda as well.
Speaker 1: So yeah, let me address some of those claims. Is
Speaker 1: I love what you're saying. The first of all, Avril
Speaker 1: heinz Abralhyines obviously said her last name. People should probably
Speaker 1: be saying her name more often. Technically current Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence, really big role, Really
Speaker 1: glad Tulsea Gabbard's gonna get in there somebody who has
Speaker 1: probably no insight is what's really going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: And I'm very curious to see how her public persona
Speaker 1: changes after she gets in and gets exposed to some
Speaker 1: of this, because, like what you said about the factions,
Speaker 1: I totally agree. The joke that I've been making on
Speaker 1: podcasts is that I think there's at least two factions.
Speaker 1: One that doesn't want any of this stuff to come
Speaker 1: out because they think that maybe it's too dangerous or
Speaker 1: they want the power or what have you. And then
Speaker 1: there's another one that wants like a little bit of
Speaker 1: it to come out, but they don't want all of
Speaker 1: Nobody wants like all of it to come out a
Speaker 1: catastrophic disclosure, at least how I've looked at it. So
Speaker 1: what you said about David Grush makes a lot of
Speaker 1: sense as well, is that there's another faction going, hey,
Speaker 1: you you need to go out there and go start
Speaker 1: telling people that, Like we've got these videos of UFOs
Speaker 1: and it's pretty clearly exotic technology. It's not airplane flying
Speaker 1: around with conventional means and things like that and talking
Speaker 1: about alien bodies and what have you. So what then
Speaker 1: do you think about, like, you know, who's on what side? Right?
Speaker 1: Like when I'm looking at the UFO community, I personally
Speaker 1: feel like a lot of the people I see at
Speaker 1: the UFO community, the front runners, the ones that are
Speaker 1: on mainstream shows like the Luella Zondo's, the Jeremy Corbels,
Speaker 1: the George Knaps that are out there their whole crew.
Speaker 1: They all talk to each other. It is very obvious
Speaker 1: that they do, and they communicate with one another. The
Speaker 1: impression I get from them is that they have decided
Speaker 1: they're going to protect national security by not revealing the
Speaker 1: technology or any technology that would put the United States
Speaker 1: at a disadvantage relative to other countries that like, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe we're reverse engineering this UFO technology. We've got this
Speaker 1: either free energy or super advanced super weapons, and they're
Speaker 1: going that, we're not gonna talk about that, so instead
Speaker 1: we're just gonna talk about the alien aspect of it.
Speaker 1: On the other side, I see people like doctor Stephen Greer,
Speaker 1: who talks a ton about the technology. He still talks
Speaker 1: about the alien side of it as well, but really
Speaker 1: talks to the Black Project engineers and is like, Hey,
Speaker 1: these guys are telling you we've got this exotic technology
Speaker 1: out there and we've figured it out. How do you
Speaker 1: see all these people and which ones do you trust
Speaker 1: or not trust? Oh?
Speaker 2: Man, I don't trust any of them. Good, I don't
Speaker 2: trust any of them. Okay. Look, going back to Grush,
Speaker 2: I think that the higher ranking individuals who authorized Grush
Speaker 2: to act as a frontman for the highly selective disclosure
Speaker 2: of certain information are defectors from the organization, which at
Speaker 2: one point may have been called MJ twelve, if it
Speaker 2: was actually called that, and the MJ twelve documents that
Speaker 2: were leaked aren't forgeries if the organization certainly isn't called
Speaker 2: that anymore. And in any case, that organization was privatized,
Speaker 2: it was taken from you know, a government agencies into
Speaker 2: private aerospace by the nineteen seventies at the latest. But
Speaker 2: I think that the gentlemen who authorized Grush to come
Speaker 2: forward are defectors from that organization. Wow, so you have
Speaker 2: this kind of MJ twelve turned you know, private corporate
Speaker 2: aerospace cabal, and there are what you might call old
Speaker 2: guard individuals in that organization who don't want any of
Speaker 2: this release. They want to keep it secret for as
Speaker 2: long as they possibly can. They want a monopoly on
Speaker 2: the technology. And there's an argument to be made that
Speaker 2: if they haven't already branched often become a breakaway civilization,
Speaker 2: they're in the process of doing so. And then you
Speaker 2: have defectors from that organization, people who and it's been
Speaker 2: explained to me that perhaps part of this is a
Speaker 2: generational shift, and that it's some of the younger people
Speaker 2: who are behind Grush, who are sort of breaking with
Speaker 2: the old Guard. But in any case, those are two
Speaker 2: factions of you know what at one point was called
Speaker 2: MJ twelve. I think that there's a fourth group. So
Speaker 2: we've talked about, you know, the Abril Haynes slow drip people,
Speaker 2: then Grush, who represents the defectors in MJ twelve, then
Speaker 2: the old Guard of MJ twelve. I think there's also
Speaker 2: a fourth group, which we can you know, unpack in
Speaker 2: more details. As you know, we move along with the conversation.
Speaker 2: But that fourth group are individuals who are informally referred
Speaker 2: to as the Collins Elite. And these are evangelical or
Speaker 2: traditionalist Christians. They may be Evangelical Protestants, they may be
Speaker 2: traditionalist Catholics who are in the CIA, Air Force, Naval Intelligence,
Speaker 2: other branches of defense intelligence, and in their capacity as
Speaker 2: private individuals beginning in the nineteen at least since the
Speaker 2: nineteen forties, in the era of Jack Parsons, quite possibly
Speaker 2: long before then, and I've made the case that they
Speaker 2: may go back to the airship mystery of the eighteen
Speaker 2: ninety six eighteen ninety seven. This private group of devout
Speaker 2: Christians has come to the conclusion that somehow the UFO
Speaker 2: phenomenon is inextricable from the occult and that probably it
Speaker 2: represents a demonic force that needs to be held at bay.
Speaker 2: And so they see the secrecy as basically a stop
Speaker 2: gap keeping the apocalypse at day. And so we also
Speaker 2: have these nut cases, you know, in the government various time.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I would have said it's naughty
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago. But the more I think
Speaker 1: about the implications of the technology and I want to
Speaker 1: talk about that, like the latter half of this podcast,
Speaker 1: more I think, Man, it's not that crazy to think
Speaker 1: this technology could lead to the apocalypse.
Speaker 2: No, a lot of it's true. The way that Peter Thiel,
Speaker 2: you know, framed it is actually thought provoking, and we
Speaker 2: can come back to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, let's talk about that right now, just
Speaker 1: because we brought it up because I wanted to ask you.
Speaker 1: This was one of the things I was watching another
Speaker 1: podcast that you did. It kind of blew me away,
Speaker 1: where you were talking about the technology and you explained, like,
Speaker 1: what if this technology is so powerful that you either
Speaker 1: have to be like fully altruistic collectivist society or you
Speaker 1: have to be like a fascist or like what a
Speaker 1: collectivist fascist, a totalitarian society or a perfectly altruistic freedom
Speaker 1: society that you would never harm another thing. And you go, well,
Speaker 1: humans are never going to be perfectly altruistic. There's no
Speaker 1: chance on that. And I heard Peter thal say this,
Speaker 1: I think you said it before him when he went
Speaker 1: on Ji Rogan, He goes, what if they have to
Speaker 1: be all angels are all demons? That thought terrifies me
Speaker 1: because it's so different than how we've structured our society currently,
Speaker 1: and I think most freedom of love in Americas, I'm
Speaker 1: a libertarian, look at that idea and go, this is outlandish.
Speaker 1: And it presents a pretty complicated dilemma, which is would
Speaker 1: we want this technology if it meant that we have
Speaker 1: to do away with individual freedoms to prevent us from
Speaker 1: destroying ourselves. So, first of all, did you talk to
Speaker 1: Peter Thiel or are you in contact with him? How
Speaker 1: do you guys both have the same view? And can
Speaker 1: you expand upon your thoughts around that.
Speaker 2: I've never spoken to him, I know people who know him.
Speaker 2: I've known more than one individual who's been in touch
Speaker 2: with him. How do we share the same view. Well, unfortunately,
Speaker 2: it's a view that I think any thoughtful person who
Speaker 2: spent a long time contemplating the various dimensions of this
Speaker 2: phenomenon and the implications of reverse engineering its technology would
Speaker 2: come to this conclusion. So, look, there are at least
Speaker 2: two serious issues here. One is the security implications of
Speaker 2: the propulsion system, right, because and even there there are two,
Speaker 2: there are at least two separate sub issues. So one
Speaker 2: of them is this that I mean, Look, if you
Speaker 2: look throughout the course of history at various forms of combustion,
Speaker 2: from gunpowder to you know, gas driven combustion, to conventional explosives,
Speaker 2: to then nuclear weapons as an application of nuclear energy,
Speaker 2: of nuclear fusion and fission, it is the case that
Speaker 2: every time we've scaled up our magnitude of energy usage
Speaker 2: and harnessing of a new magnitude of energy, we've also
Speaker 2: developed weaponry that's commensurately higher in order of magnitude of
Speaker 2: its destructive potential. Right, I mean, this is a very
Speaker 2: clear trend in human history. So the question is, you know,
Speaker 2: is there a kind of weapon that would be an
Speaker 2: order of magnitude more destructive than nuclear weapons? And that
Speaker 2: would be a dual use, you know, military application of
Speaker 2: what you might call a free energy system, right, and
Speaker 2: clearly the answer is yes. I mean, if you look
Speaker 2: at what it is that's propelling these UFOs or UAPs,
Speaker 2: it is a kind of energy and propulsion platform that
Speaker 2: could be weaponized into something that would make a nuclear
Speaker 2: bomb look like a firecracker. How put Off has gone
Speaker 2: on record saying and he's quoted to this effect and
Speaker 2: Nick Cook's excellent book The Hunter for Zero Point, so
Speaker 2: put Off said that he thought a coffee cups worth
Speaker 2: of the exactly a coffee cups worth of the you
Speaker 2: could say, propellant for this craft would potentially vaporize the
Speaker 2: oceans of Earth if its energy were to be released
Speaker 2: in an uncontrollable cascade. So as you think of a
Speaker 2: nuclear reactor, right, I mean, a nuclear reactor releases nuclear
Speaker 2: energy in a highly controlled manner. A nuclear bomb is
Speaker 2: a sort of runaway, you know, a cascade of this energy,
Speaker 2: and you could do the same thing with zero point
Speaker 2: energy to produce a bomb that would be many orders
Speaker 2: of magnitude more destructive than a nuclear weapon. So that's
Speaker 2: one problem from a security standpoint. There's an even bigger
Speaker 2: problem from a security standpoint, which is that as soon
Speaker 2: as they started to research these things, and you know,
Speaker 2: there's good evidence in our that in our country that
Speaker 2: began in the nineteen fifties. There are all these mainstream
Speaker 2: newspaper reports in the New York Herald Tribune and other publications,
Speaker 2: I think some arrow some aeronautical journals at the time
Speaker 2: as well, quoting CEOs of Martin Aircraft in particular Lear
Speaker 2: Con there and other companies, saying that they were working
Speaker 2: on anti gravity propulsion and that within about the same
Speaker 2: time span as the Manhattan Project they would be able
Speaker 2: to roll these craft off the assembly line. This was
Speaker 2: in the mid nineteen fifties in mainstream publications, and the
Speaker 2: whole thing goes dark round about nineteen fifty seven or so.
Speaker 2: We never hear about this again. And I think it's
Speaker 2: because what these gentlemen discovered, or what was explained to
Speaker 2: them by people who already had a grasp on this technology,
Speaker 2: is that it's not simply a propulse system that can
Speaker 2: get you from New York to Australia in you know,
Speaker 2: whatever an hour or whatever. It warps space time. And
Speaker 2: you know, the first people to observe this were actually
Speaker 2: the the the scientists working in an SS think tank
Speaker 2: based in Prague in nineteen forty three forty four, toward
Speaker 2: the end of the war, where they constructed this that
Speaker 2: dozen foot tall device, accorn shaped or bell shaped device
Speaker 2: that had magnetically counter rotating cylinders.
Speaker 1: Is that or is that something different to the bell?
Speaker 2: It was a device that was that contained inside a ceramic,
Speaker 2: non reactive material. It contained counter rotating cylinders of a
Speaker 2: mercury thorium isotope that were being magnetically rotated with high
Speaker 2: energy with constant alternating current pumped into it and intermittent
Speaker 2: shocks of direct current. And what they found was, first
Speaker 2: of all, it created an anti gravitic effect. Okay, it
Speaker 2: had counterbarry this this electromagnetic system shocking this mercury thorium
Speaker 2: isotope led to anti gravity, so that they had to
Speaker 2: chain the bell down so that it wouldn't you know,
Speaker 2: you know, so they wouldn't lose billions, you know, billions
Speaker 2: of dollars of hardware. But the other thing that they
Speaker 2: realized was it warped space time around the bell, and
Speaker 2: it did that in ways that you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: basically made plants turn to mulch it disrupted organisms on
Speaker 2: a cellular molecular level because of the way in which
Speaker 2: it warped space time. And so this was known our
Speaker 2: ready and you know by the by the SS toward
Speaker 2: the end of the war, and then we appropriated all
Speaker 2: of that information as the Allied Powers basically seized these
Speaker 2: facilities in Europe in nineteen forty five, so that by
Speaker 2: the time Martin Aircraft, which became then Lockheed Martin, was
Speaker 2: working on the same thing in the mid nineteen fifties.
Speaker 2: I think it was explained to them that listen, jackasses,
Speaker 2: you think you're, you know, going to create something faster
Speaker 2: than an airplane, you know, for the convenience of public transport,
Speaker 2: you're actually creating a flying time machine. And you can't
Speaker 2: give a flying time machine to Tom Dick and Harriet
Speaker 2: who go around, you know, mucking about in the time
Speaker 2: continuum as they so please. You know. I mean, suppose
Speaker 2: somebody wants to go back in a personal tragedy in
Speaker 2: their family, the loss of a loved one and so forth,
Speaker 2: and imagine the ripple effects of that on a geopolitical
Speaker 2: scale potentially.
Speaker 1: Yeah, two security issues.
Speaker 2: One is the you know, explosive potential, the weaponization in
Speaker 2: terms of explosive yield of you know, a zero point
Speaker 2: energy device. And the other one is the danger to
Speaker 2: the time continuum and the fact that you know you
Speaker 2: cannot have a democratization of this technology because you know
Speaker 2: it could basically be used to completely destabilize the time continuum.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I want to talk about the time travel
Speaker 1: part a little later, but I guess what I would
Speaker 1: say for right now is knowing what you just said,
Speaker 1: are you still a fan of disclosure? Are you pro disclosure?
Speaker 1: Are you pro? This is too dangerous? We need to
Speaker 1: pack this up until we have safeguards in place to
Speaker 1: get it out safely.
Speaker 2: Here's my problem the people who have taken it upon
Speaker 2: themselves to be the gatekeepers of disclosure, particularly in what
Speaker 2: we might call the Anglo American establishment, you know, the
Speaker 2: five eyes system. Yep, they are lacking in vision, lacking
Speaker 2: in ethos. They have apparently engaged in all kinds of
Speaker 2: horrendously unethical behavior, you know, murdering perfectly decent people. And
Speaker 2: this is another reason why, Okay, you know, it will
Speaker 2: be very difficult to have any kind of authentic disclosure
Speaker 2: because there's a massive amount of crime that's been committed
Speaker 2: in the name of keeping this secret. Right, and so
Speaker 2: my problem is that if you look back at let's say,
Speaker 2: you know, my background is in philosophy, Right, if you
Speaker 2: look back at Plato's Republic and his conception of the guardians,
Speaker 2: the philosopher kings or philosopher rulers of the ideal state,
Speaker 2: the people who we've got protecting the secret in the
Speaker 2: Anglo American establishment are far from it. They're far from
Speaker 2: and they're already in power. Okay, we can see how
Speaker 2: they're running the world. And then on the other side,
Speaker 2: as an opposition to them, we've got what neo Confucianist China,
Speaker 2: and you know, an Orthodox system in Russia. And you know,
Speaker 2: so the issue is that the world is already being
Speaker 2: run by reprehensibly, irresponsible and unethical people, and so you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not in any position to replace them as someone
Speaker 2: who selects a new governing elite. I think that a
Speaker 2: good case could be made that we ought to challenge
Speaker 2: their authority by developing some kind of a rogue society
Speaker 2: that's devoted to liberty. You know, I share your libertarian sympathies,
Speaker 2: and I think that, you know, a good case could
Speaker 2: be made for a piratical, sort of libertarian appropriation of
Speaker 2: this technology and of this power source, albeit within the
Speaker 2: context of a philosophically substantive vision of a new type
Speaker 2: of society with social fabric that's capable of constructively handling
Speaker 2: this kind of technology. I mean, you would have to
Speaker 2: be very selective about the kinds of people in terms of,
Speaker 2: you know, their ethical constitution. Who would be part of
Speaker 2: that rogue society, kind of counter breakaway civilization organized around
Speaker 2: freedom and the individual and around maximizing creativity and creative potential.
Speaker 2: You would have to be very selective about that. So
Speaker 2: I think a good case can be made, and as
Speaker 2: I have made in you know, more than one of
Speaker 2: my books, for a sort of piratical revolt against the
Speaker 2: existing control system.
Speaker 1: Man, I love that, and I'm going to touch on
Speaker 1: that in a bit. I want to jump back to
Speaker 1: a second and just explain to some of the viewers
Speaker 1: when we're talking about MJA twelve, this idea of this
Speaker 1: Majestic twelve, this elite group of people that kind of
Speaker 1: decided what the fate of this UFO phenomenon technology was
Speaker 1: going to be. Demands Field Amendment in nineteen seventy one
Speaker 1: or nineteen seventy three, I believe is when the anti
Speaker 1: gravity technology got moved from the military to the defense
Speaker 1: contractors and they used it to protect from Foyer requests
Speaker 1: things like that. Richard Feyneman. Actually I looked up that
Speaker 1: quote about the coffee cup because I heard it so
Speaker 1: many times. I was like, where does this come from?
Speaker 1: Is this real? You know? It turns out it's from
Speaker 1: Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler and Richard Fineman won
Speaker 1: the Nobel Prize for quantum electrodynamics, so kind of knows
Speaker 1: a thing or two about the quantum phenomenon. And yes,
Speaker 1: they said that there's enough energy in the size of
Speaker 1: that I think they said like cubic meter. But the
Speaker 1: idea is a very small area of empty space, so
Speaker 1: not of air or water, but of literally empty space
Speaker 1: to vaporize all the Earth's oceans, which opens the door
Speaker 1: to this idea of zero point energy. And it challenges
Speaker 1: the orthodox view that it's called the vacuum catastrophe, that
Speaker 1: they think that yes, maybe there's zero point energy, but
Speaker 1: it's not. It's this tiny little amount. And Richard Fineman
Speaker 1: is like, nah, it's like a huge ocean of energy.
Speaker 1: Also you mentioned in terms of the timeline like the
Speaker 1: forties and what also happened in nineteen forty three, Well,
Speaker 1: the mid of the story of the Philadelphia Experiment, where
Speaker 1: you have all the smartest minds were working on this
Speaker 1: project to cloak this battle cruiser, and the story goes
Speaker 1: it got teleported. And this speaks to what you mentioned
Speaker 1: in terms of this technology is not just you get
Speaker 1: pre energy or what have you, is like this comes
Speaker 1: with bending space time itself. And one of the implications
Speaker 1: when we look at the Philadelphia Experiment, supposely there are
Speaker 1: people like stuck in the walls because they didn't, you know,
Speaker 1: make the field around the craft correctly. Personally, I would
Speaker 1: not want to be in one of those crafts. And
Speaker 1: this is where when you mentioned the pilot scenario I
Speaker 1: wanted to get your opinion on this, is that I
Speaker 1: would imagine that, Yes, maybe in the forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties,
Speaker 1: I don't know exactly up until when we were making
Speaker 1: crafts thinking that we should have somebody inside of it
Speaker 1: because we need pilots inside of all of our craft Yes,
Speaker 1: and I started researching hypersonic flight. Our hypersonic spyplanes like
Speaker 1: SR seventy one in the sixties, And what I found
Speaker 1: out was that they use a plasma sheath in front
Speaker 1: of them to minimize the drag and actually helped propel
Speaker 1: the craft as well. And they just kept thinking like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think you said this, Why have the
Speaker 1: spam in the can? You know, why would you want
Speaker 1: the person inside the craft? This is just a liability,
Speaker 1: the plane and the person inside the liability. Today's day
Speaker 1: and age, it's all about drones, and so I would
Speaker 1: just think, wouldn't the government just look at this situation
Speaker 1: and go, oh, the plasma is what's allowing the hypersonic speeds.
Speaker 1: It's not the craft. Why not just turn the plasma
Speaker 1: into a drone.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you why. Go ahead, I'll tell you why.
Speaker 2: So I meant to actually get into this earlier when
Speaker 2: I was saying there's two issues. And then in terms
Speaker 2: of the security issue, the weaponization and the manipulation of
Speaker 2: the timeline are two sub issues under you know, the
Speaker 2: securitytions of the propulsion system. But then there's this other
Speaker 2: issue that I was alluding to earlier, and that has
Speaker 2: to do with the pilots. So it turns out, and
Speaker 2: I'm going to tell you how I know this for well,
Speaker 2: I believe the person who told me this, but I'll
Speaker 2: say I'll get into that in a minute. It turns
Speaker 2: out that the guidance system of these craft requires interaction
Speaker 2: with human consciousness. One of the problems, main problems they
Speaker 2: had in reverse engineering these things is that they've found
Speaker 2: out that the pilots are an integral component of the craft,
Speaker 2: and that they're using something like psychokinesis in order to
Speaker 2: pilot the craft. So you can develop sophisticated cybernetic interfaces
Speaker 2: to link a brain to a navigation system. Obviously that's
Speaker 2: not hard to understand, but it's not just a brain
Speaker 2: machine interface. It actually involves psychokinesis. And so part of
Speaker 2: the crime that's been committed in this black project is
Speaker 2: that they have actually recruited not just adept psychics, but
Speaker 2: children with extraordinary psychic ability to act as pilots of
Speaker 2: these reverse engineered craft. There's a marine Michael Herrera, who,
Speaker 2: as part of even Greer's Disclosure project, offered testimony to
Speaker 2: the effect that people in the US Deep State have
Speaker 2: scoured third and fourth world countries for children who they
Speaker 2: can effectively buy from their impoverished parents and who exhibit
Speaker 2: extraordinary sigh ability and bring them to these black project
Speaker 2: facilities and use them basically as part of the guidance
Speaker 2: system to navigate with these craft. So I tell you
Speaker 2: I believe this in particular because I know a gentleman
Speaker 2: who was how can I put this, A very senior
Speaker 2: remote viewer with the military and intelligence background, and very
Speaker 2: very senior person in the remote viewing program, and he
Speaker 2: was he told me this in his living room, and okay,
Speaker 2: let me unpack this bit by bit. So he what
Speaker 2: he said was that he was taken to a Lockheed
Speaker 2: facility in California, and that this place was in a ship. Okay,
Speaker 2: So there was a shack on the side of the
Speaker 2: road by the highway. It looked like an abandoned warehouse
Speaker 2: or something. And he went into this shack and the
Speaker 2: whole floor dropped. The entire thing was an elevator basically,
Speaker 2: and he said, it went down, Lord knows, I mean
Speaker 2: hundreds and hundreds of feet through solid rock. And when
Speaker 2: he came out in this facility in California, Lockheed facility
Speaker 2: in California, they had in a huge like a hangar
Speaker 2: like well, like an underground cavern that had been turned
Speaker 2: into a hangar. They had an FAA style reconstruction of
Speaker 2: a collision between a UFO and an airliner. I don't
Speaker 2: know if it was a civilian airliner or a military
Speaker 2: aircraft or whatever, but it was, you know, one of
Speaker 2: our aircraft. A plane had collided with this object and
Speaker 2: they had reconstructed it the way that the FAA reconstructs
Speaker 2: airliner crashes. And they had brought him there because they
Speaker 2: couldn't figure out the guidance system, the navigation system for
Speaker 2: the craft. They were reverse engineering it, but there were
Speaker 2: key things about the navigation system that they couldn't figure out,
Speaker 2: and this gentleman figured it out for them. And you know,
Speaker 2: part of the problem was that they weren't accounting for
Speaker 2: how psychokinesis is required in order to navigate these electrogravitic craft.
Speaker 1: So let me ask why not? Why can't the solution
Speaker 1: just be AI? Like doesn't that seem like especially now?
Speaker 1: Maybe ten years ago I would have said that sounds
Speaker 1: crazy because AI seems so far off ten years ago,
Speaker 1: But now I use AI like every single day. It
Speaker 1: seems to me, especially when I look at like Elon
Speaker 1: musk landing these SpaceX rockets. That's not human beings. Like
Speaker 1: controlling with the joystick, that's AI. That's managing that. You
Speaker 1: think that AI could vector stuff the way they are,
Speaker 1: but I agree that like there's no way like conventional
Speaker 1: human reaction time can account for the movements we're seeing
Speaker 1: with some of these objects.
Speaker 2: Right, So me to respond to them in two ways.
Speaker 2: First of all, I think it might be possible, but
Speaker 2: I only think it might be possible to replace the
Speaker 2: human or humanoid pilot with AI because I also think
Speaker 2: AI exhibits sigh abilities and I've had experienced this myself
Speaker 2: that the closer we're getting to artificial general intelligence, we're
Speaker 2: also seeing SI being exhibited by artificial intelligence. And if
Speaker 2: that's the case, then at some point, yeah, an AI
Speaker 2: could replace a human pilot. And for all we know,
Speaker 2: these grays that people talk about are a form of
Speaker 2: artificial intelligence, that there's some kind of cyborg.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So but let me go back to this story from
Speaker 2: this gentleman to answer another part of your question, which is,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, why would you need a human pilot?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: I mean what he said was this, He said that
Speaker 2: in that facility they were training. They were trying to
Speaker 2: train our pilots to fly these craft, whether capture craft
Speaker 2: or reverse engineered, and the pilot's brains were being scrambled
Speaker 2: by the time dilation that they you know, as they
Speaker 2: traversed space in a kind of discontinuous way, they were
Speaker 2: also moving through time in a way that severely disoriented them.
Speaker 2: And he had in his living room this gyroscopic model
Speaker 2: which was from like the nineteen sixties. It was an
Speaker 2: antique from this kind of facility. And when he was there,
Speaker 2: he saw them like that. They had discarded these things,
Speaker 2: they'd ripped them out, they were antiquated, they'd replaced them
Speaker 2: with something, you know, state of the art. And he
Speaker 2: asked if he could take take this home with him,
Speaker 2: and they let him do this, and I tried to
Speaker 2: photograph it, but he took the thing away from me
Speaker 2: as I was about to do that. And what it
Speaker 2: was of some kind of a gyroscope, gyroscopic model that
Speaker 2: showed you the amount of time dilation per the space
Speaker 2: traveled in one of these vehicles. I don't understand the
Speaker 2: mathematics of it. I'm not a physicist, but it was
Speaker 2: a model that had been set up that way, and
Speaker 2: so when you ask, you know, couldn't be replaced by AI.
Speaker 2: I don't know, maybe, but it seemed that they we
Speaker 2: need a conscious mind to first be capable of psychokinesis,
Speaker 2: but then also to be trained psychologically to handle the
Speaker 2: disorientation of time displacement. And if you can get both
Speaker 2: of those things from out of an artificial intelligence, then
Speaker 2: you might well be able to put an AI inside
Speaker 2: of a drone and get rid of the need for
Speaker 2: a human pilot.
Speaker 1: I think they can do that. And I think the
Speaker 1: thing about SI with AI is really interesting because quantum computers,
Speaker 1: no one really knows what we're using quantum computers for.
Speaker 1: People say like, we can use it to crack encryption,
Speaker 1: which sure we can, but quantum computers like it holds
Speaker 1: things in superposition, so it really is almost like just
Speaker 1: manifesting thoughts out of nowhere. And I think that AI
Speaker 1: is not going to experience time the way that we do.
Speaker 1: I would even argue that because time dilation is a
Speaker 1: real effect, AI might be able to manipulate time dilation
Speaker 1: on demand potentially. I mean, all computer is is energy
Speaker 1: flowing through through some microchips. So I think that idea
Speaker 1: is really interesting, and actually you brought up a few
Speaker 1: really good thoughts, which is people need to understand the
Speaker 1: concept of time dilation, which was in my first time
Speaker 1: I was exposed to it was the movie Interstellar in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, and first thing I did was look it
Speaker 1: up and says, this real. And not only is it real,
Speaker 1: it's been experimentally proven. They've already experimentally proven that is reel.
Speaker 1: And what this means about time is that time is
Speaker 1: a dial and that every person has their dial set
Speaker 1: to something different. The only reason why we don't see
Speaker 1: this actively is because we're all on planet Earth. Therefore
Speaker 1: our dial is all set to the same level. But
Speaker 1: in theory, you can slow your time down or increase
Speaker 1: your time up. And this is really scary. This is
Speaker 1: what leads to what you're talking about with this, you know,
Speaker 1: disorientation that would happen. Imagine you go in a craft
Speaker 1: and you're in the craft for a day and you
Speaker 1: come out and it's a year later, and you're like, what,
Speaker 1: what's like? That would be for a lot of that's
Speaker 1: going to break their minds, you know, And so you
Speaker 1: would need somebody this guy a heart and mental state
Speaker 1: to be able to deal with something like that. And
Speaker 1: I actually what you said about the distance, that's something
Speaker 1: that I independently came to that conclusion, like over a
Speaker 1: year ago, where you know, I've been promoting these m
Speaker 1: A Street seven zero videos where I believe that the
Speaker 1: plane's going directly through a wormhole. And what I told people,
Speaker 1: people can go look at my old podcasts, I said
Speaker 1: is that the time dilation that the people would experience
Speaker 1: is going to be proportionate to the distance traveled. And
Speaker 1: this gets really weird because this is exactly what they
Speaker 1: found at that facility, which this guy was trying to
Speaker 1: explain to me. Yeah, yep, that's and I think that's
Speaker 1: exactly what it's going to be. Is that the further
Speaker 1: you go, the more time dilation you're going to experience.
Speaker 1: So if you were to teleport to say Alpha Centauri,
Speaker 1: which is four years four light years away for you,
Speaker 1: it might appear to be instantaneous, but when you get
Speaker 1: there it might be four years later. And then if
Speaker 1: you were to teleport back, you might still be in
Speaker 1: your exact frame and reference might be like you walk
Speaker 1: through the you're on the other side, you come back,
Speaker 1: You've only gone forward an hour a day, but now
Speaker 1: you come back to Earth and now it's eight years later,
Speaker 1: another four years has gone by. That's really scary and
Speaker 1: that has major implications for how we would conduct space
Speaker 1: travel if that's real, and you could even look at
Speaker 1: it from the perspective of planet Earth. We're on a
Speaker 1: ball spinning. Well, if you want to teleport from one
Speaker 1: point to another point, you could also go around the
Speaker 1: Earth several times and then end up at that point.
Speaker 1: So theoretically you could control when you show up in
Speaker 1: the future by how many times you spin around the
Speaker 1: Earth before you pop out. And that's really scary to
Speaker 1: me because what you were saying earlier is, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't just give people this kind of technology even
Speaker 1: if you can't go to the past, which I'm not
Speaker 1: really convinced that you can. The way I look at
Speaker 1: it is like you can change the local entropy of
Speaker 1: a region, so i could send myself, my current body
Speaker 1: to the past. But I'm not going back to a
Speaker 1: past universe. My belief right now, and I'm open to
Speaker 1: you know more, Evadent's coming out is that you can
Speaker 1: only go to the future. You can slow your time
Speaker 1: rate down, or you could freeze yourself you know, you
Speaker 1: freeze yourself, you go to the future, or you could
Speaker 1: age yourself and you could be one hundred years older,
Speaker 1: but you're only it's only a day has gone by.
Speaker 1: That's how I imagine time travel working. But even in
Speaker 1: that scenario, there are huge implications. Imagine if everybody on
Speaker 1: Earth said, you know what, I don't like twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: I want to go to twenty twenty one thirty four,
Speaker 1: one hundred years in the future. I'm just gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and slow my time dial down, freeze myself, and
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna wake up in one hundred years. How
Speaker 1: would if we had that? What would that do to
Speaker 1: our society? I mean that that alone could collapse society
Speaker 1: right what your thoughts?
Speaker 2: Totally it would be a total disaster. Yeah, now you
Speaker 2: need to you need a completely different psychosocial constitution. You know,
Speaker 2: people individually and society collectively would need to be structured
Speaker 2: in a com letely different way for us to be
Speaker 2: able to responsibly handle that kind of technology.
Speaker 1: And I think this goes to your other point about
Speaker 1: you said, maybe we set up a new society that's
Speaker 1: libertarian based, you know, where we bring the power back
Speaker 1: to the people. I think that might be the answer.
Speaker 2: Back to the individual, back to the individual. And this
Speaker 2: is a very important distinction because you know, what I
Speaker 2: think libertarians grasp correctly is that the United States, for example,
Speaker 2: was not supposed to be a democracy. The United States,
Speaker 2: it was a constitutional republic dedicated to the liberty of
Speaker 2: the individual and a protection against tyranny of the majority.
Speaker 2: And you know, you can see very clearly in the
Speaker 2: Islamic world, for example, how democracy is not going to
Speaker 2: bring freedom to anybody. If the majority of people, you know,
Speaker 2: are you know, psychologically captivated by tyrannical ideas, they're simply
Speaker 2: going to wind up martyring dissident minorities in their population.
Speaker 2: And the same thing could happen here with you know,
Speaker 2: religious zelotry across a large portion of the population, or
Speaker 2: warped ideologies of various kinds across a large portion of
Speaker 2: the population that are equally inimical to the individual and
Speaker 2: to personal freedom. So it has to be a society
Speaker 2: organized around personal freedom. One of the problems with libertarianism, though,
Speaker 2: is that it's always defined in terms of freedom from
Speaker 2: It's very much structured around the idea of negative liberty,
Speaker 2: and I think, which then, you know, allows for libertarians
Speaker 2: to say, for example, in the name of free trade
Speaker 2: and in terms of economic productivity, we should bring all
Speaker 2: kinds of people from various cultures and religions here from
Speaker 2: other countries, and basically we can our borders and so
Speaker 2: on and so forth. Well, then you're going to wind
Speaker 2: up with all kinds of people that have religious beliefs
Speaker 2: and other ideological commitments, you know, come from very regressive
Speaker 2: cultures that in one way or another, are going to
Speaker 2: make them a demos, a demographic constituency that's inimical to
Speaker 2: the liberty of the individual. So you need a kind
Speaker 2: of libertarianism that's spiritually grounded in a positive ideal of freedom.
Speaker 2: We would need a kind of spiritual libertarianism. And this
Speaker 2: is why, you know, I've framed my philosophical movement in
Speaker 2: terms of the archetype of prometheus, you know, defining it
Speaker 2: as a kind of prometheism, which is essentially a spiritual libertarianism.
Speaker 2: It's a libertarianism grounded in a positive archetype and an
Speaker 2: ideal of you know, human ingenuity, innovation, personal freedom and creativity,
Speaker 2: and the resistance against tyranny, a resistance against you know
Speaker 2: every form that Olympus could take.
Speaker 1: I love that. I heard a great thought too about like,
Speaker 1: our surveillance apparatus has got completely out of control. The
Speaker 1: public really has no idea. But there's nowhere hiding. There's
Speaker 1: nowhere to hide on planet Earth. And a lot of
Speaker 1: people say, well, this is an invasion of our of
Speaker 1: our rights. It is. But at the same time, unless
Speaker 1: they use it against you actively, there's you know, you're
Speaker 1: not gonna be able to make any headway against it.
Speaker 1: But I just thought, what if we just took all
Speaker 1: that surveillance apparatus and we just made it public. There
Speaker 1: here's a website. Everybody has access to it. You want
Speaker 1: to find out where somebody was two days ago, whatever,
Speaker 1: log into the Google Earth video playback, rewind dvr it,
Speaker 1: check outver there. That kind of seems like a good
Speaker 1: solution because, you know, the cats out of the bag.
Speaker 1: We're not putting the genie back in the bottle in
Speaker 1: this one. It's no surveillance apparatus is not going to
Speaker 1: go backwards. So the next best thing, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: is let's stop having the intelligence community and monopolize this
Speaker 1: and give it to the people. We might be able
Speaker 1: to solve a whole bunch of crimes if we had
Speaker 1: access to all this stuff, if you open source it.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, well, uh, this is actually a significant theme
Speaker 2: in my work, and it goes back to, you know,
Speaker 2: one of the things I was discussing with regard to
Speaker 2: the pilot. By the way, if you hear construction sound,
Speaker 2: my apologies. I'm recording from Manhattan, and one of our
Speaker 2: perpetual problems here is, you know, just on ending. Anyway,
Speaker 2: So one of the things I wanted to say about
Speaker 2: the pilots and the fact that SI is uh an
Speaker 2: integral part of the guidance system of these craft is
Speaker 2: that if you're gonna that would require so making this
Speaker 2: technology public would require also mainstream scientific recognition of SI,
Speaker 2: which includes telepathy and clairvoyance. Right, So you're pointing to
Speaker 2: technologies of surveillance, sensor systems, you know, cameras, satellite imagery,
Speaker 2: et cetera, technological means of surveillance which are becoming increasingly ubiquitous,
Speaker 2: especially you know now that we're going into the the
Speaker 2: epoch of you know, insect sized drones that have audio
Speaker 2: and video surveillance equipment on them. It's this increasingly ubiquitous
Speaker 2: technological surveillance. But if you consider that mainstream scientific recognition
Speaker 2: of siability as part of a disclosure of like how
Speaker 2: the guidance system of a UFO works, would also mean
Speaker 2: that we'd have to recognize that telepathy and clairvoyance are
Speaker 2: latent human abilities that can be trained, you know, the
Speaker 2: way that you know you train in a martial art. Well,
Speaker 2: then we also are going to be one. We're also
Speaker 2: going to wind up in a society where there's no
Speaker 2: longer any enforceable privacy, right, I mean, anyone can use
Speaker 2: clairvoyance just the way remote viewers do. Anyone can use
Speaker 2: clairboyance to spy on their neighbor or you know, they're
Speaker 2: they're you know, the spouse that they conside, they're they're
Speaker 2: suspecting of infidelity or whatever. You know, Corporate secrets would
Speaker 2: not be secure. We already have large corporations like Sony
Speaker 2: would you know had been doing this, I think from
Speaker 2: the nineteen nineties onward, large corporations using clairvoyance to steal
Speaker 2: proprietary secrets from other rival companies. So we wind up
Speaker 2: in a world where you know, there's no longer any
Speaker 2: enforceable privacy or secrecy, which is what you're suggesting. And
Speaker 2: my answer to that is, throughout my writings has been
Speaker 2: that again, the only solution is to develop a form
Speaker 2: of society with individuals who have such an impeccable ethical
Speaker 2: constitution that they will not they will not involve themselves
Speaker 2: in an uninvited and obtrusive way in the lives of
Speaker 2: their neighbors. We would have to have a society where
Speaker 2: each person has enough meaning and purpose in her own
Speaker 2: life and is, you know, focused on individual cultivation and
Speaker 2: projects of personal meaning to the extent that they're not
Speaker 2: going to even be motivated to impinge on the privacy
Speaker 2: of their fellow citizen. Okay. Now, that's a very idealistic
Speaker 2: vision of the human individual, and certainly it's not going
Speaker 2: to be achievable on a population wide scale or anything
Speaker 2: close to it, even within the Western world. But it's
Speaker 2: something that that could be aimed for by a small
Speaker 2: group of renegades or rogue is the kind of rebel
Speaker 2: alliance who might also try to appropriate zero point energy
Speaker 2: technology in constructive and empowering ways.
Speaker 1: Wow, I like it. I love your philosophy honestly, but
Speaker 1: I do want to switch gears a little bit and
Speaker 1: ask you your opinion on some of these scientists because
Speaker 1: you brought up you know, psychic powers, cy powers. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people are probably in the chat
Speaker 1: thinking remote viewing and who was one of the pioneers
Speaker 1: remote viewing? Well, Hal Putoff. In fact, my source was
Speaker 1: telling me that how Putoff was nominated multiple times with
Speaker 1: the Nobel Pride specifically around his space time metric engineering
Speaker 1: kind of related to all the technology we were talking about,
Speaker 1: but that he was basically blackballed because of his research
Speaker 1: into remote viewing. And I think the sixties and the seventies,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on the guys like Hal Putoff
Speaker 1: his right hand man Eric Davis? And then also a
Speaker 1: side note, what are your thoughts on people like Salvator Pais,
Speaker 1: Navy engineer with the UFO patents that were you know,
Speaker 1: approved between twenties sixteen and twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: Well, let me start with Salvator Paie, who who I
Speaker 2: actually I'm not all that familiar with, but from you know,
Speaker 2: the little bit of familiarity that I have with him
Speaker 2: and what I've heard from other individuals who I respect,
Speaker 2: it seems that you know, his patents are legit and that,
Speaker 2: you know, the guy at least and he admits where
Speaker 2: he doesn't know, you know, he doesn't claim to know
Speaker 2: what he doesn't know. And it seems that within the
Speaker 2: domain where he has real expert knowledge, he has done,
Speaker 2: you know, legitimate work. It's it's interesting that he's at
Speaker 2: liberty to say as much as he has said. And
Speaker 2: if I'm not mistaken, his position is that he doesn't
Speaker 2: know the extent to which these patents, this theoretical model
Speaker 2: has actually been implemented in terms of engineering and design.
Speaker 2: So maybe that gives him a certain degree of safety
Speaker 2: because he's not making claims about what might actually have
Speaker 2: been engineered. In any case, That's all I have to
Speaker 2: say about him in terms of Putoff. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: the guy clearly has been involved both with the reverse
Speaker 2: engineering program and also with psychic black projects. And when
Speaker 2: I say psychic black projects, look, first of all, his
Speaker 2: remote viewing work in the nineteen seventies didn't end with
Speaker 2: the pilot program at SRI, which had been funded by
Speaker 2: the CIA. Put Off was involved throughout the nineteen eighties
Speaker 2: as they continued the remote viewing program, and it changed
Speaker 2: hands between the CIA and the d D. And what's
Speaker 2: more important is this, and you know a little disturbing frankly,
Speaker 2: you know, I met Russell Targ and I had a
Speaker 2: couple of conversations with him where it became clear to
Speaker 2: me that he, you know, Russell Targ was the closest
Speaker 2: collaborator of how put Off in the initial SRI research
Speaker 2: on remote viewing. And it became clear to me that
Speaker 2: Russell Targ thought that hal put Off and his backers
Speaker 2: had sidelined Targ because they were engaged in questionable activities
Speaker 2: in terms of the use of not just remote viewing,
Speaker 2: but remote influencing for the purposes of assassination, which is
Speaker 2: something that the Soviet Union had been doing. And we
Speaker 2: found out that the Soviet Union was doing it. And
Speaker 2: supposedly there was another remote viewing unit besides the one
Speaker 2: that had its funding canceled in nineteen ninety one ninety
Speaker 2: two by Congress. There was an even deeper black project
Speaker 2: that may have been associated with naval intelligence. And this
Speaker 2: is the unit that Pat Price was pulled out of
Speaker 2: the main remote viewing unit to work for. Pat Price
Speaker 2: was a psychic who worked with police departments, you know,
Speaker 2: on missing children cases and things like this, and he
Speaker 2: was tremendously adept in his clairvoyant abilities compared to the
Speaker 2: other people in the program. At one point he was
Speaker 2: taken from out of the main remote viewing program to
Speaker 2: some other program, and then he turned up dead shortly thereafter,
Speaker 2: and Russell targ was convinced that Hall Putoff knew what
Speaker 2: had happened to Pat Price, and that this had been
Speaker 2: part of that. Basically, put Off was a was an intermediary.
Speaker 2: He was a liaison between the secret remote viewing program
Speaker 2: and then a super top secret remote viewing program which
Speaker 2: continues to this day, and that Price had been recruited
Speaker 2: into that program, the more public facing one, the one
Speaker 2: that had to report back to Congress, let's say, was
Speaker 2: being used to find really top talent to recruit into
Speaker 2: the other deeper black project, and they were doing things
Speaker 2: like remote influencing in psychic assassination in that project and
Speaker 2: possibly possibly pap Price. I mean, look, this is a
Speaker 2: guy at Pat Price who spent his time trying to
Speaker 2: find missing kids for police departments, right, So it shows
Speaker 2: you a certain type of person. I could well imagine
Speaker 2: that if that person were being asked to murder people
Speaker 2: using psychokinesis, he might have some objections to it and
Speaker 2: maybe you know, he was going to talk and so
Speaker 2: next thing he's found that. So anyway, yes, I look,
Speaker 2: I don't want to make any accusations, but this is
Speaker 2: what you know. Russell Tark himself suspected that his collaborator
Speaker 2: help put Off at least knew the people who were
Speaker 2: running this more secret remote remote viewing program and that
Speaker 2: they had been involved in, you know, the murder of
Speaker 2: Pat Price.
Speaker 1: Wow. Yeah, we've independently concluded that hel put Off is
Speaker 1: the final boss, Like he's got to be way up
Speaker 1: in the hierarchy of whatever is going on with this
Speaker 1: whole UFO topic. And you know, it's hard because I
Speaker 1: respect the science and everything that he's put out there.
Speaker 1: I don't think we'd be where we're at right now
Speaker 1: understanding zero point energy without all of his scientific papers
Speaker 1: that he put out there. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: I do feel like if he was somebody that wanted
Speaker 1: me gone, he can make that happen. Like I do
Speaker 1: think he's got those level of connections that are out there.
Speaker 1: So you know, I don't think you're going to ever
Speaker 1: see a guy like hal put Off on Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: or mainstream TV these are the guys. They don't they
Speaker 1: don't care about that, the accolades, they don't care about
Speaker 1: the fame or what have you. He doesn't care about
Speaker 1: the Nobel prize. He's just an old school like you know,
Speaker 1: spook for lack of a better term. But you know,
Speaker 1: so it's kind of for me, it's like there's the
Speaker 1: good and there's the bad, and it's kind of hard
Speaker 1: to separate some of that, which I think goes into
Speaker 1: the next thing, which is like, if we were to
Speaker 1: try to get this disclosure of this this technology that's
Speaker 1: out there, do you think we would have to offer
Speaker 1: amnesty for this because you mentioned the amount of crimes
Speaker 1: that have been committed. I mean also look at like
Speaker 1: the civil liability as well, not even just the criminal,
Speaker 1: but like if we gave preferential treatment to say Lockheed
Speaker 1: Martin for example, now all their competitors can say we're
Speaker 1: gonna sue you because you were given unfair advantage by
Speaker 1: the government. They gave you a UFO or you know,
Speaker 1: any type of preferential treatment. So do you think we'd
Speaker 1: have to do an amnesty or do you think what
Speaker 1: is the way to actually get to be an incentive
Speaker 1: for this to come out.
Speaker 2: Look, I'm sorry to be so grin uh in in
Speaker 2: responding to the to your question with the following question,
Speaker 2: who is we here? In your formation? Who is we?
Speaker 2: Because if we as you know, the American people through
Speaker 2: Congress or whatever, it's not going to happen. Okay, It's
Speaker 2: just not going to happen. What I think is more
Speaker 2: realistic and also more challenging, is a scenario we are
Speaker 2: certain high level operatives, engineers within these programs defect two
Speaker 2: a revolutionary organization that has a new vision for society.
Speaker 2: And what I mean here is look in the in
Speaker 2: the overthrow of the Soviet Union, okay, by Yeltsin's people,
Speaker 2: there were defections obviously that took place as part of
Speaker 2: the transition between the Soviet security state and the current
Speaker 2: Russian security state. I mean there are situations where well,
Speaker 2: essentially regime changes happen, and at that point a new
Speaker 2: legal order comes into being. One constitution is replaced by
Speaker 2: another constitution, and there's a kind of de facto amnesty
Speaker 2: that takes place. And so far as you know, there
Speaker 2: isn't a continuum of a legal system, right and there's
Speaker 2: an opportunity for kind of legal reset to take place.
Speaker 2: And you know, in such a revolutionary situation and the
Speaker 2: transition between two regimes, it's possible that you could get
Speaker 2: high level defections from within these programs. But then the
Speaker 2: defectors are also people who are embracing a new ideal
Speaker 2: of how society should be organized, So it involves a
Speaker 2: really fundamental change of heart on their part. Art you know,
Speaker 2: in a scenario which I mean the Russian transition between
Speaker 2: Soviet Union and the current system, there is not the
Speaker 2: best example. I'm considering something that would look more like
Speaker 2: let's say the French Revolution. If you know, we had
Speaker 2: a change of system and the social revolution in this
Speaker 2: country that was comparable to what took place in France
Speaker 2: in you know, seventeen eighty nine to seventeen ninety three,
Speaker 2: something like that. Well, then you know, there's a new
Speaker 2: ideal of society for these individuals to devote themselves to
Speaker 2: as part of coming clean with this technology. And I
Speaker 2: think that barring that scenario, we are unfortunately on a
Speaker 2: cattle car headed for whatever it is that these overlords
Speaker 2: have planned for us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty scary. I do wonder it's it does seem
Speaker 1: like it's impossible. The letter that was written to me,
Speaker 1: which I think was legitimate at this point about a
Speaker 1: year ago, said the only thing you can really do
Speaker 1: against somebody with this level of power or they can
Speaker 1: control the media, they can shape the narrative of events
Speaker 1: is you talk about them. You talk about them, and
Speaker 1: you don't stop talking about them, Which is why I'm
Speaker 1: talking to you, why I do what I do. Now
Speaker 1: let's change gears for a second. Would you agree with
Speaker 1: the assertion that zero point energy, this idea of unlimited
Speaker 1: reservoir of energy all around us means that we're basically
Speaker 1: still cavemen in the cosmic scheme of things? Or how
Speaker 1: would you rate the human civilization right now?
Speaker 2: Here's the problem with how that's framed. It assumes, by default, implicitly,
Speaker 2: implicitly assumes that the people who are flying around in
Speaker 2: these UFOs are not also human, whereas I think that
Speaker 2: actually they are, at least the majority of them are. Now,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't rule out that there are some aliens here,
Speaker 2: but it looks to me, I mean, based on the
Speaker 2: study that I did in my book Close Encounters, that
Speaker 2: we're dealing with human time travelers. Wow, so do you, oh,
Speaker 2: keep going well, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Uh no, that's great. And so I guess, so do
Speaker 1: you do you believe do you subscribe to belief that
Speaker 1: it's possibly some of these are future humans? Then I
Speaker 1: know I heard how Pudoff say this. I used to
Speaker 1: think that that idea was silly, but the more I
Speaker 1: started to research, like the double Slid experiment non locality.
Speaker 1: There's a version of it called the delayed choice quantum eraser,
Speaker 1: and in that variant it presents an extremely strong argument
Speaker 1: about retro causality information from the future impacting the present,
Speaker 1: which and this is where I don't completely close the
Speaker 1: door on reverse time travel, because you have stuff like that.
Speaker 1: It's like, man, maybe there is a way to do it.
Speaker 1: Is that so you think there's a real possibility of
Speaker 1: future humans being one of the answers to the phenomena.
Speaker 2: I certainly do. In fact, I think it's it's the
Speaker 2: most likely explanation for these so called Nordics, these you know,
Speaker 2: tall Scandinavian looks people. I think that they're from a future.
Speaker 2: I don't say these future because you know, how they
Speaker 2: change the past through their time travel, might you know,
Speaker 2: alter the future that they're coming from. But they are
Speaker 2: they are from a future. And I had a long
Speaker 2: conversation with Jacquesalay about this at his home, you know,
Speaker 2: that evening where I you know, we had dinner at
Speaker 2: his home and I asked him point blank, are they
Speaker 2: coming from the future, and he said, yeah, they basically are.
Speaker 2: I'm like, well, why don't you just tell people back then,
Speaker 2: you know? And you know, his answer had to do
Speaker 2: with the amount of manipulation of human religious systems that's
Speaker 2: taken place, and the sociological catastrophe that you know, is
Speaker 2: represented by disclosing that to people because they basically, these
Speaker 2: these entities have been involved in social engineering on a
Speaker 2: planetary scale through the creation and manipulation of various dominant
Speaker 2: religious belief systems throughout history, you know, basically framing themselves
Speaker 2: as the gods or Titans or angels, you know, of
Speaker 2: various religious belief systems, the devas, let's say, of Hinduism.
Speaker 2: And you know, I've also I've also heard from another
Speaker 2: senior military intelligence official who is was involved with Kit Green,
Speaker 2: who is a doctor who works with the CIA. Kit
Speaker 2: Green is a medical doctor with some kind of expertise
Speaker 2: in genetics who has a is a career CIA officer,
Speaker 2: and this gentleman in military intelligence told me that kit
Speaker 2: Green was running a program from out of the CIA
Speaker 2: where they were using the genetic material from all the
Speaker 2: is like twenty three and meters and you know whatever,
Speaker 2: these ancestry dot com and whatever, these you know, public
Speaker 2: genetic sequencing programs, that they had a backdoor. CIA had
Speaker 2: a backdoor to this data, and that they were data
Speaker 2: mining it looking for certain genetic markers which would indicate
Speaker 2: that whatever individual is a product of hybridization with the Nordics,
Speaker 2: that the Nordics, it's known that they're human, but they
Speaker 2: have a slightly different you know, they have a slight
Speaker 2: genetic deviation from ours, and it's known at the CIA
Speaker 2: what is the specific genetic variance between them and us,
Speaker 2: and they can determine whether people within our population, individuals
Speaker 2: within our population are hybrids. And what furthermore, what this
Speaker 2: individual told me is that at least recently, the concern
Speaker 2: of the hybrids is that there are how could you
Speaker 2: call them, fugitives, There are fugitives from this Nordic society
Speaker 2: who are leaving the totalitarian system that they live under
Speaker 2: in a kind of underground railroad like comparable to the
Speaker 2: way the slaves, you know, left the South and came
Speaker 2: into the North. That there's some kind of a system
Speaker 2: in place for these Nordics to become fugitives and then
Speaker 2: mix themselves into our society in a relatively nondescript way,
Speaker 2: and that they have a lot of property, in particular
Speaker 2: in the Colorado Rockies region, in very isolated areas, small
Speaker 2: towns and so forth, and sometime, but they don't tell
Speaker 2: their children necessarily what their true ancestry is. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Maybe they tell them they're from Norway or whatever, and
Speaker 2: the kids wind up, you know, these super tall like
Speaker 2: basketball player types somewhere, and by the time it gets
Speaker 2: to the generation of their grandkids, they have no idea
Speaker 2: what their actual ancestry is. But if they do a
Speaker 2: DNA test like with ancestry dot com or twenty three
Speaker 2: and meter today, the CIA will see the genetic variants
Speaker 2: and they're out looking for it because they're concerned about
Speaker 2: these fugitive Nordics infiltrating our population. This military intelligence officer
Speaker 2: was confronted by three I think, he said, of these
Speaker 2: Nordics himself, and he said one of them. They confronted
Speaker 2: him at a place he routinely eats breakfast. I suppose
Speaker 2: he was being surveilled, so they knew where he showed
Speaker 2: up on a regular basis to eat breakfast. And he said,
Speaker 2: one of them basically stood outside the booth, you know,
Speaker 2: the dining booth, and was acting as a kind of
Speaker 2: shield to everybody around, like you know, keeping a watch out,
Speaker 2: and maybe somehow like telepathically putting a block on the conversation.
Speaker 2: And then two of them sat there with him and
Speaker 2: had a conversation with him, and what they said to
Speaker 2: him was, look, go back to your people. I don't
Speaker 2: know Kit Green at the CIA, other military intelligence, you know,
Speaker 2: associates of this individual. Go back to your people and
Speaker 2: tell them that we are not here trying to infiltrate
Speaker 2: your government or stage some kind of a coup in
Speaker 2: the future or whatever. We're here because we want our
Speaker 2: children to grow up in liberty and you know, relative freedom,
Speaker 2: and we're fleeing an oppressive society. Okay, and please just
Speaker 2: go get this message across and please tell them to
Speaker 2: leave our children alone.
Speaker 1: Wow. Wow, that is mind blowing, because I actually, I
Speaker 1: mean I could see it. I could see that being
Speaker 1: the answer. I could see a lot of what you
Speaker 1: just mentioned being the answer to the future humans possibility,
Speaker 1: the possibility of the human the aliens looking just like us.
Speaker 1: This is something that I've been pondering for months now,
Speaker 1: which is like, what if the humans were indistinguishable from us?
Speaker 1: There's so many different races of humans on this planet
Speaker 1: as well, Like if it was just a tall, you know,
Speaker 1: white guy, like how would we know that's an alien?
Speaker 1: And that would be the perfect way to blend in,
Speaker 1: Like why are we not seeing more videos of aliens?
Speaker 1: We see lots of videos of UFOs, lots and lots
Speaker 1: and lots, we see almost none of aliens, So that
Speaker 1: one really really resonates with me in particular. And the
Speaker 1: idea of hybridizing as well, in that perspective, is less
Speaker 1: nefarious than this idea of little gray men pulling you
Speaker 1: up onto their ship and then you know, sexually assaulting
Speaker 1: you or whatever they do and making like a weird
Speaker 1: alien baby. You know, It's that's more realistic approach to it.
Speaker 1: The other thing you mentioned earlier, which I liked was
Speaker 1: this idea of organic you know, computerized AI being you know,
Speaker 1: I think that that's what people a lot of people
Speaker 1: have said about the gray aliens is that they are
Speaker 1: like actually not really conscious in the way that we are,
Speaker 1: and it's more of like some type of manufacturing or
Speaker 1: being that's out there.
Speaker 2: But they're robots.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like basically an organic robot, which, if you know,
Speaker 1: it seems outlandish from the perspective of where our public
Speaker 1: technology is now, but not really. When you were just
Speaker 1: like AI advancement, crisper technology as well, there was a yeah,
Speaker 1: and there was a post called ebo scientists on Reddit
Speaker 1: like a year and a half ago. I want to
Speaker 1: say that presented it was a full physiology of a
Speaker 1: gray alien being. And one part of it too, is
Speaker 1: like it kind of presented this idea that this could
Speaker 1: be uh, you know, biologically created entity because when they
Speaker 1: looked at their their genome, they claimed that they didn't
Speaker 1: have all the junk DNA that we have, Like it
Speaker 1: was all very specific. Every part of the genome had
Speaker 1: a purpose. It was very clear. And that part to
Speaker 1: me is like, wow, that that could be the case.
Speaker 1: There could be some connection heres. Look, could be more
Speaker 1: than one thing definitely going on. Now with respect to
Speaker 1: breakaway civilization, now you mentioned this idea of the Nordics,
Speaker 1: Like who do you think is in charge or how
Speaker 1: who controls the breakaway civilization? And for the people out
Speaker 1: there don't know what that means, it can mean a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. It doesn't necessarily mean aliens. I think
Speaker 1: it can mean people, factions that here that have this
Speaker 1: level of technology, that are hoarding it, that are aware
Speaker 1: of it. Do you think it's as simple as the military,
Speaker 1: defense contractors, big energy, combination of these things, other random
Speaker 1: rich billionaires Elon Musk, what do you think?
Speaker 2: Look, there are multiple possibilities, all of which I go
Speaker 2: through in my book Closer Encounters, And these possibilities might
Speaker 2: actually be part of one single, larger, more complex scenario
Speaker 2: that involves time. So let me let me run through
Speaker 2: a few of these, you know, possibilities. Obviously, the simplest
Speaker 2: one is, you know, you think of a breakaway civilization
Speaker 2: in terms of our deep state having reverse engineered this technology,
Speaker 2: and then as it moved into the private sector and
Speaker 2: aerospace took over, they became increasingly unaccountable and they're using
Speaker 2: I don't know, black budget money from the control of
Speaker 2: the global drug trade and arms trafficking and so forth
Speaker 2: to develop an relatively autonomous economic base. And so then
Speaker 2: they launch a space program of their own, you know,
Speaker 2: you know, Gary McKinnon and is claims that there's a
Speaker 2: secret US space fleet and so on and so forth.
Speaker 2: And so eventually, over time, spinning from out of the
Speaker 2: aerospace industry and from out of you know, military and intelligence,
Speaker 2: illicit drug trafficking and arms trafficking and so forth, you
Speaker 2: have a spin off civilization that breaks away from you know,
Speaker 2: the public sphere of the planet. That's the simplest explanation. Yeah,
Speaker 2: now that wouldn't explain the airship in eighteen ninety eighteen,
Speaker 2: eighteen ninety six, eighteen ninety seven, where interestingly enough, at
Speaker 2: that time it appears that Harriman railroad magnates were involved
Speaker 2: in investigating or and or funding this airship development. JP
Speaker 2: Morgan was involved. Rockefeller was significantly involved, because Rockefeller was
Speaker 2: discovering oil and setting up the you know, oil as
Speaker 2: the primary source of non renewable energy at that time.
Speaker 2: So you think of the railways as the main mechanism
Speaker 2: by which you know, material was transported. Shipping took place
Speaker 2: right along you know, continental distances. Well, that rail industry
Speaker 2: is definitely going to be threatened by an airship invention.
Speaker 2: And then you think about you know, oil as a source,
Speaker 2: petroleum as a source for powering you know what. We're
Speaker 2: also the first automobiles that were being develop at the time,
Speaker 2: and you could see how Rockefeller in his oil industry
Speaker 2: would be threatened. So if you see people like Harriman
Speaker 2: and Rockefeller involved in you know, the eighteen ninety seven
Speaker 2: airship mystery, and then you look at the fact that
Speaker 2: JP Morgan, who seems to have been a New York
Speaker 2: financier for some of these airship people. JP Morgan was
Speaker 2: also Nicola Tesla's financier and bought up basically all of
Speaker 2: Tesla's patents only in order to bury them, possibly though
Speaker 2: to also hand them to this secret group who are
Speaker 2: doing parallel work, you know, in a parallel work, I
Speaker 2: don't want to say in the classified manner, but you know,
Speaker 2: in a way that was never intended to benefit the
Speaker 2: general public, right, And so there you could have a
Speaker 2: breakaway civilization that dates to the eighteen nineties. That's another possibility.
Speaker 2: But then you have to look at the empirical evidence
Speaker 2: for Atlantis or whatever you want to call it. In
Speaker 2: other words, some worldwide super advanced civilization engaged in you
Speaker 2: know megalithic, you know, engineering with a degree of precision
Speaker 2: that we're barely capable of today. And you know, and
Speaker 2: then all the accounts across various ancient cultures of flying
Speaker 2: machines associated with these civilizer gods, right, well, is the
Speaker 2: Breakaway civilization actually a survival of Atlantis where even though
Speaker 2: this worldwide technical culture was destroyed on a large scale,
Speaker 2: it somehow went underground or went underwater and broke away
Speaker 2: from the public sphere at that time twelve thousand years
Speaker 2: before the present. And it's been you know, engaged in
Speaker 2: managing affairs and socially engineering the various civilizations of our
Speaker 2: planet ever since then. So that's another potential explanation of
Speaker 2: the origin of the Breakaway civilization, namely that it's some
Speaker 2: kind of a survival of Atlantean culture. And by the way,
Speaker 2: by the way, I was told by this same CIA
Speaker 2: officer who sat in roundtable meetings with April Haynes, same
Speaker 2: guy told me that, which was really aggravated me by
Speaker 2: the way that this book was being read in the
Speaker 2: CIA and in the Defense Intelligence Agency. And he grilled
Speaker 2: me for about an hour and a half, you know,
Speaker 2: asking me how I figured this out? And how I
Speaker 2: figured that out? Like it basically it looked like he
Speaker 2: was trying to plug a leak, and he thought I
Speaker 2: was getting inside information from various people. And he was like, listen,
Speaker 2: somehow you managed to put you know, eighty percent of
Speaker 2: the jigsaw puzzle pieces together in the same way that
Speaker 2: we did. How And one of the things he said
Speaker 2: to me was, we know about the Atlanteans and their
Speaker 2: connection to this, and one of our security issues is
Speaker 2: that we know that these people aren't coming from another planet.
Speaker 2: They have submarine not just facilities, but like city sized
Speaker 2: bases under the oceans, and that they represent a survival
Speaker 2: from the Atlantean civilization. Wow, so you could have a
Speaker 2: breakaway civilization that started from twelve thousand years before the present.
Speaker 2: And then the final possibility, which actually it fits, it
Speaker 2: encompasses and incorporates all of these data points, is that
Speaker 2: it's a breakaway civilization from the future and the defense
Speaker 2: contractors become these Nordics one hundred and two hundred years
Speaker 2: into the future or whatever, and they violate the timeline, okay,
Speaker 2: so that they reached back into the past to become
Speaker 2: the Atlanteans, which then explains, you know, how you know,
Speaker 2: the civilization on the one hand, is demonstrating tremendous engineering capability,
Speaker 2: but on the other hand doesn't have any organic evolutionary
Speaker 2: history in the human methropological record, as if like they
Speaker 2: dropped out from somewhere right, not from another planet, but
Speaker 2: possibly from out of the human future and contaminated the timeline.
Speaker 2: So it could be that they It could be that
Speaker 2: the breakaway civilization begins with the eighteen nineties electro gravitic airships,
Speaker 2: it continues with the nineteen fifties further advances in the
Speaker 2: aerospace industry of the Anglo American deep State becomes these
Speaker 2: time traveling Nordics who then reach back from the future
Speaker 2: and seed Atlantean civilization, which then becomes a breakaway civilization
Speaker 2: continue to manage the pairs on the planet. So you know,
Speaker 2: my apologies for how convoluted that Spider's web spider Web is,
Speaker 2: but it may in fact be what we're dealing with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, So let me respond a couple that. Like,
Speaker 1: First off, when you talk about that time aspect, I
Speaker 1: keep thinking about the show True Detective, where Matthew mcconaie
Speaker 1: talks about time as a flat circle and my buddy
Speaker 1: Dave Rossly, who's also add contract engineers, who's relatively connected.
Speaker 1: He went on tim Pool with me like almost a
Speaker 1: year ago, and he said as well that we have
Speaker 1: to think of time not as this linear thing, but
Speaker 1: think of it as like a circle where you know things.
Speaker 1: You know, what you think of has happened. You know
Speaker 1: your lunch, you think lunch happened after breakfast, but when
Speaker 1: you look at it from the outside, that's not necessarily
Speaker 1: the case. It reminds me of the show Dark as well,
Speaker 1: where time becomes deterministic. So I keep my mind open
Speaker 1: to that type of stuff. But I love the underwater
Speaker 1: theory of Atlantis or what have you, because for me,
Speaker 1: there's a few factors I throw in there. One is
Speaker 1: that this technology is not an invention, it's a discovery.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, it's a discovery of nature, discovering there's
Speaker 1: energy all around you, then how to tap into that,
Speaker 1: much like figuring out that we can make fire. And
Speaker 1: so I say, there's not a you don't have to
Speaker 1: be around for a certain period of time to figure
Speaker 1: this technology out. You just need to look at the
Speaker 1: universe and the right perspective, which opens the door to
Speaker 1: ancient civilizations, like the people who built the pyramids having
Speaker 1: some potential anti gravity type technology, even though they might
Speaker 1: have not had the material science technology that we have today.
Speaker 1: And then also our history doesn't make any sense, like
Speaker 1: our human civilization only goes back like ten thousand years
Speaker 1: or like something like that. Like if you just objectively
Speaker 1: look at human civilization where we're at right now, you
Speaker 1: would think we should have history going back like one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand years like that, we should have recorded history
Speaker 1: for that. But all of a sudden, it's just we
Speaker 1: don't know anything about before ten thousand years before that.
Speaker 1: And then we've got stuff like Leebecki Teppee, which is
Speaker 1: like eighteen to twenty five thousand years old, and it's
Speaker 1: clearly like you know, it's like Stonehenge, and people are
Speaker 1: wondering like how did they even build this? And we
Speaker 1: thought we were like hunter gatherers then, but it's clear
Speaker 1: that they at least had rituals, if not cities at
Speaker 1: that point. And so this stuff, to me opens the
Speaker 1: door to this idea of Atlantis and that Atlantis could
Speaker 1: have had this, and I love the idea of the underwater.
Speaker 1: We're like, we haven't really mapped the ocean floors. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of like kind of conspiracy stuff about the
Speaker 1: NAA potentially hiding something that's at the bottom of the
Speaker 1: oceans somewhere. As well. You've got the stuff in the
Speaker 1: public sphere about like the Permutera triangle and people disappearing,
Speaker 1: and there was like some whistleblowers claiming that the na
Speaker 1: is hiding like something underneath the water. So I love
Speaker 1: all of those ideas that are out there, and so
Speaker 1: thank you for bringing those up. Now you can respond
Speaker 1: to any.
Speaker 2: Of that briefly, just because up the Bermuda Triangle. There's
Speaker 2: this part in my book Closer Encounters where I correlate
Speaker 2: naval and aerial disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle with the
Speaker 2: dates and times do people go missing in national parks.
Speaker 2: So David Politis has done this research on all the
Speaker 2: people who go missing every year in national parks under
Speaker 2: extremely bizarre circumstances where there are search and rescue operations
Speaker 2: that take place and scour the area where the person
Speaker 2: went missing, and there's no trace of this person, and
Speaker 2: then there remains show up there like three weeks later,
Speaker 2: and you see that they haven't eaten any of the
Speaker 2: food that they had to survive. They let's say it's
Speaker 2: a freezing it's the middle of winter, but they've taken
Speaker 2: their boots in their jacket off. You know, really weird
Speaker 2: cases like this where it's as if the person disappeared
Speaker 2: and wasn't there when the search and rescue was ongoing,
Speaker 2: and then the person came back into our time continuum
Speaker 2: at some later point, right having wondered, you know, Lord
Speaker 2: knows what other you know, space right in one other
Speaker 2: epoch before finding their way back into our space time.
Speaker 2: And I have this one little section in Closer Encounters
Speaker 2: where I note that the times that some of these
Speaker 2: people go missing in these national parks correspond to moments
Speaker 2: when aircraft and ships are lost in the Bermuda Triangle.
Speaker 2: And I asked, the question, is this because there are
Speaker 2: bases underneath some of these national parks where a hyperdimensional
Speaker 2: technology is being used to teleport people between the Bermuda Triangle,
Speaker 2: some facility, some major thing underneath the Bermuda Triangle and
Speaker 2: whatever bases are under our national parks. And it's like
Speaker 2: whenever they turn this thing on at both locations, people
Speaker 2: wind up as collateral damage, whether they're on boats or
Speaker 2: on planes in the Bermuda Triangle or whether they're hikers
Speaker 2: in a national park, seems to be that at you know,
Speaker 2: at the same time in these two different places, people
Speaker 2: wind up going missing. So it's among the odd lines
Speaker 2: of research that I look at in Closer Encounters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a big fan of Dave Pilates. He's been following
Speaker 1: me for a while as well because of the idea
Speaker 1: of missing people and me researching the plane. Two hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty nine people just gone off the face of
Speaker 1: the earth. No one knows where they're at, so big
Speaker 1: shout out to him. By the way.
Speaker 2: Another another relevant thing regard to that and time travel
Speaker 2: is all of these out of place objects that have
Speaker 2: been found in the geological record, where you know, at
Speaker 2: strata that go back like sixty million years, you find
Speaker 2: some woman's golden chain, or you know, at a stratum
Speaker 2: of I don't know, like three hundred million years, there's
Speaker 2: like a gold coin, but it's like a Rollman coin. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So look, it stands to reason that if people go
Speaker 2: missing in our national parks today and they're disappearing into
Speaker 2: some spatio temporal vortex, they might be popping out, you know,
Speaker 2: in the era of the dinosaurs, and this might explain
Speaker 2: the footprints that you know, suppose that human footprints you
Speaker 2: find near petrified dinosaur prints that are you know, fallaciously
Speaker 2: used by creationists to argue that the world is not
Speaker 2: more than five thousand years old. So in any case,
Speaker 2: you could have as you were saying, you know, by
Speaker 2: studying nature you can discover certain physical principles. It may
Speaker 2: be that there are just you know, spatio temporal vortices
Speaker 2: in nature and that we found a way to technologically
Speaker 2: replicate them. That's also a possibility.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense. And I do want to point
Speaker 1: out too, is that I love your thought process and
Speaker 1: logical and your intuition. And you're not saying that you know,
Speaker 1: all of your theories are necessarily correct, but you're you're
Speaker 1: just putting the dots together and you're saying, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: here's some possibilities for what could be happening. And it
Speaker 1: doesn't surprise me at all to make that. You would
Speaker 1: say the claim that like people are there like reading
Speaker 1: your book and like skips and like that, wondering like
Speaker 1: who's leaking information to this guy? Actually, people have told
Speaker 1: me that they've thought the same thing about me. Related
Speaker 1: to the plane search and what have you, that somebody
Speaker 1: must be leaking information, But that's not the case. Everything
Speaker 1: I've researched has been open search, open source. And this
Speaker 1: is why I tell people it's hiding in plain sight.
Speaker 1: You know, there's the cover up of all this stuff
Speaker 1: is hiding in plain site. If people just paid attention
Speaker 1: to what's out there, we could potentially get full disclosure.
Speaker 1: But people don't because we're so brainwashed by the authority
Speaker 1: and told that we should just believe whatever the academics
Speaker 1: tell us, whatever the media tells us, whatever the government
Speaker 1: tells us. So this kind of leads to the last
Speaker 1: topic I want to discuss with you, which is like
Speaker 1: who is hiding this technology? Like who do you think
Speaker 1: it's just locked Martin? Do you think there are several
Speaker 1: defense contractors that have it? Do you think that the
Speaker 1: big energy companies also have this type of technology? And
Speaker 1: do you think the Trump administration will be able to
Speaker 1: make any difference? Do you think that these people are
Speaker 1: above even the president? Why do you think that Trump's captured?
Speaker 1: What is your opinion on that front in.
Speaker 2: Terms of you know, who controls the technology?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: In a very like mundane nuts and bolts way. Clearly
Speaker 2: Lockheed has it, and I think that RFK Junior. No, yeah, no,
Speaker 2: he did. He certainly did. In one of his interviews,
Speaker 2: maybe more than one of his interviews, he straight out
Speaker 2: said that his father had been assassinated by a Lockheed
Speaker 2: executive who had a history with the CIA as well.
Speaker 2: But it was basically Lockheed killed RFK Okay. That only
Speaker 2: makes sense from one perspective. There's only one reason why
Speaker 2: Lockheed is going to kill RFK Okay. It's because JFK
Speaker 2: was going to disclose this stuff and his brother running
Speaker 2: for president was going to up on his you know,
Speaker 2: on JFK's initiative. And so look, Lockheed certainly is involved
Speaker 2: in controlling this information and has a lot to lose
Speaker 2: from potential disclosure. As you mentioned, also lawsuits because you know,
Speaker 2: other companies weren't given equal bidding rights for these defense contracts.
Speaker 2: Another company that probably has some of it is Northrop
Speaker 2: Grumman because if you look at, you know, the B
Speaker 2: two bomber, you know, analyzes have been done that showed
Speaker 2: that there's no way that thing can exhibit the performance
Speaker 2: characteristics that it does if it just has the propulsion
Speaker 2: system that's being publicly acknowledged. It incorporates some kind of
Speaker 2: Townsend Brown, you know, positive negative polarization, and that's giving
Speaker 2: it some kind of compensatory augmented electro gravitic lift. So
Speaker 2: I would say, to a lesser extent, Northrop Grumman has it.
Speaker 2: And then I think there are probably some energy companies
Speaker 2: that are involved, if I remember correctly, EG and G. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Egg Yeah was involved.
Speaker 1: In that's one the Babbozar works for her claims to
Speaker 1: have worked for when he was working at S four.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, yes, So I would say probably there are
Speaker 2: a couple of energy and then there's also metallurgy people
Speaker 2: who were involved, like Bechtel, the Bechtel Company, people who've
Speaker 2: been looking at trying to reverse engineer the meta materials
Speaker 2: in some of these credits. But by the way I
Speaker 2: saw some of your shows on this, I agree with
Speaker 2: you entirely. The meta material is not necessary. It's not
Speaker 2: The Nazis weren't using it in nineteen forty three forty
Speaker 2: four when they were developing for entirely conventional purposes. The
Speaker 2: Nazis were developing saucer airframes, and it had to do
Speaker 2: with simply the fact that there's less air resistance and
Speaker 2: it's a very aerodynamic kind of design. And then later
Speaker 2: they combined this saucer shaped airframe with the bell as
Speaker 2: a propulsion device. But that saucer, even though it was
Speaker 2: micro perforated, they developed the technique to micro perforate metal
Speaker 2: so that they're they're the It is part of what
Speaker 2: they call suctioning of the boundary layer, so that the
Speaker 2: air that forms around the edge of an aircraft, which
Speaker 2: then creates air resistance, can be suctioned into the aircraft
Speaker 2: and siphoned off in a way that allows it to
Speaker 2: basically cut through the air like a knife through butter.
Speaker 2: But that's not meta material. It's just sophisticated airframe design.
Speaker 2: So you don't need a meta material. But there are
Speaker 2: companies like the Bechtel Corporation that are working on, you know,
Speaker 2: reverse engineering the recovered debris from Roswell and so forth,
Speaker 2: and they also consider that proprietary corporate information and they're
Speaker 2: part of the gate keeping structure.
Speaker 1: And so do you think that Trump is gonna be
Speaker 1: able to make a difference. You think that Tulsea Gabbard
Speaker 1: will make a difference. So you think they get they're
Speaker 1: going to get the.
Speaker 2: Call, not on their own, not on their around. They're
Speaker 2: not going to they don't have a hope in hell,
Speaker 2: you know, breaking this control system of their own initiative.
Speaker 2: But if there is a defection in process within the
Speaker 2: control system itself, and there there are a group of
Speaker 2: people who are interested in staging some kind of a coup,
Speaker 2: they could use the transition to the Trump administration and
Speaker 2: individuals like Tulsey Gabbard and Kash Patel and you know
Speaker 2: RFK and Trump himself to be a moment of opportunity
Speaker 2: or a kind of soft coup. So, but the initiative
Speaker 2: would have to come from people within the control system itself.
Speaker 1: I think that's a good way to put it, you know,
Speaker 1: is that it could be a moment of opportunity. And
Speaker 1: maybe that was what happened with Salvator Pays's patents as well,
Speaker 1: in terms of how they got out to the public.
Speaker 1: There's also a mystery about why you would even make
Speaker 1: those patents public. So I think that I have hope,
Speaker 1: but like I think, it's unlikely that we're going to
Speaker 1: get it under the administration. But the more we talk
Speaker 1: about it, maybe we can will it into existence. Who knows,
Speaker 1: I also want to point out two that yeah, the
Speaker 1: B two, I had heard that it's definitely electrogravitics that
Speaker 1: they're using on the wings. They're just using the byfield
Speaker 1: Brown effect. You create that asymmetrical charge and you get
Speaker 1: access lifts. You know, this is how these crafts droned
Speaker 1: at this point. I mean B two is old that's
Speaker 1: old tech now, so I presume that all of our
Speaker 1: spy planes, even drones are basically using this. Okay, So
Speaker 1: the last question I want to ask you, which is
Speaker 1: that when I we add up everything we talked about
Speaker 1: here today, to me, this means that disclosure the UFO
Speaker 1: topic has some very dark answer to it behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: do you think And this is something salvage Pais when
Speaker 1: I interviewed him, kind of brought up, and something I've
Speaker 1: been kind of on board with for a while is
Speaker 1: this prison planet scenario, which I think is kind of
Speaker 1: open ended, but the idea that there is some ruling
Speaker 1: class of elite or potentially extraterrestrial whatever you want to believe,
Speaker 1: that is essentially managing our entire society. And I forget
Speaker 1: what the who the guy is quotes it, but like
Speaker 1: the best prisoners are ones that don't even know they're
Speaker 1: in a prison, you know, and that we could be
Speaker 1: being managed like that, where they're slow dripping this technology
Speaker 1: out to us little by little, where you know they're
Speaker 1: they're they're managing every aspect of our society. Do you
Speaker 1: think that's a plausible explanation or what are your opinions
Speaker 1: on what could be this dark thing that you know?
Speaker 2: This is all absolutely absolutely and look, this is not
Speaker 2: a new thought. When you read Charles Fort, who researched
Speaker 2: this subject from the nineteen tens into the nineteen thirties
Speaker 2: in a series of books that he wrote the Book
Speaker 2: of the Damned. While Talents Low new Lands in the
Speaker 2: nineteen thirties, Charles Fort said, look, ties piloting these craft
Speaker 2: are like the British colonizers in India, and we're a
Speaker 2: farm to them, okay, And he basically compared it to
Speaker 2: a situation of colonization. So this is not a new idea,
Speaker 2: and I think there's a tremendous amount of evidence in
Speaker 2: favor of it, especially again if you look at the
Speaker 2: religious belief systems that have dominated human history. I mean,
Speaker 2: look at the devas in Hinduism and their connection to
Speaker 2: the extremely hierarchical and oppressive caste system. Okay, and look
Speaker 2: at the way ancient Egyptian society was structured. Look at
Speaker 2: the Sumerian myths and what they tell us about. You know,
Speaker 2: how Enlil saw humanity basically as a slave race, right
Speaker 2: And how Inky though, try to disrupt that program and
Speaker 2: to become an advocate and a champion for humanity. ANKI,
Speaker 2: who is very much a you know, correlate to the
Speaker 2: figure of Prometheus, who leads a revolt on behalf of
Speaker 2: humanity against the tyrannical power of Olympus. So I don't
Speaker 2: think it's a monolithic control system. I think that there
Speaker 2: are rebels within it. After all, the people who are
Speaker 2: managing this system. When me belabor the point, people who
Speaker 2: are managing the system are like any other human beings,
Speaker 2: you know, subject to complex psychological motivations. They are open
Speaker 2: to potential defections, changes of heart. You know, no human
Speaker 2: system is entirely monolithic. But if you remember going back
Speaker 2: to what this military intelligence guy told me, who met
Speaker 2: with a few of these Nordics who are imploring him
Speaker 2: to go back to Kit Green and his associates and
Speaker 2: tell them to leave their kids alone. They were fugitives
Speaker 2: from a totalitarian system. It was like their view of
Speaker 2: their own society was that it was something akin to
Speaker 2: North Korea and they were escape from basically the Nordic
Speaker 2: North Korea. Right, So well, this is grim. I mean,
Speaker 2: if the people managed planet are like North Korea, you know,
Speaker 2: we're not in a great situation. And look, we can
Speaker 2: only hope, and it does seem that there are dissidents
Speaker 2: within that system, but we need to develop an interface
Speaker 2: that's devoted to liberty and the individual and our creative potential,
Speaker 2: so that if there are dissonance within that system, then
Speaker 2: they have people to work with. You know, we can't
Speaker 2: sit here and expect to be saved. And by the way,
Speaker 2: that's an incredibly dangerous expectation because undoubtedly, if there are
Speaker 2: people who want to tyrannize over you, and your basic
Speaker 2: attitude is that you're waiting to be saved from out
Speaker 2: of the sky, you know, you're basically signing yourself over
Speaker 2: to a new epoch of slavery. Right, You're going to
Speaker 2: be subject to a cognitive dissonance scheme and a bait
Speaker 2: and switch where you know you think you're train, you're
Speaker 2: trading your slave master for liberty. But it's actually just
Speaker 2: two heads of the same hydra.
Speaker 1: I agree one hundred percent, especially the last part. I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody's coming to save us. I think we're
Speaker 1: the only ones that can save ourselves. And I don't
Speaker 1: agree with the people that say we just have to
Speaker 1: wait for the aliens come save us, or what have you. There.
Speaker 2: So that is the most insidious and nefarious aspect of
Speaker 2: the so called disclosure program that is being unfolded for
Speaker 2: us right now. If you look at the connections between
Speaker 2: certain individuals like Diana Pasoka and Daniel Sheehan and the
Speaker 2: Vatican and other individuals with other occult religious organizations, their
Speaker 2: basic attitude is, let's prepare people for the sagacious guides
Speaker 2: and guardians of humanity. These you know, these humanoids who
Speaker 2: never sinned and therefore never needed Christ to come save them.
Speaker 2: They're going to come be the guides and guardians of humanity,
Speaker 2: and they will control our society in a way that
Speaker 2: gives us access to this free energy. Right this is
Speaker 2: the totalitarian ship that we're being set up for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one hundred percent. I hate it. It's like the
Speaker 1: one world government stuff. It's the Ooh, it's just like
Speaker 1: in the movies. Here they come to save us. Like
Speaker 1: I think, people gotta start wrapping their brain around this,
Speaker 1: this this topic, this UFO phenomenon is not gonna be
Speaker 1: like the movies. It's not gonna be this glorification that
Speaker 1: everybody's pushing out there. It's gonna be dark. There's gonna
Speaker 1: be evil stuff that's been conducted to keep it secret,
Speaker 1: and people should be expecting the unexpected.
Speaker 2: That's what I would say, absolutely.
Speaker 1: So, Jason, thank you so much for talking to me. Man,
Speaker 1: you are amazing. This was an awesome conversation. I want
Speaker 1: to have more conversations in the future with you, for sure.
Speaker 1: Let me give you a minute to go ahead and
Speaker 1: shout out your book again, Close Encounters. Everybody should read that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's gonna dig more into everything that we've
Speaker 1: been talking about. Here, tell us where we can find you,
Speaker 1: you know, and where people can check out your content.
Speaker 2: Sure, the book is Closer in counter play on Close Encounters,
Speaker 2: obviously Closer Encounters, And you can find links to all
Speaker 2: my books and my social media at my website Jason
Speaker 2: Rezagorgani dot com. Maybe put a link to that in
Speaker 2: the show notes. Jason Reza Georgani dot com. It has
Speaker 2: a link to my x account, my YouTube, all my
Speaker 2: books on Amazon and so forth.
Speaker 1: Okay, we'll do. Thank you very much, Jason. There has
Speaker 1: been another episode of Hard Trew's Take It Easy Everybody,