Speaker 1: Why is the government covering this up? Last week, former
airman Jake Barber revealed in an exclusive interview with Ross
coltart on News Nation that he worked under non official
cover as part of an elite team of special operators
tasked with recovering crashed military aircraft and UFOs for the government.
Doctor John Blitch, a former Green Beret and Special Mission
Units troop commander, joined us to address questions about whistleblower
Jake Barber. This week, doctor Blinch returns in part two
of our interview, exploring the larger question why has the
government hidden this for decades? Let's get to it. Hi,
I'm Matt Ford. Welcome to The Good Trouble Show. Today
we air part two of our interview with doctor John Blitch,
where we explore perhaps why the government has gone to
really such great lengths to hide the uap UFO phenomenon
not only from you, but from Congress. But first, please
hit the subscribe and thumbs up buttons on YouTube, lead
a comment and let us know what you think about
this episode. You can also find us on x at
Good Trouble Show and everywhere else. At The Good Trouble Show,
you can also find us Wherever you enjoy your podcasts,
search for The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford. And
if you would like to chip in to keep the
lights on, you can become a Patreon member of The
Good Trouble Show by going to www dot patreon dot
com forward slash the Good Trouble Show sign up to
help us keep bringing you amazing shows like the one
we have today. Okay, here is part two of our
interview with retired Lieutenant.
Speaker 2: Colonel John Blinch. Enjoy doctor Blinch.
Speaker 1: I understand that you are actually working on two books.
Speaker 2: What can you tell us about those?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, the first book is the title is called
The Killer Rescue Robot Not and the word killer is
through and it's it's the Case for Robot Assistant Rescue
in the modern World. And that is about my journey
through graduate school after I had left sort of the
action world and became a former action guy right on
your tax payer dollars at the College School of Mind.
So is my journey into robotics and sort of diverting
from the classic military killer robot world into rescue robotics.
And that's what that first book is about. I ended
up having just split it into two books because there
was there was so much to it, and my editors
and the folks that were coaching me really said I'd
bitten off too much to two. So the second one
picks up after I had turned over my robots to
Cybon first Class Dave Platt, another phenomenal hero, and I
turned over my robust to him at the World Trade Center.
That's the second book. But yeah, that's the first one,
And the other one has to do with the up subject,
specifically the abduction phenomenon. It's called the Abduction Amnesty not
k n o T. The word not in both of
those is an attempt to try to capture very complex
problems like knots can be very complex and they can
be very difficult to untie, and you can use them
to take a life with a noose or rescue a
knife with a bullet. Right of all the notes out there,
the bowl and is unquestionably the knot that has been
used to save more lives than anybody else because it
doesn't slip and compress on your chest right as you
lift somebody up off the cliff or into alicot or
whatever I asked. So that's what that's what they both
are the second one. I think I've already made the
case for during this, during this interview. But it's basically
that government's got to come clean. They haven't been able
to protect us, and that's why there's is all a secret.
And once they do come clean, then I'm willing to
forgive you. I'm willing to grant your amnesty, but you
got to come clean and admit that you weren't able
to do what you were supposed to be able to do.
So that's the gist of it.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about Jake Barber's claims as far as like,
you know, what what happened to him, what what he observed?
You know, the physical injuries that he and his teammates.
Speaker 2: Uh uh uh, you.
Speaker 1: Know we're subjected to during this, during this kind of thing.
What about all of that or what about his story
do you find the most disturbing?
Speaker 3: Oh? Wow, this this gets right back to this whole
corrosive leadership aspect of things, where you hang your guys
out to dry, you separate them so that they can't commiserate,
you know, one of the most important aspects. Now I'm
getting into the cognuro side of things, right, one of
the most important aspects of resilience is cohesion, right, And
so when the air Force separates these guys afosi separates
people and harasses them or exposes them to what seems
pretty clear to me to be a radiological issue. And
again I defer to the big brains that the Gary
Nolan's of the world, and his point was spot on.
I think from a scientific basis, you four guys who
are suffering this, Right, it's not one guy that got
too close to a directed energy source or whatever. Right,
that's a little bit too easy to dismiss, you know,
in terms of quantum assessment, right, or in terms of probabilities. Right. So, uh,
that is detestable to me that that somebody let them
carry that thing and set it up. There are procedures. Now,
what Jake tried to say was that his higher headquarters
or whatever levels of that. You know, he's a civilian
at that time that company that they must not have known.
I'm not as willing to let them off the hook.
Again as a as a five time commander, Hey, it's
you're the captain of the ship. It's your responsibility to
ensure your troops are safe. And so there's all all
sorts of ways with robots to go put a detector
on that thing and set it around that before us
and the humans in and for them to do that,
I mean that the technology, it's it's it's laughable, how
cheap that is relatively speaking. So I hold his chain
of command accountable for his injuries. And that's that's that's
what I'm blowing the whistle up is the corrosive aspect
of this where we are are intervening, we are interfering
with the natural, uh natural development of a cohesive unit.
And Amalgalladet is another example of good leadership because he's
calling that out right, and so I want to jump
on his bandwagon. You know, I think the world of
him and his courage for putting his career at risk,
uh with with you know, his testimony. So you know,
that's the guy. That's the kind of guy we need
as leaders in today's environment. Not this cover your butt,
you know, you know, interrogate them, separate them, get the
most out of them, and bring them out to drive.
That's uh. I find that imhorrent and whatever little piece
of leadership training iPad.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I've said said up many times on this program.
It it just boggles my mind that the Department of Defense,
or the Intelligence community, or or anyone for that matter,
would throw American veterans under the bus.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, let's take anomalous health injuries. I'm good friends
with Olivia Troy who worked for Mike Pence. She is
a victim of She was targeted by you know what
people refer to as as Havana syndrome or you know,
we call now anomalous health injuries. And for you know,
during this entire past administration, they said, not there's you know,
nothing to see. I know, I believe it was a
CIA put out a report or perhaps ODE and I
that set up.
Speaker 2: You know, there's nothing going on here. And meanwhile, all.
Speaker 1: Of these folks that are have worked for either state department,
various three letter agencies, et cetera, have all been injured
by this stuff. Olivia still still suffers from this to
this day. And then finally, at the very end of
this last administration, the Biden administration, they came out and said, well, yeah,
maybe there is there is something is something to it,
but this it seems to be in just where I sit,
a a not a not a trend. It seems to
be sort of standard operating procedure when our veterans are
injured by either being close to UAP or whatever the
Havannah syndrome anomalous health injuries are. It seems that when
when the people that serve our country are physically injured
by this what ever it may.
Speaker 2: Be, our country turns turns their back on them.
Speaker 1: You know, these folks that have given everything to serve
their country, some that have given all. I just I
don't understand it. It's I don't know if it's a.
Speaker 2: Just a.
Speaker 1: Cancer that has infected our democracy or our leadership.
Speaker 2: What do you I mean, what do you think? I
just I can't wrap my head around it.
Speaker 3: Well, that's the reason I'm writ I wrote this book, Matt,
because I answer that I am. I try to answer
It's it's one approach, it's one potential answer to it.
A lot of folks, you know, especially in the ethology world,
once they get in there and start making money with books,
and I have the answer. Now, I have one potential answer,
and so my You know, there are a lot of
very very good people in government and in the military
dustrial complex that are all about just defending us right.
And there is a threat. However, it's a very narrow
slipper where the vast majority of these interactions are benign
less than malevolent. And so I do believe that as
far back as nineteen forty seven and beyond that, as
carlin Nel said, it is well known, you know, within
the program, within certain circles that we have been visited
by a wide variety of other species. And let's be clear.
If you can bend space time so that you can
travel faster than light, then you can bend time, space
and time. Einstein showed us that that fabric as it
bends and you skip from here to here, you're bending
time if you go this way instead of the full fabric.
So it's inherent that if you can can bend space,
you can bend time. So if you're, if you're and
there's plenty of Star Trek episodes where they accidentally go
back in time, whether they're warping along. So the reason
I bring all that up, mat is that I do
believe that there has been an undeclared state of war
since the World War Two and food fighters and all
that was discovered, especially in the context of the induction phenomenon,
and I don't know how much time you have to
discuss that. But to get to the point is lights
in the sky and even interdimensional beings or the fact
that some of these objects might be carrying beings or
any chi they might be biological robots. And that's the
primary reason for going from the term et or extraterrestrial
or interdimensional to NHI. It's to draw a bigger circle
around it. Right, the ven diagram needs to be bigger
because you've got to have you know, cylons and terminators
in there. Right, there might be robots in there, artificial
life forms that that might be mixed in with this.
But in the back of Richard Dolan's book, most recent
book and Agendas he has, he's devoted a couple of
pages to it of descriptions of all of these beings
that have been described. A lot of somewhat common or
have common features. Others are radically different. And that's what
I would expect with trillions of trillions of not just stars,
but galaxies. It turns out, you know, he went from
Hubble to Kepler, and you know the magnitude. So here's
the thing. It's all it takes is one abduction to
be real, and that is terrifying, right, Yeah, that I
that there's nothing I can do to prevent my kids
from getting taken out of their bedroom or off their
bike or whatever it happens to be in the middle
of the day. This sleep paralysis excuse is ridiculous. Yeah,
that might cover what five percent, but it doesn't explain
Travis Walton being gone for five days and coming back
with a shave with a beard, right, I mean, it's
just so there's a lot of these aspects of it.
So I want to I want to give the military
industrial complex the the I don't know what you want
to call it, the uh, this, this group and out.
I want to forgive them, but but for the for
me to forgive them, they have to adm that they
have been incapable of preventing abductions from occurring around the globe.
It's not just us. We know when the walk came
down that we had the former Soviet Union and all
those little Sunds lots of very similar situations. You know,
their nuts were shut down, their nuts we were put
on short countdown and then stopped at the last minute.
So it's the abduction phenomenon that really breaks it wide open.
The met and the irony of it, I call it
the paradox is that for us humanity to forgive them,
they got to come clean and say, hey, kids, you
know they treat us. A lot of folks Michael Seldenberg,
a lot of folks have said, you know, they're sick
and tired of being treated like children by the people
in this this this group right that the chattel government
or whatever. And I'm sick of it too, you know.
We it feels like now we are like the ready
gay teenagers. Thanks to the Internet, we now have access
to a lot of stuff, and we're not. You know,
you got to you gotta come clean. People do get
raped in college, right, people do get murdered. We've been
protecting you, protecting you, protecting you. There's nothing there, there's
nothing worry about. And ninety nine percent of people go
away to college or go to their first job, or
move across the country and get married and they're fine.
But that one percent, that one percent of rape victims,
of abduction victims, you gotta address it. And so you
don't send the USS Enterprise out without photon torpedoes and facers, right,
I mean, that's ridiculous. So that's what I think, and
hopefully that will help you make sense of it. That
good people, good you know, morally straight people, you know,
legal scouts like me that that that you know, took
all those oaths there, they stayed good people, and then
when they were exposed to this notion that oh crap,
we're getting we're being kidnapped, we're getting yank, we're lab rats,
and then you feel justified that Okay, sorry, taxpayer, we
got to charge you three thousand dollars for a toilet
seat on a C seven, right, And that's how this
stuff gets funded. And so now now you start to realize,
you know, what if I was in that same position,
and I was given irrefutable proof of abductions while they
are current with video or body parts from human beings
that you know, after a firefight that were collected up
and put someplace, that sounds any horrific to me. And
so maybe these these treating these people to keep this secret.
Even even while I can some folks, you can, I
can see where people might rationalize that as collateral damage
with this sort of intergalactic war that we've declared on
anything flying up there, which is ridiculous. It's a it's a.
It's a bad way to go, and we can talk
about that some other time. But that's my take, and
I'm hoping that helps you resolve it a little bit.
That good people can do bad things with that rationalization
that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of
the few. So the one or two people that you
treat badly collateral damage.
Speaker 1: And and that is something that I wanted to touch on
because you know, you mentioned earlier talking about, for instance,
David Grush having his life threatened. I believe you mentioned
that the that Jake and the other folks that were
you know, that came to meet you on on your boat,
that that you know, they were concerned that perhaps you
were the military industrial complex there to take them out.
What is is there a difference between in your mind
and I know all of this is a sort of conjecture,
is there a difference in the what may be the
motivations of folks involved in the Deep Legacy crash retrieval
program in terms of contractors, be it theoretically theoretically Northrop
Grumman or or or or Lockheed Martin, what would be
their incentive to, uh, you know, to threaten the lives
of these of these former Special operators, if you were
in their shoes.
Speaker 3: Sure, well, a lot of this boils down to the compartmentation,
right you you know, the big secret is the abduction phenomena. Right,
And if you're not read into that, if you haven't
been given evidence of that, and you're just told that
this person is a trader, and here's this dossier to
support that, here's their oath, and they violated that oath.
Take them out. I could see where somebody could be justified.
Imagine that that if if you don't, you know, I'm
gonna I'm gonna rewind back to the Meli massacre in Vietnam.
I was just falling orders, the tenant cality, I was
just following orders. He was recently uh released, by the way,
the last few years. Anyway, I can easily understand that.
And that's why this corrosive compartmentation is such a problem.
Is you could carry out a horribly immoral act thinking
that you're morally justified because of this compartmentation. And so
that's why I am still a strong champion for disclosure,
but I'm also willing to grant amnesty if they just
come clean. And this is the problem, This is why
it's such it's so difficult, is you have to admit,
as a senior Department of Defense official or even a
scientist working on the weapons that we're going to use
to protect our own you know, global citizens are fellow
humans from being taken that you failed. You haven't been
able to do it. Travis Wallon got taken, kids got taken,
you know, Linda Napolitano got taken out of her what
thirteenth story apartment in downtown New York City. I mean,
so these are horrific things to have to admit. You
have to admit failure. And again that's a lack of leadership.
A good leader ship polls. They are willing to be
vulnerable and say, you know what, guys, I screwed up.
I made a mistake. I should have been better. I
wasn't up to it. Shuck it up and drive on,
you know that sort of thing. And so that's why
I keep claiming it's an issue of corrosive leadership, especially
when you know you're having these these people commit these
AIN'TUS acts without understanding the background behind it.
Speaker 1: So so it is completely reasonable to assume that either
whoever be it, you know, security contractors or or folks
in the government in order to protect this secret, to
protect this program.
Speaker 2: It is. It is not.
Speaker 1: Out in left field that they would resort to kinetic options.
Speaker 3: H No, I think I think you know, we're all
brought up again as I point to those those military
military leadership over there, there are a lot of military
decisions where collateral damage was rationalized. And so I believe
the folks that ordered the hit on on Dave and
Lou and and others consider them collateral damage.
Speaker 1: So if I heard you correctly, you were saying that Lou,
Dave and others were on a kill list.
Speaker 3: I find no inconsistency with that claim. And and I
can imagine, I can imagine in trying to put myself
compassionately in my fellow military people now retired military people,
in the military industrial complex, or in this this cabal,
if you will, I know that term has been used
a lot. I want to be compassionate towards the cabal
as well, you know. And and there's there's a Christian background,
you know, with with JC saying, hey, look forgive them God,
they don't know what they're doing, right, or to that effect,
And so so I want to feel for them and
and give them an out if if they would just
come clean. That this is why we were doing it.
This is why we are reverse engineering these stuff. This
is why we're even shooting these things down, because we
got to grab the weapons so that we can defend ourselves.
And so you know, again, I think the reason why
Blew and Dave may May are still alive is maybe
those reverse engineering programs have been partially successful. Maybe we
can shoot some of them. Now. The question now is, okay,
what about identifying friend or foe? Who's the bad guys?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: Doctor dealing? How do we do that? I don't know.
I got it now neuro scientifically, you know it is
the thing. And you don't need me to tell you
this as a lousy scientist, because as soon as I
graduated I went to work at the Air Force Research Lab,
I lost all faith and confidence because I became aware
of this. And I'm like for crying out loud, and
as soon as I got to Rek Patterson, you know,
and I'm not I'm not giving access to the big
vault right and read in on all this stuff, I'm
shoved in a corner. In fact, you know, I talked
about this in the book, I was I was encouraged
to work from home. This is long this three years, no,
five years before COVID. Yeah, I want to just stay
at home, just you know, come in, come on base
every now and then. And and maybe it was because
I don't I don't know this, but you know, there's
there's lots more to that story unpacked. But but that's
that's my underlying premise under which I am willing to
forgive the folks in this cabal. But they got to complete.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, And I think it speaks volumes when these
you know, uh, these special operators are coming to meet
you and they are concerned for their lives or you know,
you know Lou or Dave are concerned for their lives
and you know, and these these are these aren't like
civilians or someone that uh that you know, lacks counter
intelligence training or whatnot.
Speaker 2: Do you feel that if can all those folks be touched?
Speaker 3: Well so so in terms of of fighting the fear, right,
here's the thing and this I would tell this to
anybody who's coming after me. Number one, you know, use
the Jason Board thing. Well, look at what they do
to us. You know who's coming after you? Right, when
when do you use lose your utility? Look, it only
takes two pounds of finger finger pressure, pull pull a trigger, right.
I mean I could be eighty five years old and
freaking whack somebody you know, So who's coming after you?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 3: Down the line? And and here's the thing. If you
threaten me or my kids and you you tell me
that I gotta I gotta stop doing what I'm doing
or you're gonna kill my kids, dude, that is on you.
That's You're not going to use me to guilt me
into you doing something harmful to my kids, or my
brothers or my sisters in arms. When you meet your
maker where whatever that is, whatever, whatever concept of grand
deity or or just your next lifetime, whatever you believe,
you're going to be accountable for that. And that's what
I told them out on the book, and they I
feel it seems like that might have had a buzz
of impact. So anybody out there that is, you know,
you know, sort of doing the doing the hitman for
money thing, and I can understand how they can justify it,
but it's a justification. It's not it's not an adequate rationale.
And they're going to have to deal with that somewhere
down the line.
Speaker 1: And if you heard of instances where not only the
person on the program or whatever was threatened, but it
was also made made explicitly clear that their family would
be a target as well.
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely, yeah, Eric, many on this side in the
UFOO literature, there's a lot of it.
Speaker 2: And you you believe that would certainly be true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, But but again, you know, there's a there's the
ratio of good to bad that you hear in the
media and that you see in these these books. It's
it's here's the here's the statistic, Matt, and you look
this up yourself. Anybody hope your readers do less than
one percent of violent crime across the board, it's not
just the United States, across global statistics is committed by
let me see, No, it's the other way. I had
it wrong. Ninety percent of violent crime is committed by
less than one percent of the population. Right now, there's
there's less than violent crime where you're just ripping people off.
You know, uh, that ain't good either, right now, shout
not you know, steal or you know, so it's our good,
but it's not the violent stuff you're literally, you have
to be a psychopath to do that type of thing,
or you have to have been brainwashed or bludgeoned into it,
are so wounded psychologically that you can rationalize it in
your head that this person deserves to die. So that
we gotta we got to push back against the fear.
You know that the rum the only fear is fear itself.
So let's bring the discussion down here a little bit, right,
And and look the fact that Mary's lewis still a lot.
You're talking to him tonight, I think right, right, Yeah,
talked today yesterday. I think it was so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, talking to him today, right.
Speaker 3: But there are others that that that unfortunately got escorted
into their their next life a little prematurely, and whoever
whoever did that is going to have to face it
somewhere down the line.
Speaker 2: Do you think that former like we'll just say, like
former special operators that were either working for as uh,
you know, as a for a private contractor or still
working for the government, do you think that there's any
hesitancy on their part to come forward out of due
due to fear of the safety of their of their
own life.
Speaker 3: Oh sure, yeah, I think that I think there's plenty
of that going around. UH. David lou and others related
that to me. But it's not it's not a high percentage.
It's it's few and far between, and and you know,
it's a I guess it's just a an unfortunate aspect
of humanity spiritual evolution that this stuff is going on.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the private or the defense
military and defense complex, the private contractors. Now, I had
always thought that one of really the primary reasons for
the level of secrecy around all of this was the
entire legacy crash retrieval.
Speaker 2: And reverse engineering program.
Speaker 1: And I always sort of imagined a good bit of
corruption between between like the government and UH and these
defense contractors.
Speaker 2: How much of the how much of the overall problem.
Speaker 1: Are these defense contractors or that relationship or the fact,
excuse me, the fact that you have leadership in the Pentagon,
exit out of the Pentagon and then go right into
working for Northrop Grumman. How how much of that aspect
of that is it? Is it greed?
Speaker 2: Is it no?
Speaker 1: Grumman doing some maybe not so good things to make
sure that that they have the advantage in terms of
the cr program?
Speaker 2: Any any thoughts on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, again, I just want to emphasize that even though
when I left, I took a vice president position at
SEICE in their rumored to be you know, part of
the cabal, and they've since split and now partner Lighthouse
or whatever. Look, the vast majority of people in those
positions are good, morally straight folks and ensure you know,
part of free market enterprises. Competition, right, this is part
of the problem with communism. You know, looks good on paper,
but it just doesn't work. People are naturally competitive.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: It's and so the notion of being an entrepreneur, and
I've got no issues with that at all. But again,
when it gets to the point of using lethal action
or deplorable activity against other human beings, other American citizens,
under the guys of defending America, well then what are
we doing? You know, are we rotting more on the
inside protecting us? You know, so you can run from
the inside as well. And that's why the ELS says
foreign or domestic, all enemies foreign or domestic, right and so.
But but but here's the thing. You know, those folks
are are keeping us technologically advanced against other potential adversaries.
But here's another, you know, conundrum that that I wonder
as we zoom out right into sort of the galactic society,
at what point, Well, let me ask you this, if
if Minnesota had nuclear weapons, right, and I'll pick a
let's say, let's not not assign a specific state. If
the red state had nuclear weapons and a blue state
had nuclear weapons, are we going to start a nuclear
war inside the United States? Yeah? And are we going
to nuke each other? So back up that one level
or maybe two levels outside the solar system to our galaxy.
Are we going to let that happen? I mean, at
some point the Red States and the Blue States got
to start being friendly to each other. And so I
hope that took Yes. So I go back to Reagan's
famous speech about with Gorbachev, Right, wouldn't our differences look
so trivial if we took a step back from you know,
sort of a galactic point of view. So at some
point in our human evolution, we're going to have to
make friends with China and Russia and whoever the enemy
the tour de jour is. And look at look at
you know, the last twenty years of American warfare. Who
are allies work, Germany, Japan, Poland, right. And so it's
just such a shifting you know, set up here that
we've got to kind of tamper it all down. And
so this again part of the rationale for my book
is we got there is an opportunity here to use
this issue to unify everybody, not just red states blue
states here in our country, but everybody. And so if
we come clean with this, this notion that some of
them up there are kidnapping us and treating us like
lab rats, that has the potential to unify us and
start getting us to play nice as kids in the playground,
the same little blue marble we call Earth that has
that potential. And so I really want to inspire with
this book to get that. This military industrial complex, and
let's be clear, it's not one country's military industrial complex.
We got we got folks making weapons on both sides,
you see it all sure, right, And so there's an
opportunity here to do that. And the longer we trickle
this and the longer we keep the core of this secret,
the abduction phenomenon at the core, the longer we continue
this this you know, infighting among humans, and it's a
it's a silly thing.
Speaker 1: And you you feel certain that it is the abduction phenomenon.
It's not the fact that we're reverse engineering this stuff
and knocking you ap out of the skies. And in
your opinion, it is the abduction part. That is is
literally the third rail. The reason that they have kept
this so incredibly locked down.
Speaker 3: Uh yes, and and but to elaborate a little bit
it it's the reason why you can get high level
scientists and morally straight, good American military folks, government officials
to do this, to carry this malevolent streak into suppressing truth.
That's because money alone doesn't do it. Money can buy
you a lot, but on your deathbed. The reason why
you're going to keep it a secret is it's for
the best benefit of humanity. We have to shoot these
things down and we have to reverse engineer the technology
so that we can defend ourselves because they're way more
advanced than us. That's the only way we can That's
the only way we're going to do it. That's that's
not the only way we're gonna that's the only that's
not the only way to do it. Another aspect that
I proposed in the book is to you know, we
need to get the d D from being in charge
of this thing. I'm very excited that a disclosure pro
individual like Marco Rubio may end up as Secretary of
State because we need to start this negotiation process. We
got to quit shooting down on one of the best,
most heartwarming things I heard at the Soul conference that
Gary and he escape Yoush and all those guys put
together phenomenal that you and I linked up briefly before
I leave. But Ryan's most important statement that I think
I've ever heard from him, another true American er, just
like David Fraber, Alex Dietrich, all of them, you know,
risking their entire careers with this type of thing and
post careers, is he said, the reason why he can
he uses the word threat is not because that the
UAPs are threat being us, they're so advanced, you know,
It's because our reaction to them is a threat, right,
And he said, it's never a good idea to shoot
down something that you don't know what it is, right.
But the key that and he told me this at
lunch during a break, was that that we're the threat
the way we react to them. So if you have
two f eighteens that's that run into other fa teens
kind of like Adams inside of the nuclear core. And
now you start this cascade of you know, uh, of collisions.
It's the way that we react to them. It's the threat.
And we just gotta we've got to settle that down
and and and sort of you know, calm this whole
thing down and come together in unity with what we're doing.
And so I do believe that we we do now
have And that's why some of this is allowed to trickle, right,
that's not you know, we're still probably trying to squash
some elements that haven't gotten the word. Again, this is
part of this, this compartmentation is always that percent that
didn't get the word, you know, within the organs. Hey
we're having a birthday party for jail this week, right, Well,
I love Joe. How come I didn't get that? You know,
so somebodys didn't get the word. They were not whacking
people anymore, right, Hey, we're not suppressing you know, we're
not tampering with emails anymore. Guys, knock it off, right,
And so we're in that you know thaw, the trickle
thaw that that carlll you know kind of has mentioned
another great great American, great American patriot and hero in
this world. I you know, I happen to disagree at
the speed I want it now. I want to cost
a feet party's you know I'm clean. Yeah, we couldn't
protect all you guys. Sorry, it wasn't us, it was them.
We couldn't defended Bob. Sergeant Major Robert Odean. I went
to him in two thousand and eight, okay, and confronted
him in a ufology conference.
Speaker 2: And who is this, by the way.
Speaker 3: Sergeant Major Robert Odean, Okay, who was got famous for
talking about this assessment report that he read while he
was on staff duty at Shape Headquarters back in the sixties.
He was falling asleep. This full colonel who was you know,
in charge of all military activity in Europe at the time.
So that the four star general could sleep all night,
this guy's got to stay up all night and sergeant
major had to stay up all night. They were the
nine to one one guys if there was an emergency,
and they would determine whether or not, well do we
wake up the four star or maybe this is only
a two star problem, right, And so their fall asleep
is born in duty. You really would rather pull that
pull up several times. Of course, you'd rather pull it
on a weekend, because at least you get somebody you
know that was drunk and got a dui. You get
to go down and bail him out of jail, or
call his commander to GoGet and whatever. So his board
is hell. One night and the colonel went into this
triple ox safe, pulled out this report, slapped it in
front of him and say, here you go, starry Major,
maybe that'll keep you awake for a little while, because
he was falling asleep at his desk after you know,
a whole pot of coffee or whatever. And it was
this summation of you know, our relationship with a variety
of species over decades or not decades, centuries, millennium. Anyway,
he became a very well respected upologist, and he had
been pushing for disclosure. Some was a FA team pilot.
I'd really like to talk to him, naval aviator. Uh Anyway,
so I went to him with this heavy heart that
I had heard about these military abductions, and uh I
asked him flat out charge man. I told him a
little bit about background, and uh I asked him to
point blank his armed military involved in any of this.
Uh So what I what uh I told him is
I was really worried about it. And I got to
tell you, Matt, he was. He was the kind of guy,
this magnificent, old soul, gentle guy who you know, he's
the guy I expected to be up on the alternate
given a sermon to me every Sunday. He was that
kind of powerful, you know, presence, and he and he
looked at the floor, which I was not expected because
he's always a straight shoot, always looking at me straight
in the eye. And then he looked up at me
and he stared at me straight and rye and he said, yes,
but you got to understand, we had no choice and
we're gonna do it anyway. And so they allowed us
to be observers. Just to make sure that they're claimed
that they never permanently harmed anybody, they would have to do,
you know, some uncomfortable procedures, just like my labrador retriever
had done at the vet. Right, that's have to cause
some pain in order to see where the problem is.
Because they can't speak to the dogs, right, we haven't
developed a telepathic capacity yet, despite the science supporting you know,
peer reviewed science that says telepathy is real. I mean,
that's nothing new. I think Ross mentioned that any case.
He said, yeah, but you know it is spot checking
and we're partial observers. We are not the ones doing
the procedures. I just can't get my head around that.
Here you have these guys and Gale signing up to
sacrifice their lives and defend to this country. Now I
have out of time with them, but it is defensible
if we need to at least align ourselves with some
of these folks so that they help us protect us
against the other bad guys, right, right, And so having
the Department of State involved in this starting to get
involved to at least start to sort out, Hey, we
may want to negotiate with this country, we may not
want to align ourselves with these guys. They're not along
our values, right, And so I'm really optimistic for the
future that hopefully that Department of State will at least
get involved, if not take over the whole thing. Because
if as and it's not me, don't listen to me, Hey,
listen to Himashed and all these other folks that have
claimed that we are on the verge of being dragged,
kicking and screaming into a galactic society. I mean, it's
there are a lot of much smarter people than me
that are making these claims, and again that that's where
the dots lead to, the data leads us in that direction.
It's it's the only thing that connects all the dunts
that I had.
Speaker 1: Now, one of the things that I'd been told very
early on was the targeting of individuals to protect the
deep Legacy program. That wasn't done by primarily by or
or at all by Jaysock, but it was rather farmed
out to the security contractors working for the for the defense,
you know, the defense aerospace companies. If that is true,
what is it done so that there's a kind of
a level of separation between the government and uh a
security contractor maybe doing some bad things. Are they essentially
using the contractor, let's say that CIA office glow of
BLA access or whoever is ordering these things to happen.
Are they then using would they potentially then use a
defense contractor's security outfit as kind of a cutout?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm way out of my lane on that, Matt.
You know, I was only I was only at se
C for six months, and then I had to take
a leave of absence when I went back to work
to back to work for DARPA as a GS fifteen
as a civilian. And then when I got back from Afghanistan,
I resigned my position with them, and so I was
I was never privy to any of that from s C.
I C. I do. I do have friends, uh and
and former you know, colleagues and teammates who who did
leave special ops and went into security firms. But I
have strong, uh, strong feelings that these are morally ascended
people with strong values. And I have a hard time
thinking that they are the hit you know, doing this
kind of thing. So I just don't I just don't
have any knowledge. I will say that in terms of
you know, high value targets and and get getting rid
of you know, quote evil people. Uh, this this one
percent of psychologically damaged people. I want to be I
want to be compassionate to them. You know, I'd much
rather use the star Trek phaser. Right, That's where Star
Trek gets rid of all these moral dilemmas. You just
send them on stun. Right. Well, stunt isn't working. If
you've got a K five, you know a plate that
it can't penetrate, right, and so we don't have that option,
right and so, but I want to be compassionate in
their realm and understand that if they aren't pretty to
all the the other information, that maybe this person isn't
as quite as bad as you think, and maybe they
don't deserve to die, you know, especially if you haven't
personally observed it. You know, my heart goes out to it.
But I don't have any direct evidence either, which way,
logically it makes sense to have plausible deniability, right, Yeah,
you offload it to a contractor and have them do it,
kind of like Monday lawn money laundering in the Caymans, right,
I mean, you know it's offloading. And again it's it's
a corrosive aspect of leadership where you're you're dodging accountability.
And I have a real problem with that. I talk
a lot about it in my robotics book about my
concern that robots are insulating us from the consequences of
our action. You know, as came and we used to
choke people out and hit them direct, you knew exactly
who you were hurting and at what level to choke
them out. And then you let go. So they come
back in the consciences or not, but you were held accountable.
Now you hire some robot to do it, and you
don't even you know, And the real dangerous part is
that the robot decides to do it themselves.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: That's you know, that's the you know, the slippery slope,
that's the cliff. We're sliding that slippery slope directly that
way now. And that's part of my rationale for that
book is to warn us that we got to put
the brakes on harder. So anyway, much more of that.
But I don't have any direct evidence of that, no understood.
Speaker 1: I mean, I not that I understand, but I can
see like the justification or or the you know, the
legal reasoning or or or whatever for let's say somebody
that was a scientist or or whatever that was part
of the deep legacy program that decides that they want
to talk or they're threatening to talk. I could certainly
see the uh, you know.
Speaker 2: Thing then at the very least being threatened.
Speaker 1: But I think for me personally, like just like as
a journalist, I've heard Jeremy Corbel speak about this.
Speaker 2: I think Ross has alluded to it.
Speaker 1: But I think when when journalists are threatened or intimidated,
then that are journalists that are not.
Speaker 2: Knox for the CIA or anyone else.
Speaker 1: You know, they are clean independent journalists. I'll share a
story with you, and I honestly don't remember if I've
shared this publicly, but this is just an.
Speaker 2: Example of what I experienced.
Speaker 1: So it was I think in November of twenty twenty three, myself,
Josh Boswell and Christopher Sharp at the Liberation Times, we
worked on a story for The Daily Mail regarding the Legacy,
the Deep Legacy crash retrieval program, and in particular the
CIA's Office of Global Access, which had been highly highly secretive.
You might find one reference to it on the Internet
at that time, but it was very very lockdown, and
we spent months interviewing different sources discussing specifically how uh
D S and T in a c I A office
gle of black sess was heavily involved in the in
the recovery of these of these uh these vehicles of
not non human origin. We were so careful about our
communications and uh you know, we did not speak to
a soul. We were We've vetted our sources like you
like you, you wouldn't believe.
Speaker 2: And the morning that that came out.
Speaker 1: A UH, a friend of ours that UH had worked
in UH, let's say, worked in the government, said to
all of us that had written this story, Look, when
this comes out, this is going to anger a lot
of people in the intelligence community. And from this point forward,
even if you're in a hotel room by yourself, the
the names of your sources must never ever leave your
lips again because CIA and d OD they are going
to want to know how you found out what you
found out. And we found out later actually that it
was a firestorm in the CIA when we added the
Office of Global Access. So anyway, so that the story
goes live on the Daily Mail, I think at seven
am Pacific time, and I aired a pre recorded interview
that I shot where we basically interviewed ourselves, Josh, myself
and Christopher Sharp. That morning, I fly to Las Vegas
to do to work on a project. And you know,
so I land about eleven o'clock, so the story has
only been live for just just a few hours, and
so I check into the hotel. I'm actually I'm staying
at the Waldorf Astoria on the Strip.
Speaker 2: You know. Five Star hotel.
Speaker 1: I wasn't paying for it, and you know there's no casino,
very very quiet, quiet hotel. So I get to the
hotel and I go up to the bar to actually
answer a YouTube comments, and I'm sitting at the bar.
I don't drink alcohol, so I'm sitting there having a soda.
And this individual that morning that had warned us to
never repeat our sources ever again said, look, you know
there's a very high chance a FOSI, CIA, FBI they're
going to try and honeytrap you because they're going to
want to know how you found out what you found out.
Speaker 2: They will want to know your sources.
Speaker 1: So I'm sitting at this bar and there were literally
only eight people at the bar, maybe ten at the most,
very very quiet, this kind of U shaped bar.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 1: This lady comes comes in and starts chatting me up.
In mid thirties, attractive, very well spoken, and to be honest,
at the time, because I was so laser focused on
taking care of work, I kind of blew her off.
And so I'm sitting there working and it's this U
shaped bar and this heavy set gentleman, you know, maybe
in like his late fifties comes and sits at the
opposite side of the bar, this U shaped bar, and
you know, I kind of noticed it out of my
peripheral vision, and I noticed that he's talking with this
with the lady that was trying to chat with me.
So instantly my hackles go up. So I'm sitting there
typing and typing, and I can hear the guy because
he's not being loud, but you could, you know, his
voice was caring, And all of a sudden, I hear
the guy say UFO, and I stop typing, and I'm
thinking to myself, well, what are the chances of me
sitting at a bar with you know, eight to ten
people in it at this five star hotel that, you know,
it's not like you have riff raff or casino downstairs
or whatever. And so I immediately my alarm bells go off,
and then I decide, you know what, I'm going to
engage this guy. So I look up Adam and I say,
excuse me, sir.
Speaker 2: I didn't mean to be eavesdropping, but I heard you.
Speaker 1: I heard you talk about UFOs, And I said, did
you happen to read that article that came out in
the Daily Mail this morning about UFOs? And he looks
at me and he says, quote no, but that article
about Lou Elizondo being a liar sure sticks out in
my head, and I'm sure I completely froze, and I
just so I'm thinking to myself, what's going through my
mind is Number one, Lou hadn't been in the media
in well over a year.
Speaker 2: Two who even knows who Lou is unless you track
this topic, you know.
Speaker 1: Three, what are the chances of me just happening to
run into somebody at some bar with only eight to
ten people in it? So I just kind of blurred out, well,
you should look up the story. And so I go
back to my computer. My heart is just racing, and
all I can think about is, you know, what is
going on? Because we were super secure and how we
spoke about everything. Our comm security was locked down. And
all I can think about is how did whoever this
is find out where I was going to be. I
didn't publicize that I was going to Vegas or anything
of that nature. I was very careful not to say anything.
And you know, and hours later, this guy is sitting
across from me, and so I'm sitting a think I
actually messaged a couple of people on signal and said, hey,
this is what's going on?
Speaker 2: Do I need to be worried?
Speaker 1: And folks said, yeah, you know this, this is this
doesn't smell right. So I waited about ten fifteen minutes later,
and he's still there and he's talking to the girl,
and I finally decide I'm gonna I'm going to engage
him again. So I look up to him and I said, hey,
did you ever find that article about the Daily Mail?
And he stands up and then he takes a cell
phone and he's kind of like, you know, sort of
weirdly fumbling with it like this, and he and while
he's doing it, he goes, no, but that article about
louel A Zondo being a liar sure sure sticks out
of my head, said the exact same phrase. And he
gets up and he leaves and and for the longest
time I was like, what, you know, why was he
messing with his phone? You know, like he looked like
he didn't want to know what he was doing. But
then I realized he was taking my picture and it
was it was it was clearly a message of intimidation.
But the thing that was so frightening about it is, yeah,
there's no way like a private investigator or somebody else
could have known what we were doing and tracked me
to Vegas and and and followed me to the bar.
I mean, it was uh and to be honest, it
it really it made me mad and at the same
time it made me it made me sad that that
that kind of uh, that kind of thing goes on.
And uh, yeah, to this day, it's luckily nothing has
ever occurred since then that I'm aware of, and I'm
you know, I'm very very careful. But it just goes
to show you that that I think that there there
are some bad, bad actors out there. And you know,
I was in Vegas, I think for like two, you know,
a week and a half, two weeks, and I have
to tell you, everywhere I went, I was constantly looking
behind looking behind my back.
Speaker 2: I never saw the guy again, but you know, it.
Speaker 1: Was it was intimidating and it and at the end
of it, I mean I was mad as hell.
Speaker 2: I'm like, you know, fuck him.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not going to stop what I'm doing, right,
you know, I'm You're not going to intimidate me to uh,
you know, to stop what I'm doing.
Speaker 2: But anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that that was just my hopefully one and
and last last experience.
Speaker 3: Classic trade craft intimidation.
Speaker 2: So that does sound like that?
Speaker 3: Is that absolutely?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: So absolutely that wasn't That doesn't sound like a private
investigator or somebody like that.
Speaker 3: You never know, I don't, I don't. I don't know.
Like I said, I wasn't good at that stuff. Didn't
didn't really get into it. I mean I had some
training in it, but I just I couldn't pull it off.
I would never have made it in Hollywood.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 1: One issue that we were you we're speaking of talking
about the whole NHI thing and and really kind of
the sort of ethic or.
Speaker 2: Ethical decisions that are decisions that are.
Speaker 1: Being made that may be ethical and and they may
maybe not. Uh, and you know, the motivations for uh,
these folks that maybe have done some things that are
not so good. I had national security expert Matthew Pines
on our show last and one issue that I brought
up with Matthew on this last Sunday was, you know,
Jake was talking about these craft would be summoned by
people with psionic ability, They would be able to summon
summon them and and then he spoke about these craft
either landing or being brought down. And I don't think
he went and went into any sort of specifics about
that about that happening, but you know, one thing in
his story that really touched me was he was talking
about when he when he went up to retrieve one
of these craft, he he had this overwhelming, uh sort
of emotional connection that it just came out of the
blue with this vehicle, and uh any any one of
the things that he said that he felt was this
profound sadness by whatever this intelligence uh was.
Speaker 2: And and it led to this question, And.
Speaker 1: I would love to know what you might think about this.
If if these NHI craft, if these U A p
are being abated uh into appearing by you know, by
psionic operators or whatever, and then these crafts are being
knocked out of the sky or forced to land, one
would uh naturally presume that there are in probably many
cases occupants inside n HI pilots or whatever that uh.
Speaker 2: That that would be piloting these things.
Speaker 1: So if we're we're bringing these things down or forcing
him to land or however that happens, that leads me
to the question, what is happening to these occupants, and
how how can that be ethical?
Speaker 2: How can that be right? Well, so.
Speaker 3: I got lots of thoughts on that. Firstly, you know,
returning to the to the abduction amnesty not or the
or the paradox is, you know, morally, I believe that
every species has a right to defend itself. And so
if if we're going after if we're going in to
you know, grab a polar bear cub from the mom,
that polar bear has every right to slice up one
side down the other yours to pieces. It's sort of
an inherent aspect of life to defend yourself and defend
your family, right, And so if I feel like that
thing is now here's the problem. Feel like, right, if
I am convinced in my head that that little that
silver disk is coming down here to take my kids
out of their beds and mess with them, I feel
entitled to do everything I can to prevent that, including
shooting them down. You know. So there's there's an inherent
rational justification to shoot things down if you have reasonable
if you have reason to believe that they are gonna,
you know, take you out of your bed. Now here's
the problem. All flying saucers look alike, right, and so here,
and even if it's all these little gray guys, well,
this little gray guy may be a good guy, this
little gray guy may be a bad guy. Just because
they're gray guys doesn't mean they deserve to get shopped out, right.
And just because this flying saucer looks like this flying saucer,
how do you know they're enough totally different species or
one is controlled, guided, driven, flown by a robot. Right,
So you just don't know. And I'm just gonna go
right back to Ryan Graves, very pithy, very profound statement.
It is never a good idea to shoot something down
if you don't know what it is.
Speaker 2: And so and you believe we have the technology to
take these things down.
Speaker 3: I believe we have the technology to take some of
them down. Okay, again, this is belief, not knowledge, sure
belief based on all the documentation that I've read. And now, look,
there are those that claim that if it's not peer
reviewed journal article, then it's rubbish. I don't agree with that. Yeah,
what I told my cadets is, look, if you want
me to give you credit on an exam question that
you don't believe was right, or that had an alternate answer.
I'm not going to give you those points back unless
you come to me with three peer reviewed journal articles
to refute that statement. And I did that several times,
and several cadets went they did more research, trying it
more effort trying to answer that one question that they
did during the rest of the course. But it was
worthwhile because I'm teaching them the scientific method, right. But
that doesn't mean that a bunch of books that aren't
peer reviewed journal articles are worthless. It's still evidence. There
is still evidence in there. It's not strong evidence. It's
on the you know, the A one scale versus the
F six scale. It's kind of probably down near to
the bottom. But it is evidence. Stories are evidence, you know. Look,
every every scientific experiment you do is a story, you
know about what you saw on these devices and so forth.
So it's an interpretation of those devices. That radar data
that you know becomes the evidence. So you know, when
you get back to this morality thing again, it's this
compartmentation that is a real prompt if our government knows
who's the good guys and who the bad guys, or
folks with psionic ability or telepathic ability knows who who's
good and who's bad. You know, maybe we should be
tapping into that and figure out how to deal with that.
But shooting everything down by default, you know, I talk
about you know, and some other presentations I've given about bees. Right,
Gary Nolan loves to use the little ants are the
angry monkeys, and I love them, and it's the way
he brings that out. The reason I use bees is
that our planet, our food source depend on bees to
cross pollening, and many crops are highly dependent upon that.
So we need these bees with stingers that can kill
us to help feed us. And so it's kind of
a symbiotic relationship, right that you developed with these bees. Now,
when Africanized bees are killer bees made their way into
North America, big human crime is a big problem, and
we were inspired in this country to eradicate them. Right,
So if we start shooting down every single visitor under
the auspices that they're all bad guys just because a
few did some of these experiments we got, we risk eradication.
And that I do agree with with the folks that
talk about, you know, catastrophic disclosure. Uh, it's not I
don't think it's a catastrophe. It's it's a catastrophe. It's
a catastrophic response to disclosure, to declare war on all
of them just because it's our airspace. This, this is ridiculous,
this airspace notion. It's like elephants declareing their airspace. You
know what are you? What are you talking about? So
it's it's so we risk, we risk with that behavior,
that aggressive behavior, going from a tolerated and in fact,
in many ways supported you know, look what we do.
We will be hives from northern California all the way
to southern California, all over the place. And I get
involved in this when I was a dark guy training
bees to sniff explosives, caught by some all time. But
we not only tolerate and we support them, we move
them around. And how do we know that the bees
aren't like, yes, I got a free fire miles right right,
You think you're hide one all the way to Ohio.
Mine went from from the east coast to the west
coast and back. Nanny nanny boo, right, So we don't
know what that looks like. But if we're overly aggressive
in our response, we do a risk eradication because it's
clear that from the technologies that have been demonstrated that
they could do.
Speaker 2: It, sure, of course.
Speaker 1: And do you feel that the American public is prepared
or can handle being told about this, that the government
cannot control our sky eyes and they cannot protect things
from coming into your room at night?
Speaker 2: Do you do you think that they're ready for it?
And do you think they deserve to know? This?
Speaker 3: Absolutely flipping lutely one of my favorite things that Josh,
that not just Jake said on his program. We talked
about this at like and we are in vigorous agreement,
as we are on almost everything is he said? What
did he say? He said, Uh, I don't agree with Oh,
what was the what was the phrase he used? I'm
trying to tip of the tongue sign pschology so that
you know what I'm talking about. It wasn't catastrophic disclosure.
It was oh, I'm trying to blank on it. I
want to re record this section. On said, uh, let's
figure it out. But but the notion was absolutely, oh,
ontological shock. He goes, I don't believe that this is
going to be an ontological shock. It's been eighty years.
He didn't say that, I'm saying that we have had
eighty years to warm up to this, and so we
are way beyond having this this catastrophic ontological shock. I don't.
I don't think that's the case at all. And the
other thing that was so important about what Jake said
in regards to his emotional response, it wasn't just that
he felt sadness. He felt an overwhelming sense of love.
And I have heard that time and time again from
experiences across the board, that it's a sadness mixed with love.
Like your kids, right, You're you're sad that they're going
to have to get punched in the nose on the
playground to realize it can't shove other people are out.
You kind of you kind of don't want them to
be hurt, but you recognize the inevitable need to go
through that. And so that's the way I felt in
some of my experiences, and I know it's a really
common feature across the board. So yeah, I don't. I
don't think we are on an ontological shock. I used
the notion of, you know, the angry teenagers now look
quit cheating us like we're fifth graders for crying out loud.
We are teenagers, and we know it all because of
the Internet, right right, it's time to time to let
us go. Yeah, understand, we can handle it.
Speaker 2: I think he said.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: I think he said something along the lines of he
doesn't think it's going to be ontological shock. He thinks
it's going to be ontological relief. Yes, yeah, yeah, I
love that. And you know, and and speaking about or
speaking of whether folks are are ready ready for this,
I want to read you a tweet that or post
on next that that really addressed it. Because when when
Ross's story came out and they touched on the SI thing,
I was like, you know what, we shouldn't be talking
about that.
Speaker 2: You know, I've often operated.
Speaker 1: From the place of, you know, let's let's just focus
on the nuts and bolts. You know, we can't talk
about abductions any of that kind of stuff. And a
mutual friend of ours who will remain nameless, uh, brought
brought something up to me and I'm going to read
it here because I'm really answering the question that I
posed to you, and I said.
Speaker 2: Today, I said, quote.
Speaker 1: At first, I thought that perhaps the SI aspect of
the phenomenon should have been left out of Jake Barber's interview.
I thought people were not ready for it, and it
needed to be a conversation at some point far down
the road, perhaps even years later. Then a friend who
has worked on worked in the government on the UFO
problem said this to me. Quote just because people aren't
ready for it doesn't mean they don't deserve it. If
what Jake claims is true, which appears to be the
case and is replicable, I think he did exactly what
he should have done. Closed quote and I ended, ended,
ended it. I ended the tweet by saying, and this
is true. And this is how it was. Like a
light bulb went off in my in my head today,
I said, you know, I said, uh. Then it dawned
on me that my thinking that that aspect of the
phenomenon needed to be postponed to another time is the
exact same thinking the legacy program, gatekeepers and administrations have
used for decades to avoid confronting this problem. The very
thinking I have publicly railed against. I was being hypocritical
and didn't even realize it.
Speaker 2: So all this time I've.
Speaker 1: Been, you know, railing on the government and the IC
and the d O d uh for not coming out here,
I was finding myself saying to myself, Ah, you know what,
people can't handle this. Let's uh, let's talk about nuts
and bolts and a few few years later maybe.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about abductions or all of that. And you know, and.
Speaker 1: Just you know, just because people aren't ready for it
doesn't mean they don't deserve it. And and I closed
the tweet by saying, the fact is you can't cherry
pick telling the truth.
Speaker 2: The public deserves to know. It's all or nothing.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So first and almost, matt, ah, be kind to yourself.
This is part of this you know, uh, forgiving process.
So the undertitle on my book is a Path to
Forgiveness in the Disclosure Age. And I mean that very
sincerely because we're all struggling with this, right, And I
think that that's why I'm so vigorously in agreement with
Jake's point, that of of ontological relief. And I think
i'll quote him on that. I love that sound bite, right,
because here's the thing. You know, you're never ready. You're
you're never ready as a graduate student to defend your thesis.
You're never ready to defend your dissertation. They're going to
hammer you, right, with questions every which way, but Luke's
as a commander on five separate occasions, I had to
take into account what the intelligence analysts were telling me,
and intelligence officers, ad bonds commanders decide we got to go,
and that if we waited until we had you know,
a ninety to ten ratio, or even a sixty to
fifty ratio, whatever it happens to be, that they would
guarantee we never go in on battle. We'd never this.
Human beings would never have left the cave to take
on a side of the tooth tiger, right, And so this
is why the command world gets big egos. We have
to be over confident. We would never It's like firefighters,
they would never run into that building unless they were
over confident that their equipment was good enough to prevent,
you know, Helmut the acid from dripping down onto their skull,
or that they would, you know. So there has to
be an inequality. But it's a fine line. You gotta
you gotta reign your ego in, but you're still going
to maintain enough confidence to do these super high risk things.
So I could not agree more with Jake that we're
never gonna be ready. But the problem right now is
when we have human beings brothers from the Seals, killing
from you know, Green Berets and back and forth, just
because they're retired, they're working for different companies. This is
this is madness, right, So we've got to fix that,
and this is an opportunity to do that. This new
administration has an opportunity to do that, and I hope
the heck that they do they take advantage of that
to heal us rather than continuing this divide and I
have I'm optimistic by nature, I'm hoping that they will.
But that's the key is recognizing that we have the
opportunity for ontological relief. Finally somebody is going to come
clean and said yes, yeah, and and and there's a
bunch of them, and we want to join this galactic society,
like Himashed stated, like Paul Hellier stated, you know, these
are high level defense ministers and we're going to ignore
them just because they're from Israel and Canada, right, I
mean for Krana Loud. So so that's a that's probably
of all the things that Jake came forward with, it's
conveying that that deep, profound sense of love mixed with
sadness at the divisive nature of us and this corrosive
leaders that we're continuing to propagate instead of bringing Tim
Galladett into this and fixing it. I mean, he's served already.
The guy deserves a break, but I hope he gets
in ball stays involved. And then third is we gotta
dismiss the analysts and the intelligence guys that say I
love them. I love them like like the brothers they
are the heroes they are, But I disagree with you.
We are ready. We are ready now. We are ready
as we need to be. We're never going to get
to the ninety nine percent, so give up on it.
Let's do it now before we continue to corrode. And
that's that's that's my claim to those guys. I love
all you guys, Jase Dry I hope you listen to this,
lou Dave, all you guys, but we're never going to
be ready. We got to do it now.
Speaker 2: I couldn't couldn't agree more.
Speaker 1: My final question for you, and and thank you so
much for coming on our show. This is by far
one of one of I think one of the most
really gratifying interviews I think I've ever done. Do you
think do you think that more do you think that
more members of the special forces community will see other
special forces operators come forward, like like Jake or people
like yourself speaking speaking up, Do you think that will
encourage other members of our military, of our special forces
community to come out whistle blow and uh and and
really try and write this ship.
Speaker 3: I absolutely hope. So I think it's already happening. Randy
just came out. I talked to him a year ago.
I'm certainly not. You know, Dave wanted me to play
a similar role with with him as with Jake and
his guys.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: He just came out. He did a podcast and he
was talking about, you know, as an eighteen BRABO. Now
he is a verifiable Green Beret who had a fascinating
experience at the Crane Naval Special Warfare Facility, brought downstairs,
down deep down into a very sophisticated facility, and was
exposed to, incidentally, a very similar looking device that Bob
Lasar talked about back in nineteen eighty eight, this spear
sort of thing. So he's come forward. I hope that it.
I don't I don't want to use the term explode,
but I hope I hope that it blooms with my
brothers and sisters in the soft community and elsewhere, because
I do agree with with Danny Shean, you know, as
a legal expert, about the use of a of a
non disclosure agreement that was intended to prevent us from
revealing secrets to our adversaries. Right, So that's when you're
a military person, you agreed not to give up secrets
that that could, you know, enable the enemy to defeat us. Right,
That's that's clear, and that's that's that's wonderful logic. It
makes all the sense in the world. But to use
that to say that you can't talk about this anomalous
thing that we can't even put we don't even acknowledge exists,
that's ridiculous. That is a bastardization, a misuse and abuse
of a democratic legal system. Uh, in an immoral sense.
It's not just illegal like Stephen Griss has all the time,
never mind legality, it's im moral to do something like
that to control a society. That flies in the face
of the democratic notion that this country and many other
countries were bothered on. So yeah, I think this. I
hope this blooms, and so many of us realize that, hey,
we haven't declared war on ets, so that NDA you
signed that does not apply to this, right, so's yes,
that's my hope. I'm eternally optimistic, as you know, Matt,
and I think that is going to happen, and it's
going to be ontological relief. Just like Jake says, Now,
that doesn't mean we got to be broadcast into China
how to defeat our weapons systems, right, I mean, that's
ridiculous and for somebody to claim both of those. Eventually,
hopefully we get to the United States of Earth and
we treat China like our next door neighbor state. But
it'll take some growth before we get to that point.
Speaker 1: I think absolutely well, doctor Blinch, thank you, firstly, thank
you for your service to this great country. Thank you
for speaking up, and thank you for what you've done
in terms of helping being a major part of this
story from from a whistleblower Jake Barber and uh and
uh and then finally, when might we expect your book?
Speaker 3: Uh? Yeah, So I'm still polishing up the manuscript. I
have a cover all ready to go, and we're spinning
up a website.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: I don't want to give timelines because that's sort of
just like predicting disclosure, right a little Yeah, we'll be
coming soon.
Speaker 1: Uh uh.
Speaker 3: And I'm still in doctor review from my robotics book,
so I kind of want to get that under my
belt before I do this one. So as soon as
I can do it, Matt, I guess that's probably my
best answer.
Speaker 2: Fantastic.
Speaker 1: Well, I look forward to meeting meeting back up again
when you're you're in the LA area. We had a
fabulous dinner a couple of months ago. But but again,
thank you very much for what you're doing for this
disclosure process and what you've done for this country, and
we look forward to having you back on the show.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, thank you Matt for the risks you continue
to accept on behalf of your fellow humans. Have a
great night, folks.
Speaker 1: If you enjoyed Part one of our interview with doctor
John Blinch, do us a favor. Please hit the subscribe
and thumbs up buttons and click here for Part one
of our interview with doctor John Blitch