Speaker 1: Welcome to the deep dive. For years, the whole story
of unidentified aerial phenomena, you know UAPs, we all used
to just call UFOs. It felt like it belonged squarely
in the realm of science fiction.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, it was pure fantasy for most people.
Speaker 1: But the last few years have just, I mean, they've
radically altered that perception. Yeah, we have watched the entire
conversation swing so violently from a fringe obsession to.
Speaker 2: Serious bipartisan government scrutiny.
Speaker 1: Exactly right there in the halls of Congress. It's wild.
Speaker 2: It's a seismic shift, really. And the tipping point, I think,
as many of you will remember, was about two years ago,
right with the whistleblower with David Grush. He's a former
Air Force officer with peckable intelligence credentials. He stepped forward
and his claim was just astonishing.
Speaker 1: He said the US government had secretly recovered and was
actively trying to reverse engineer non human technology.
Speaker 2: And at the time that sounded, well, let's be honest,
it sounded truly outlandish.
Speaker 1: It did, it really did. Yeah, here we are today
and you have lawmakers from completely opposite sides of the
ideological spectrum. Treating this information with the utmost seriousness.
Speaker 2: It's become this strange, unifying force in Washington. It's bizarre.
The demand for transparency is just it's deafening now.
Speaker 1: And the sources that we're going to be unpacking for
you today they just amplify that demand exponentially.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we are embarking on a really in depth exploration
of the claims made in this new documentary. It's called
The Age of Disclosure, and.
Speaker 1: It draws on testimony from an incredible array of I
mean high level government, military and intelligence officials.
Speaker 2: This isn't just you know, a rehashing of old sightings
or grainy photos. This is an operational deep dive.
Speaker 1: So the central mission of this deep dive for you
listening is to understand the documentary's core thesis.
Speaker 2: Which is that there's an eighty year global cover up,
eighty years concealing intelligent alien life and maybe more importantly,
the advanced technology that comes with it.
Speaker 1: And the focus is on do these craft exist and
more on how the world's most powerful nations have been
locked in this decade long secret war to control them.
Speaker 2: And to really set the stakes for you immediately, we
have to use the ultimate analogy. It's one that the
officials themselves provided. One of the high level officials interviewed
in the documentary compares this reverse engineered tech to something far,
far beyond any known weapon.
Speaker 1: They call it the atomic weapon on steroids. Yeah, and
that analogy it should immediately grab you. It perfectly encapsulates
the gravity of this secret.
Speaker 2: Well, we all know the historical world altering weight of
the Manhattan Project.
Speaker 1: Of course, it defined the entire twentieth century.
Speaker 2: But this, they argue, is exponentially more critical, it's more powerful,
and it's far far more dangerous.
Speaker 1: So if this technology is real that allows for these
revolutionary breakthroughs in propulsion energy materials.
Speaker 2: Then possessing it doesn't just grant military superiority. It grants
the ability to read draw the entire map of human civilization.
Speaker 1: And the terrifying implication which the sources really spell out,
is that the first country to weaponize.
Speaker 2: This could achieve undisputed global domination.
Speaker 1: And that's it. That's the high stakes secret war we're
going to be discussing today.
Speaker 2: So that brings us right to the foundational structure, the
thing that has, according to all these sources, successfully hidden
this truth for eight decades.
Speaker 1: The program itself.
Speaker 2: The program that these high level officials refer to as
the Legacy Crash Retrieval Program or the LCRP.
Speaker 1: And the claims about the sheer scale and the success
of the secrecy are what make this testimony so so
hard to just ignore.
Speaker 2: I think the most striking quote for me that cited
in the source material came from one Intel official. He said,
and I'm quoting here, there has never been a program
before that has been so successfully kept out of the
public eye as the Legacy Crash Retrieval Program.
Speaker 1: Well, just pause and reflect on that statement. Second, that
this secret is arguably the most successfully protected government operation
in all of modern history.
Speaker 2: It just demands a close look at how how on
earth did they do it and the sources.
Speaker 1: They draw a direct line back to that post war era,
right to the intense secrecy that was surrounding the development
of the atomic bomb.
Speaker 2: Precisely, they analyzed the Manhattan Project as a kind of
a benchmark for government secrecy, the.
Speaker 1: Gold standard of keeping a secret. Right.
Speaker 2: But while it was incredibly restricted, the Manhattan Projects still
have leaks. We know about them in hindsight. S the
commanders who allegedly established this legacy program. They learned from
the shortcomings of that effort, so.
Speaker 1: They didn't just copy the security playbook.
Speaker 2: No, they actively enhanced it, They made it better.
Speaker 1: They essentially designed it to be leakproof from the very beginning.
So what kind of security measures are we even talking
about that have managed to hold for eighty years against
public curiosity, congressional scrutiny, and.
Speaker 2: Just simple human nature, right, the desire.
Speaker 1: To talk exactly?
Speaker 2: The sources confirm this involved extreme compartmentalization, just a strict
need to know basis, which effectively makes the whole program
e labyrinth.
Speaker 1: Where no single person or even a small group knows
the full scope of what's happening, not at all.
Speaker 2: And crucially, they ruled the day by involving elements that
were outside of traditional military structures.
Speaker 1: Ah okay, that's clever.
Speaker 2: It is it ensures that the usual oversight mechanisms like
you know, congressional appropriations committees, they just couldn't track the
funding flow. The money disappears.
Speaker 1: And who are the key players in this alleged multi
generational conspiracy. Because keeping a secret this vast it requires
institutional involvement across agencies that are normally frankly competing with
each other.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the documentary identifies a complex, very integrated system.
It involves key elements of the Air Force, the CIA,
the Department of Energy, the DOE, other specific military.
Speaker 1: Branches, and private contractors.
Speaker 2: And most importantly, a heavy reliance on private contractors.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the Department of Energy for a second.
That's a significant operational detail. Why the DOE, what's their role?
Speaker 2: Well, the Department of Energy's historical role involves the management
of high level nuclear materials classified sites.
Speaker 1: Right places like Los Alamo's Hoak Ridge exactly.
Speaker 2: So their inclusion suggests a connection to the material science
of the recovered craft. These non human objects are alleged
to be made of you know, exotic isotopes or materials
that are classified far beyond even standard military secrecy.
Speaker 1: So the DOE is the perfect mechanism for analyzing that stuff,
for storing it, securing the wreckage. At these deeply classified
nuclear facilities.
Speaker 2: Often completely removed from typical Pentagon scrutiny, they have their
own world of security.
Speaker 1: And then the reliance on private contractors helps complete the
shell game, right. It allows the government to bury the
costs and the activity outside of that traditional oversight framework.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the private contractors act as a financial and legal
They're the ones doing the labor.
Speaker 1: The reverse engineering, the storage, the specialized transport.
Speaker 2: All of it. But the true nature of their work
is protected by these ironclad non disclosure agreements and layers
upon layers of corporate shell companies.
Speaker 1: Which ensures that the paper trailer just stands, it goes cold,
far from public view.
Speaker 2: It's an operational black hole by design.
Speaker 1: And the sources specifically cite the Air Force as running
the specialized unit for the actual retrieval.
Speaker 2: Yes, the Air Force is alleged to run these special
units that are tasked with immediate deployment to crash or
retrieval sites.
Speaker 1: These have to be highly trained teams the best.
Speaker 2: They secure the wreckage, they handle the initial hazardous materials assessments,
and they manage the I mean the incredibly complex logistics
of transporting large, maybe even intact, non human craft. Back
to the reverse engineering labs.
Speaker 1: I'm just reflecting on the sheer logistics of that and
the human element. We're not just talking about keeping secrets
from the public. We're talking about keeping them from your peers,
from your family, from your elected representatives.
Speaker 2: For eighty years, across multiple administrations, through wars, through political.
Speaker 1: Scandals, and across the intense rivalries between the CIA and
the Pentagon, which we know are very real.
Speaker 2: The fact that the sources claim this program has remained
airtight is in a very strange way, a testament to
the power of that compartmentalized command structure.
Speaker 1: And the fear, the fear of the implications if this
technology ever fell into the wrong hands.
Speaker 2: That fear is the glue. It's what ties everyone together.
If these individuals truly believe they are protecting humanity from
the ultimate destructive force.
Speaker 1: The atomic weapon on steroids.
Speaker 2: Then silence becomes a moral imperative. It overrides any democratic
impulse toward disclosure or transparency.
Speaker 1: And that inherent difficulty is exactly why the push for
transparency now is such an incredible uphill battle.
Speaker 2: They're trying to dismantle generations of established, deeply ingrained operational secrecy.
Speaker 1: But the secrecy of the lm CRP. It isn't just
about protecting a national secret, is it. It's intrinsically linked
to the fear of a foreign adversary.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 1: The US wouldn't dedicate eighty years and I imagine trillions
of dollars to this if it didn't believe other nations
were doing the exact same thing.
Speaker 2: And this leads us to one of the most explosive
claims in the entire documentary, the secret race, the existence
of a high stakes, secret Cold War race. This is
where the national security implications just become acute.
Speaker 1: So officials in the documentary they confirm that the United
States is deeply entrenched in a silent arms race, a.
Speaker 2: High stakes technological competition with one specific objective to reverse
engineer technology of non human origin.
Speaker 1: This is the real twenty first century battle for global
supremacy then, not cyberspace, not AI.
Speaker 2: Is this this is what's happening behind the curtain, and
we are talking about our main geopolitical rivals here.
Speaker 1: Who does the intelligence community believe the US is racing against.
Speaker 2: The sources explicitly identify the primary adversary nations as China
and Russia.
Speaker 1: No surprise there.
Speaker 2: But here's the crucial part. The officials interviewed in the film,
they go on the record to state their belief.
Speaker 1: A belief based on classified intelligence.
Speaker 2: Right, not a guess. Their belief that both China and
Russia have successfully retrieved alien spacecraft of their own.
Speaker 1: Wow, so this is not speculative for them, It's presented
as a confirmed reality within these high level intelligence circles.
If that's true, I mean, if that's true, it means
the entire UAP issue moves out of the realm of
abstract speculation and into immediate existential threat assessment.
Speaker 2: It does the country that cracks the code first dictates
the future of the entire planet.
Speaker 1: If one nation masters reactionless propulsion or unlimited energy, the
others are instantly obsolete. Their entire military and economic structure
is worthless overnight.
Speaker 2: Precisely, and the documentary even provides specific and frankly frightening
details regarding these rival retrievals.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's hone in on the specific claim regarding this,
which would now of course be Russia. What exactly did
they allegedly retrieve?
Speaker 2: The sources detail of very specific incident in nineteen eighty nine.
This is where the Soviets allegedly recovered a tic TAC
shaped spacecraft a tic TAC.
Speaker 1: Now our listeners are definitely familiar with that shape.
Speaker 2: Of course, from the famous two thousand and four encounter
involving Commander Dave Fraber and the Nimtz Carrier Strike Group.
Speaker 1: Where the craft is also described as a white, smooth
tic TAC shaped object.
Speaker 2: So we have intelligence supporting two distinct, high value Tic
TAC retrievals, but on opposite sides of the Cold War divide.
But there's a key detail, right, yes, and this is
the critical detail, the comparison. The officials claim that the
craft recovered by the Soviets was significantly larger than the
one encountered by the Nimtz Group.
Speaker 1: Significantly larger.
Speaker 2: What does that imply, Well, it implies that global powers
might be studying different models, different configurations, maybe even different
generations of this non human technology.
Speaker 1: Or from different species.
Speaker 2: Even that's another possibility, but just imagine the implications. If
Russia has a more powerful or a more advanced version
of a reactionless drive already sitting in one of their labs.
Speaker 1: That makes the stakes just astronomically. If Russure or China
achieve a fundamental breakthrough in these physics defying propulsion systems, the.
Speaker 2: Current balance of military and economic power.
Speaker 1: Which is built on fossil fuels, on jet engines, on conventional.
Speaker 2: Rocketry, is instantly irrelevant.
Speaker 1: It creates a tremendous vulnerability for the West.
Speaker 2: The sources really emphasize this fear, the fear that the
first country to truly crack the code on this non
human technology will be the leader for years to.
Speaker 1: Come, potentially achieving total domination.
Speaker 2: And if leaders like Putin or Chesen Ping were to
access in weaponize systems that fundamentally rewrite physics as we
know them.
Speaker 1: The geopolitical consequences would be I mean, they be catastrophic.
Speaker 2: And this explains the constant internal conflict within the US
intelligence apparatus, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: It really does. Every single time President debates disclosure, they
have to weigh the principle of truth against the very real,
very immediate fear that sharing that knowledge might give away
a competitive edge or.
Speaker 2: Worse, validate the progress that Russia or China might already
be making in secret.
Speaker 1: The secrecy is driven by a deep technological paranoid.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate intelligence paradox, isn't it. Disclosure could prepare
the world, but it might simultaneously ensure our strategic defeat
if an adversary is closer to a breakthrough than we are, and.
Speaker 1: That sustained fear of falling behind, or having already fallen behind,
is what has fueled the extreme operational classification of the
Legacy program for these eight decades.
Speaker 2: Now, let's shift a little bit. We've talked about the
hardware and the arms race. Let's talk about the beings
allegedly responsible for that technology. This is where the testimony
moves beyond classified materials and into the truly extraordinary.
Speaker 1: Claims about non human entities themselves, as cited by the
officials in the documentary.
Speaker 2: It's the leap. Everyone debates it's right, the jump from
objects to occupants, and.
Speaker 1: The documentary doesn't shy away.
Speaker 2: From it, not at all. It features two different astrophysicists
who claim that the government has recovered evidence of at
least two different alien.
Speaker 1: Species, two distinct species, not just one. That implies a
level of complexity and diversity in non human intelligence that
just it utterly dwarfs our current understanding of the cosmos.
Speaker 2: And it's not just abstract biological samples. They're talking about.
The claims suggest full retrievals.
Speaker 1: And compounding that claim, they state that one of these
species allegedly made contact with the crash retrieval team.
Speaker 2: Made contact and while that specific instance is, as you
can imagine, highly sensitive, of course, another high level intelligence
official detailed a separate and just as astonishing event that
occurred at a US military base, and it solidifies this
claim of interaction.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's detail that base incident, because this is a
level of testimony that goes so far beyond just blurry navy.
Speaker 2: Foot The official recounts an event where a UAP approached
a US military base and it wasn't just flying over,
it was actively engaging the.
Speaker 1: Base, and one craft landed.
Speaker 2: One craft landed. The testimony alleges that following this landing,
apparently non human beings exited the craft.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: And the most crucial part of this claim is that
these beings interacted with members of the Air Force and
the CIA who were present at the base.
Speaker 1: When we talk about interaction in this context, yes, we
have to understand the implications of that word. Yes, we
are not talking at a fleeting moment of observation. This
implies a sustained mutual presence.
Speaker 2: And potentially an attempted communication or at least some kind
of documented exchange between non human intelligence and high level
US government operatives.
Speaker 1: That is the staggering claim. Now, if you the listener,
are hearing this and thinking this sounds exactly like a.
Speaker 2: Science fiction movie, You're right it does.
Speaker 1: It's an extraordinary claim.
Speaker 2: And therefore it requires extraordinary scrutiny.
Speaker 1: So let's scrutinize the source of the claim itself. The
weight of the testimony is the documentary's main argument for
its veracity. Who are these people putting their careers, their reputations,
everything on the line.
Speaker 2: The documentary really highlights the collective weight of these thirty
four high level officials who are all contributing to this
single narrative.
Speaker 1: We're talking about individuals who held some of the highest
security clearances in the entire country.
Speaker 2: A former Secretary of State, sitting senators, a former director
of National Intelligence, a former Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 1: Leaders from the Pentagon, the CIA, the Air Force, the Navy.
Speaker 2: It's the absolute creme de la creme of the national
security establishment, spanning multiple generations, multiple administrations.
Speaker 1: And the documentary stresses this point. These thirty four people
are not aligned politically or ideologically.
Speaker 2: At all, not in the slightest yet, they are all
converging on this one truth, and that.
Speaker 1: Is the argument against simple dismissal, isn't it.
Speaker 2: It has to be. If this were one disgruntled person
or a political motivated group from one party, it would
be easy to categorize, to explain away.
Speaker 1: But when you have this level of seniority and diversity
or perspective, you have Republicans, Democrats, military hardliners, career intelligence officers,
all independently sharing a cohesive narrative.
Speaker 2: A narrative about retrieve technology and species interaction.
Speaker 1: It just forces critical thinking. You can't just wave it away.
Speaker 2: Which raises an important question one that a lot of
critics have brought up the disinformation angle exactly how can
we be certain this isn't some highly coordinated disinformation campaign
aimed at, say, distracting our adversaries.
Speaker 1: Especially given the known history of intelligence services using UAP
stories as camouflage for their own secret projects.
Speaker 2: That's always the primary concern when you're dealing with intelligent sources.
But the sources in this documentary they push back on
that disinformation angle. Howso They point to two factors, One
the political diversity of the witnesses, which suggests a lack
of a coordinated ideological motivation.
Speaker 1: It's not a partisan attack.
Speaker 2: And two the detailed nature of the claims themselves. They
focus less on military capabilities and more on bureaucratic failure
and the secrecy itself.
Speaker 1: So they claim they aren't selling a thread, They're exposing
a systemic lie.
Speaker 2: That's the argument. The officials themselves argue that they have
been blocked from information and are now choosing to leak
it through formal testimony rather than creating some fake threat
narrative for Congress.
Speaker 1: So it's an assertion of institutional frustration, not military misdirection.
Speaker 2: A unified frustration, yes, and the sheer volume and stature
of these witnesses it demands that the conversation be moved
permanently out of the fringe and into serious governmental analysis.
Speaker 1: Okay, moving from the claims of interaction to something much darker,
the immediate human cost of this alleged secret arms race.
The source material brings up a dark but crucial detail
the physical consequences suffered by personnel who have been exposed
to these alleged non human takes chnologies.
Speaker 2: This is a profoundly disturbing element of the story. The
documentary features a former military analyst who claims that he
and other colleagues who had interactions with UAPs.
Speaker 1: And specifically the retrieved craft or the operating environments around them.
Speaker 2: Right, they are now suffering demonstrable physical effects. They call
them biological effects.
Speaker 1: So what is the proposed mechanism for these injuries? If
this is non human technology, the physical impact must be
fundamentally different from say, a conventional weapons accident.
Speaker 2: The explanation provided in the source material it focuses on massive,
non ionizing energy exposure. This is non human technology that
is not fully understood. The effects are likely tied to large,
uncontrolled amounts of energy used for propulsion, or for flight,
or for some kind of fuel generation.
Speaker 1: You have to think of the impossible accelerations reported by
the Navy pilots.
Speaker 2: Exactly those maneuvers. They require an immense, likely exotic energy source,
and the personnel who get too close are paying the
physical price for it.
Speaker 1: It's the ultimate terrifying workplace hazard. If the craft uses
magnetic fields or zero point energy sources that are unknown
to our current.
Speaker 2: Physics, the biological effect on the human body could range
from something like an acute radiation syndrome to severe, lasting
neurological damage.
Speaker 1: The source material uses a pretty compelling analogy to communicate
the danger it does.
Speaker 2: It compares exposure to this technology to standing directly behind
a running jet engine.
Speaker 1: Or being exposed to close range powerful fire. It's a strong,
unknown energy source just hitting the body at a cellular level.
Speaker 2: And the analyst that cited specifically claims coming close to
multiple UAPs and ending up with these lasting biological effects.
Speaker 1: And this leads to the ultimate catch twenty two of classification,
which the critics highlight it as a necessary area for
deeper explanations.
Speaker 2: Whatw's of the trap?
Speaker 1: These individuals, having risked their health, maybe even their lives
for a black budget operation, are essentially barred from getting
adequate medical care or any compensation.
Speaker 2: That is the tragic irony of this whole situation. The
extreme classification of the LCRP creates an impenetrable barrier.
Speaker 1: So the military analyst he can't file a standard worker's
compensation claim, he can't seek specialized medical care because.
Speaker 2: The second he describes the causal event I was exposed
to the propulsion field of a non human craft, he
would immediately violate the highest level of national security classification.
He'd go to prison.
Speaker 1: So, in essence to protect the secret, the government forces
these injured personnel to suffer in silence and in total isolation.
Speaker 2: They can't disclose the nature of their injury, which means
they can't get the specific, probably highly specialized medical intervention they.
Speaker 1: Require, because the doctors won't have any idea what they're
treating exactly.
Speaker 2: The cover up isn't just about hiding the truth from
the public. It's about preventing injured personnel from seeking care
or even discussing their ailments freely.
Speaker 1: And ensuring that the human cost of the Legacy program
remains as secret as the technology itself.
Speaker 2: It's perhaps the most ethically challenging part of the entire
disclosure debate.
Speaker 1: So this secret is so monumental, so impactful, that it
clearly couldn't be kept entirely from sitting US presidents right
even if.
Speaker 2: The program operated outside of their direct control and required
some deep digging to even understand.
Speaker 1: And the source material reveals two distinct instances where presidents
wrestled with this with the ethical and practical dilemma of disclosure.
Speaker 2: And both times fear one out.
Speaker 1: This is a remarkable look inside the highest levels of
power because it suggests the question for them isn't is
it real? But can the country handle the reality?
Speaker 2: And the first instance detailed in the documentary occurred during
the second Bush presidency, so roughly between two thousand and
one and two thousand and nine.
Speaker 1: So what was the revelation for Bush the second and
what did he decide to do about it?
Speaker 2: The sources confirmed that Bush the second was briefed on
the basic facts. He was told we are not alone
in the universe and that technology had been successfully recovered.
Speaker 1: And he seriously contemplated going public.
Speaker 2: He did it led his administration to convene a series
of cabinet meetings that debated the merits of disclosure for
days on end.
Speaker 1: They needed to gauge the impact. I mean, how do
you even begin to assess how society would handle a
truth that completely overturns five thousand years of human history.
Speaker 2: Well, they employed a high level think tank, and one
of the officials in the film was actually part of
that analysis.
Speaker 1: Group, and their task was immense analyzed the potential impact
of disclosure on all facets of society.
Speaker 2: With a particular focus on two areas, religion and the economy.
Speaker 1: What were the specific societal anxieties that led them to
hold back in the end.
Speaker 2: Well, Initially, the internal analysis went bullish on disclosure. They
actually suggested the American public was more resilient than people
previously thought.
Speaker 1: They changed their minds, they did.
Speaker 2: After a deep evaluation. They decided against it, and the
sources cite the specific timing as the primary rationale.
Speaker 1: This is post nine to eleven exactly.
Speaker 2: The nation was still deeply reeling and unstable following the
September eleventh attacks. The think tank concluded that adding the
existential trauma of confirming non human life on.
Speaker 1: Top of the geopolitical trauma the country was already navigating.
Speaker 2: It would risk a complete breakdown of societal stability.
Speaker 1: What were they worried about? Mass panic?
Speaker 2: Mass panic and also the potential for the loss of
faith in fundamentalist religious structures, which they saw as a
key pillar of social order at the time.
Speaker 1: That reflects a deeply paternalistic decision, doesn't it The government
deciding to protect the populace from a painful truth based
on a perceived societal fragility.
Speaker 2: Very much so. Now let's fastward to the Trump administration
between twenty seventeen and twenty twenty one. According to the
officials in the documentary, Trump also contemplated going public, but
his focus was distinctly different from Bush's post nine to
eleven stability concerns.
Speaker 1: What was Trump's key focus in this disclosure dilemma?
Speaker 2: A high level Intel official recounted being approached by the
administration for a briefing. A high level briefing, and the
official notes that Trump's singular, most pressing question was all
about the economy.
Speaker 1: He needed to figure out specifically, what's going to happen
to our economy if the government came out and officially.
Speaker 2: Confirmed aliens exist, aliens are here, and we have their technology.
Speaker 1: That paints a very clear contrast. Bush two was focused
on cultural and social meltdown. Trump was focused on raw
market consequences.
Speaker 2: It's a different lens, but the same problem.
Speaker 1: What are the specific economic fears associated with this technology?
Speaker 2: The fear is fundamental obsolescence on a global scale.
Speaker 1: If the government announces the recovery of technology that uses
say free energy or reactionless propulsion.
Speaker 2: Entire multi trillion dollar sectors of the economy, fossil fuels, aviation,
the internal combustion engine, electrical generation, they could become instantly obsolete.
Speaker 1: The resulting collapse of major global financial markets combined with
mass layoffs the rapid devaluation of resource based economies, it.
Speaker 2: Was deemed an unacceptable risk to global stability.
Speaker 1: So both presidents, coming at it from different angles, ultimately
reached the same conclusion.
Speaker 2: Keep the information internal.
Speaker 1: And this just reinforces the sheer magnitude of the secret.
It's not just a technological secret, it's a fundamental economic
and sociological time bomb.
Speaker 2: The sources suggest that protecting the existing global economic order
became a more immediate priority than informing the citizenry of
the ultimate truth about reality.
Speaker 1: The economic consequences of disclosure are immediate and calculable, even
if they're devastating.
Speaker 2: Whereas the ethical and societal consequences are more abstract but
potentially just as destabilizing. Both administrations calculated the risk.
Speaker 1: And decided the existing lie was the safer path forward.
Speaker 2: Regardless of the implications for democracy and transparency.
Speaker 1: Okay, we've covered the legacy of secrecy, the global arms race,
the biological claims, the presidential paralysis.
Speaker 2: And now for the final truly mind bending theory present
by the astrophysicists and Intel officials in the documentary.
Speaker 1: This one completely flips our assumption that UAPs are exclusively extraterrestrial.
Speaker 2: This is the ocean hypothesis for decades.
Speaker 1: When we discuss UFOs, we looked up. We all assumed
interstellar travel.
Speaker 2: But the sources suggest a far more intimate and protected
origin point for at least some of these craft.
Speaker 1: The vast unmapped depths of our own planet's.
Speaker 2: Oceans, and the foundational data point for this theory is
just stunning. Humans have only mapped about twenty seven percent
of Earth's oceans.
Speaker 1: Twenty seven percent. That leads almost three quarters of our
own planet virtually unknown to us.
Speaker 2: And you have to think about that mapping deficit in context.
We have superior cartography and high resolution imaging of the
surface of the Moon and Mars, the surface of Mars,
even Pluto, compared to the bottom of our own oceans,
our own planet provides an almost perfect, massive, nearly impenetrable
veil of secrecy.
Speaker 1: So the theory is simple. As might not be exclusively
coming from outer space.
Speaker 2: They might be coming from the ocean. They're not UFOs,
they're USO's Unidentified submersible objects that.
Speaker 1: Become UAPs when they transition into the air, which makes
them transmedium objects or tmos.
Speaker 2: And this isn't just a theory, it's backed by witness
testimony cited in the source material.
Speaker 1: Senior members of the House Intel Committee are cited as
going on record saying that craft scene emerging out of.
Speaker 2: The ocean the exact transition from water to air.
Speaker 1: They describe them as otherworldly things.
Speaker 2: And they say they defy the known physics of water dynamics.
They move at impossible speeds without creating the sonic booms
or the cavitation bubbles that any earthbound craft would absolutely generate.
Speaker 1: That implies a propulsion system that interfaces seamlessly between two
completely different mediums, water and atmosphere, which is so far
beyond our current engineering capabilities.
Speaker 2: And the logic for the ocean as a hiding place
is incredibly compelling. The documentary sites are retired.
Speaker 1: Admiral Admiral galdat.
Speaker 2: Yes, who was the Chief oceanaga of the United States Navy.
His expertise gives immense weight to this theory.
Speaker 1: So what does the admiral argue?
Speaker 2: He argues that if an advanced non human species from
somewhere else wanted to hide from humanity.
Speaker 1: The most obvious and effective place would be our oceans.
Speaker 2: We simply do not have the technological capability or the
persistent presence required to monitor or detect advanced craft operating
hundreds or thousands of feet beneath the surface.
Speaker 1: The ocean floor provides millions of square miles of unmonitored
real estate.
Speaker 2: It's perfect for a permanent base of operations right here
on Earth.
Speaker 1: It turns the entire search paradigm completely upside down. If
the entities are hiding here, the challenge is no longer
defending against an invasion from space.
Speaker 2: But monitoring and perhaps regulating and existing internal non human
presence right off our own coastlines.
Speaker 1: That dramatically increases the urgency and the proximity of the threat,
and that.
Speaker 2: Brings us to the end of our rigorous deep dive
into the explosive claims featured in the Age of Disclosure.
Speaker 1: The stimoni we've synthesized here confirms the documentary's overarching theme.
For eighty years, the reality of non human technology has
been intentionally obscured from the public, from Congress, and at
critical junctures, even from sitting presidents.
Speaker 2: We've established the operational reality of the Legacy Crash Retrieval program,
a program designed with a level of security greater than
even the Manhattan Project.
Speaker 1: And we've analyzed the terrifying implications of a simultaneous silent
arms race involving adversarial nations like Russia and China, all
of them vying to master this atomic weapon on steroids.
Speaker 2: We've also synthesized the extraordinary claims of non human interaction
at military bases, fact by thirty four high level, politically
diverse officials who all share this one unified truth, despite
the extreme sensationalism of those claims.
Speaker 1: And we've examined the tragic human toll, understanding how the
wall of classification is forcing personnel who are suffering from
biological effects to endure their ailments in silent ila.
Speaker 2: And most critically, we've seen that the decision to disclose
this monumental truth has already been actively blocked twice by.
Speaker 1: Presidents, once due to a genuine fear of societal meltdown
following nine to eleven, and once due to intense concern
over the stability and potential collapse of the global economy.
Speaker 2: So the secret is maintained not because it isn't real,
but because it is perceived by those in power to
be too dangerous to the established world order.
Speaker 1: The hope, as articulated by the officials in the documentary,
is that this sheer volume of high level, corroborating testimony
will finally create the political momentum necessary to force Congress
and the executive branch to lift that veil.
Speaker 2: So this all boils down to one critical, complicated question
for you, the listener, to ponder as you reflect on
these staggering claims and the history of presidential paralysis.
Speaker 1: Given the evidence that this information impacted two presidential disclosure decisions,
one based on societal readiness after nine to eleven, and
one based on economic fear, what factor do you think
should weigh heavy it's on a president's decision to disclose
this truth, national security, societal stability, or economic consequences.
Speaker 2: This is a truth that promises to redefine humanity. We
invite you to consider your answer and leave a comment
with your thoughts.
Speaker 1: We'll see you next time on the Deep Dive.