Speaker 1: Imagine for a moment that you're standing in front of
a heavy reinforced steel door. Okay, it's not in a house.
It's deep underground, maybe in a bunker, or maybe in
the basement of the Pentagon. And you're holding a key,
a physical key, right, Just a small, rusty, unassuming little key,
the kind that opens a garden shed or a diary.
But you're told that this specific key opens that massive
steel door. And behind that door, it's not the gold
reserves exactly. It's not gold bars, it's not state secrets
about a foreign coup. It is a reality that fundamentally
shatters how you understand your place in the universe.
Speaker 2: Wow, that is that is a heavy image.
Speaker 1: It gets heavier. Trust me. Imagine the most powerful government
on Earth, the United States, coming out and emitting Yes,
for eight decades, since the days of propeller planes and
black and white TVs, they're things flying in our skies. Yeah,
and they are under intelligent control. They outperform our best jets.
And here is the absolute kicker. We have absolutely zero
idea what they are or who they are.
Speaker 2: It sounds like the opening crawl of a summer blockbuster.
Speaker 1: Right, But according to the discussion we're unraveling today. This
isn't fiction. It is the very real, very messy premise
of the latest push for UAP disclosure.
Speaker 2: It really is a scenario that moves us from the
realm of Internet speculation and grainy YouTube videos into the
realm of profound, perhaps even disturbing, geopolitical reality. We aren't
talking about folklore anymore. We are talking about a potential
policy shift that could literally rewrite history books going all
the way back to World War Two.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Thrilling Threads. I'm so glad you are here
with us today because honestly, my brain has been doing
absolute cart wheels ever since we started prepping this one.
I've gone down rabbit holes before, but this one, this
one feels completely different.
Speaker 2: It's certainly a dense topic. We're moving from the theoretical
what ifs to the bureaucratic.
Speaker 1: How to dense is an understatement. Today's thread is all
about unraveling a fascinating and potential history altering promise, the
total disclosure of government files regarding extraterrestrial life an Unidentified
aerial phenomena, or UAP. We're pulling on a thread that
leads right to the steps of the Pentagon and the
White House and potentially to something not of this world.
Speaker 2: And to do that, we are analyzing a very specific,
high stakes conversation. Our primary source for this discussion is
a recent broadcast from the Network News Nation. It features
a dialogue between the anchor, Chris Cuomo and a man
who has really become the central figure in this entire
modern disclosure movement, Luis Elizondo, or Lou as he's often called.
Speaker 1: Right, And for those who might not have a cork
board full of red string at home, let's remind everyone
who Lou Elizondo is. Yeah, because he isn't just some
guy with a microphone and a crazy theory.
Speaker 2: Now, his credentials are as serious as they come. Elizondo
is the former director of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospased Threat Identification.
Speaker 1: Program a tip ATIP. Right.
Speaker 2: Basically, he was the intelligence officer inside the Pentagon on
whose literal job description was to hunt UFOs, analyze the data,
and assess the threat. So when he speaks, he isn't
speaking as a sci fi enthusiast. He is speaking as
a man who has held the absolute highest security clearances
and had access to data the public has never even seen.
Speaker 1: So the setup in this News Nation clip is pretty dramatic.
You have President Trump making a bold declaration to release
the files. Yeah, this is what everyone in the UFO community,
the whole UFO twitter crat, has been clamoring for, right disclosure,
tell us the truth exactly. But then you have Elizondo,
the Ultimate Insider, basically saying, hold on a minute, be
careful what you wish for. We're going to dissect why
Alezando calls this a Pandora's box and why transparency might
be a lot messier and frankly scarier than we think.
Speaker 2: It really raises the fundamental question, is disclosure a moment
of celebration of victory for truth or is it the
beginning of an existential crisis. Let's get into the detail.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's impact this deck first, and the source video.
They play a SoundBite of President Trump and he says
something very specific and honestly a little weird. He says
he is directing the Secretary of War to release the files.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was notable.
Speaker 1: I had to rewind that part Secretary of War. We
haven't had one of those since nineteen forty seven, Right,
the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 2: Now, that caught my ear as well. It is an
interesting anachronism. The Department of War became the Department of
Defense in nineteen forty seven. Right now, nineteen forty seven
is a pivotal year in UAP lore. It's the year
of the Roswell incident. It's the year the National Security
Act was signed, effectively creating the CIA and the modern
national security state.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, I didn't even put that together. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, whether the President use that term as a simple
slip of the tongue or a deliberate rhetorical nod to
that specific era where this secrecy began, it's open to interpretation,
but it frames the conversation in a very martial historical context.
Speaker 1: It really feels like he's reaching back to the root
of the secret. And then there's another slip. He directs
the agencies to begin identifying and releasing files related to
ala non Yes, Now, unless the government is hiding files
about support groups for families of alcoholics, I think we
can safely assume he meant alien.
Speaker 2: It was almost certainly a stumble over the word alien
or non human. Yes, But the intent of the directive
was clear, regardless of the gaffes. He explicitly mentions extraterrestrial
life and UAPs right. He is effectively telling the massive
US bureaucracy, show us what you've got, Umpty the closets.
Speaker 1: Now, you would think Luislzando, the guy who actually resigned
from the Pentagon specifically to get this info out to
the public, would be cheering. You'd expect him to be
popping champagne on air, but he wasn't.
Speaker 2: His reaction was incredibly tempered.
Speaker 1: Tempered, He looked worried. He immediately calls this directive a
Pandora's box.
Speaker 2: That metaphor is the absolute key to understanding his position here.
Think about the Greek myth of Pandora. She was given
a jar, which was later translated as a box containing
all the evils and miseries of.
Speaker 1: The world, and she was told never to open it.
Speaker 2: Exactly when she did, sickness, death, and turmoil flew out.
And the most important part of that myth is that
once they were out, she couldn't put them back.
Speaker 1: You can't stuff the ghosts back in the haunted house.
Speaker 2: Alizondo is suggesting that disclosure isn't a faucet you can
just turn on and off. Once the president of the
United States admits to the world that there is a
non human intelligence operating with impunity in our airspace, you
cannot walk that back.
Speaker 1: You can't undeclare it.
Speaker 2: No, it changes the baseline reality for every person on earth.
Religious leaders, scientists, military generals, and just the average person
walking down the street.
Speaker 1: It's a one way trip. Yeah, and Aleszando drops a
number in this interview that really stopped me in my tracks.
He actually corrects himself in the clip. He starts to
say we've known for a decade, and then he stops
and says, actually eight decades, eighty years.
Speaker 2: That place is the start of this timeline, squarely in
the nineteen forties, during the Second World War. He is
stating on the record that for eighty years the United
States government has been aware that there are things flying
in our airspace under intelligent control, and we don't know
what they are.
Speaker 1: That is a lifetime of secrecy, a lifetime of denial.
Just think about the sheer energy required to keep a
secret for eighty years through the Cold War, the moon landing, Watergate,
the invention of the Internet. Staggering, and he gets into
the definition of what we are actually looking at He says, technically,
everything is a UAP until it's identified, which makes sense.
If I throw a frisbee and you don't see me
throw it for a split second, that's.
Speaker 2: A UAP to you, precisely. And in the intelligence world
they have a very specific, very bureaucratic term for this,
temporary non attributable objects.
Speaker 1: Temporary non attributable objects.
Speaker 2: That sounds like the most boring government speak, imaginable. It
sounds like lost luggage at the airport.
Speaker 1: Bureaucracy thrives on boring language. It sanitizes the unknown. Calling
it a temporary non attributable object implies that the mystery
is fleeting. Eventually, we will figure it out. It's just imprairi.
Elizondo uses the example of the Chinese spy balloon from
a few years ago, or routine drone incursions. Initially, when
those appear on radar, they're UAP.
Speaker 2: Because we don't know what they are yet, right, But.
Speaker 1: Once we get a visual analyze the flight path and say, oh,
that's a balloon from China, it ceases to be a UAP.
It becomes an identified threat, and we have a playbook
for identified threats. We can shoot down a balloon, we
can jam a drone, we can issue sanctions. But Alizondo says,
the problem, the real contents of Pandora's box lies in
the objects that don't fit those categories, the ones that
display sophisticated advanced technologies. This is the.
Speaker 2: Crux of the entire issue. The government is very very
good at identifying foreign tech. They know what a Russian
jet looks like. They know the radar signature of a
Chinese drone.
Speaker 1: Right, we spend billions on that.
Speaker 2: Exactly when something enters US airspace that defies those signatures,
that moves in ways our physics says shouldn't be possible,
that is where the panic sets it. That is the
specific subset of UAP that al Zando is.
Speaker 1: Worried about, and that leads us directly into what I'm
calling the logic of exclusion. In the source video, Alexando
lays out this logic tree, and it's chillingly simple. It's
like a game of guess who, but the stakes are
global national security.
Speaker 2: It is a process of elimination. Step one, is it
US technology? Eleixando says, superficially, it does not appear to
be ours, and we have to assume that if the
former director of ATIP says it's not ours, he has
checked the black projects, he has checked the secret hangars
at Area fifty.
Speaker 1: One, right, because the skeptics always say, oh, it's just
the secret replacement for the SR seventy one Blackbird, yeah,
or some new stealth bomber. But Aleixando is saying, I looked,
it's not in our inventory. So step two, is it
our adversaries? Is it Russia or China?
Speaker 2: And Alixando says it is probably not adversarial foreign technology.
And this is a vital distinction to make. If China
had technology that could outmaneuver the US Air Force for
eighty years, we would be speaking Chinese right now. The
very least, the geopolitical map would look very different. They
wouldn't be building artificial islands to project power if they
would already have total dominance.
Speaker 1: Because they wouldn't need boats if they have this stuff.
Speaker 2: Exactly, the capabilities being described, instantaneous acceleration, hypersonic speeds without
sonic booms, trans medium travel from space to see these
are leaps and bounds ahead of known physics, not just
known engineering.
Speaker 1: Exactly, if it's not US, and it's not them. That
leaves a very uncomfortable blank space. The big question, as
Elizonda puts it, is then whose is it?
Speaker 2: And that is the absolute hardest conversation for a government
to have. Think about the psychological contract between a government
and its people. Okay, the government says, we are the superpower,
we control the skies, we can protect you. If they admit,
actually there are things up there that we can't catch,
we can't kill, and we don't even know who they
belong to, they are admitting a fundamental loss of supremacy.
Speaker 1: It's a total admission of vulnerability. It's like the parent
telling the child, I don't know what's under the bed,
and I can't stop it from coming out.
Speaker 2: It moves the conversation from national defense into the realm
of the existential unknown. And bureaucracies absolutely hate the unknown.
They cannot budget for it, they cannot regulate it, and
they cannot easily explain it to voters.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: This is why Alezando suggests that the declaration is just
the start. The president saying, release the files is the
easy part.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he says, the real hard work begins now, and
he makes a really provocative comparison. He compares this disclosure
process to the release of the Epstein files. Now, that
was a huge global story, the release of documents related
to Jeffrey Epstein. People thought that was a massive bomb show. Yes,
but Alessando says, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Speaker 2: It is a strike. In comparison, the Epstein files were scandalous. Yes,
they involved powerful people, crimes and moral corruption, but they
didn't challenge the laws of physics or the history of
human civilization.
Speaker 1: Very true.
Speaker 2: Alexando claims the UAP topic has the potential to completely
eclipse the Epstein files and complexity and impact.
Speaker 1: Because the government has sat on it for so long,
the sheer volume of documentation has to be wild. He
lists where this stuff is hiding, and it's not just
in one dusty filing cabinet in a basement. He mentions
the intelligence community, obviously the defense communities, but then he
mentions the Department of Energy.
Speaker 2: That caught my ear as well, the Department of Energy
or DOE. Why would they have UAP files.
Speaker 1: I usually think of them as the people handling the
power grid or maybe setting gas prices. But they do
a lot more than that, don't they much more?
Speaker 2: The DOE is responsible for the United states, nuclear arsenal
and nuclear energy research. They design, test, and maintain the warheads.
There is a long standing correlation in UAP lore and
reports that these objects have a keen interest in our
nuclear capabilities.
Speaker 1: You mean like the stories of UFOs hovering over missile
silos and shutting them down.
Speaker 2: Exactly. There are famous incidents like at Malmstrom Air Force
Base where witnesses claim glowing red orbs hovered over the
silos and ten nuclear missiles went completely offline simultaneously.
Speaker 1: Just turned off.
Speaker 2: Yes, by explicitly naming the Department of Energy, Elizondo is
subtly nodding to that connection. If the DEE is sitting
on files, it implies these objects are actively interacting with
their most dangerous weapons.
Speaker 1: Which makes the Pandora's box analogy even scarier. It's not
just hey, we saw a flying saucer, it's we saw
a saucer turning off our nukes, or we have evidence
they are monitoring our atomic capabilities. Yes, that is a
monumental process. To declassify, you have to scrub the nuclear secrets,
which are the most guarded secrets on the planet, while
somehow keeping the UAP parts intact. For the public. I
can see why he says this is going to be
a bureaucratic nightmare.
Speaker 2: It is not just about redacting a few names with
a black marker. It is about untangling eighty years of
compartmentalized secrecy where one hand deliberately didn't know what the
other was doing.
Speaker 1: Speaking of eighty years, let's go back in time for
a minute. In the video, Chris Cuomo brings up the
Foo Fighters, And for the younger listeners, no, he's not
talking about the rock band with Dave Grohl, although Cuomo does.
Speaker 2: Mention he likes them a great band. But the name
has a much more serious origin. Cuomo is referring to
the term used by Allied aircraft pilots during World War Two.
Speaker 1: These were night pilots flying over Europe, high stress, pitch black,
anti aircraft fire everywhere m M, and they started seeing things.
Speaker 2: Strange lights orbs that would follow their formations. They would
maneuver around the aircraft, sometimes literally dancing off the wingtips.
Speaker 1: That is terrifying.
Speaker 2: The pilots called them Foo Fighters, a term borrowed from
a cryptic nonsensical cartoon of the eraic on Smoky Stover,
the character in the comic would say, where there's foo,
there's fire. It was really a way for these terrified
pilots to use humor to cope with the unknown.
Speaker 1: And the crazy thing is both sides thought it was
the other guys. The Americans thought it was some secret
Nazi super weapon. The Germans presumably thought it was some
advanced Allied tech.
Speaker 2: Correct. But after the war, when the intelligence assessments were done,
when we captured the German scientists and all their records,
it turned out neither side had that technology. The Germans
didn't have glowing orbs that could fly formation at three
hundred miles per hour without engines, So what were they It's.
Speaker 1: The original, not ours, not their scenario, just playing out
in the nineteen forties.
Speaker 2: Precisely, this establishes that the phenomenon isn't new. It didn't
start with drones in twenty fifteen. It didn't start with
roswell in nineteen forty seven. It was present in the
skies over Europe in the early forties. It is a
recurring thread in history.
Speaker 1: And bringing it back to the present, Cuomo and Elizondo
make a deeply disturbing connection to modern threats. They talk
about an incident in El Paso. I remember this vaguely
airspace was completely shut down over a major US city.
Speaker 2: Yes, And this is a crucial pivot in the discussion.
We moved from lights in the sky to hard immediate
security threats. Cuomo mentions that the cartels, specifically the drug
cartels on the Southern border, possess advanced drone technology.
Speaker 1: And he says they are working with China.
Speaker 2: That is the allegation in the source material that cartels,
aided by Chinese technology are able to do things with
drones that the US doesn't know how to counter effectively.
This muddies the water significantly.
Speaker 1: Right, because now you have a mix. You have genuine
terrestrial threats, cartel drones carrying drugs or running surveillance, mixing
whatever the other stuff is.
Speaker 2: It creates an incredibly noisy environment. If you see a
blip on the radar, is it a cartel drone? Is
it a hobbyist or is a uap.
Speaker 1: Eli Zondo brings up the drone flaps. This part really
fascinated me. He lists New Jersey, Colorado, and Nebraska.
Speaker 2: The Colorado and Nebraska incidents in twenty nineteen are particularly
baffling for weeks residents and law enforcement reported swarms of
large drones flying in grid patterns at.
Speaker 1: Night, grid patterns like they were searching for.
Speaker 2: Something or mapping, or just conducting wide area surveillance. But
here is the kicker, and Alizondo emphasizes this heavily. These
events lasted for weeks. Local sheriffs were chasing them, the
FBI was aware, the FAA was involved, and yet they
could not identify or retrieve a single drone.
Speaker 1: That's the part that defies all logic. I've flown consumer drones.
They run out of battery in twenty minutes, they crash
if it gets too windy, they have signal dropouts. You're
telling me that for weeks in the middle of the US,
swarms of these things were flying around and not one crashed,
one ran out of juice and landed in a farmer's field.
Speaker 2: That is the statistical improbability Elizondo was pointing to. It's
the law of large numbers. If these were hobbyists, someone
would have made a mistake. If they were commercial, someone
would have filed a flight plan or had a malfunction.
Even military drones have accidents all the time, but these
objects operated with perfect impunity. Elizando notes that law enforcement
reported the objects were not behaving like drones.
Speaker 1: What does that even mean? In a technical sense, not
behaving like droned?
Speaker 2: It usually implies flight characteristics that don't match the propulsion systems.
We understand moving too fast, stopping too quickly, operating in
severe weather conditions that would ground a normal quad copter,
or staying aloft for durations that battery and fuel technology
simply do not support.
Speaker 1: So we have the Foo fighters at WWII, and now
we have the mystery drones of the Midwest, different eras,
similar characteristics under control, elusive and unidentified.
Speaker 2: And this brings us to the skepticism, because, let's be honest,
we have heard promises of disclosure before.
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely. I feel like every few years someone says
we're going to tell you the truth, and the crickets
or they release a document that's entirely blacked out. Chris
Cuomo is pretty cynical in the clip. He asks Alizondo,
why should I believe it this time?
Speaker 2: Guomo suggests the pivot theory. He points out that politically,
the president might be using this as a distraction. He
mentions people getting fatigued with other news cycles. He specifically
mentions Nancy Guthrie, likely a reference to a specific news
story dominating the cycle at the time, and suggests that
throwing aliens into the mix is a very clever way
to change the headline.
Speaker 1: It's the ultimate look over here tactic. Don't look at
the economy, don't look at the scandal, look at the
UFO exactly.
Speaker 2: Cuomo notes that Biden didn't do it, Trump didn't do
it in his first term, even though there was excitement. Then,
so is this just political theater?
Speaker 1: But Aleixander doesn't just say trust me, He actually gives
us and you the listener, a checklist, a watch list
of things to look for to verify if this is real.
I love this because it gives us something concrete to do.
We aren't just waiting around.
Speaker 2: It grounds the speculation in actual bureaucratic action. Alexander's basically saying,
don't listen to the speeches, watch the paperwork.
Speaker 1: Okay, So item number one on the watch list an executive.
Speaker 2: Order, a clear, definitive legal order, not a tweet, not
an off the cuff comment in a press conference. An
executive order that says you will buy law, declassify X, Y,
and Z, that has legal weight. It forces the agencies
to act or be in direct violation of the order.
Speaker 1: Item number two a National Intelligence Estimate or NIE.
Speaker 2: This is a massive deal the intelligence world, and NIE
is a document sponsored by the Director of National Intelligence.
It is the intelligence community's consensus view on a specific topic.
If we see an NIE being commissioned, specifically on UAP,
that means the entire Intelligence Apparatus CIA NSADIA is being
forced to put their cards on the table and agree
on a baseline reality.
Speaker 1: And Item number three, the National Intelligence Strategy.
Speaker 2: He says to look for specific sections in the new
strategy that mention UAP. This would mean it's not just
a one time project to appease a president, but a strategic,
long term priority for the nation moving forward.
Speaker 1: So if we see those three things Executive Order, NIE
and strategy inclusion, then we know they aren't bluffing, correct.
Speaker 2: That is the difference between political rhetoric and actual governance.
Speaker 1: Elizondo also mentions that he has internal support. He claims
there are people currently in the administration who are very
keen to get to the bottom of this, and he
mentions private talks with members of Congress.
Speaker 2: This is fascinating anecdotal eva. He says, these members of
Congress claim to have witnessed extraordinary things themselves.
Speaker 1: Wait, members of Congress have actually seen UAPs.
Speaker 2: That is the implication, or at least they've seen data
or evidence in classified settings what they call a SCIF
that they consider extraordinary. Alixando is careful to caveat this though.
He says it doesn't mean every single thing they saw
was a spaceship. But when you aggregate all the reports,
a distinct pattern emerges.
Speaker 1: And that's really Alizondo's superpower here, isn't it. He's an investigator.
He's not looking at one blurry photo and jumping to conclusions.
He's looking at thousands of reports over decades.
Speaker 2: Pattern recognition. That is the absolute core of intelligence work.
If you have one report of a light in the sky,
it's weather. If you have ten reports of lights tracing
nuclear silos across three continents over forty years, you have
a pattern. And Alexando says, the pattern leads back to
that uncomfortable conclusion we discussed. It's not ours and it's
not theirs.
Speaker 1: Cuomo asks him point blank about the official explanation for
the Olpaso incident. You know, the one where they shut
down the airspace. Surely the government said something about that,
and the.
Speaker 2: Answer was silence, or rather distraction. Cuomo says, we just
got distracted. There was no official explanation. The news cycle
simply moved on. We never found out what's shut down
the airspace over a major US.
Speaker 1: City That is genuinely terrifying. We just forgot.
Speaker 2: We have a very straight attention span as a public
and perhaps the government relies on that. If they don't
have an answer, they just wait for us to stop
asking the question.
Speaker 1: But Cuomo and Alizondo seem to agree on the bottom
line here by the end of the clip, it's a consensus.
We don't know what it is, we are worried about it,
and it is a matter of special security.
Speaker 2: Special security that is a heavy phrase. It implies that
this isn't just regular classified info. It is in a
category entirely of its own.
Speaker 1: So where does this leave us. We've gone from a
political promise to a potential bureaucratic nightmare. We've looked at
the history of foo fighters and the modern mystery of
touchable drones in the Midwest.
Speaker 2: We are standing at a precipice. The disclosure dilemma is
very real. On one hand, we demand the truth. We
want to know what is flying in our skies. We
feel we have a fundamental right to know. On the
other hand, Elizondo's warning about Pandora's Box is incredibly valid.
Speaker 1: If the government comes out and says we are not
alone and we are not in charge, that's not just
a news story for the evening broadcast. That's a paradigm shift.
It affects religion, philosophy, technology, defense, just everything.
Speaker 2: And consider the actual implementation of releasing that information. Elizanda
mentioned the Department of Energy. Imagine the sheer logistical complexity
of releasing files that might contain diagrams of nuclear facilities
interacting with unknown craft. You have to protect the terrestrial
nuclear secrets while revealing the alien ones. It is a
needle that is almost impossible to thread.
Speaker 1: It really is a war against eighty years of secrecy.
Transparency isn't a switch you just flip on. It's a
grueling process and it sounds like a painful and.
Speaker 2: We must ask ourselves the hardest question, are we actually
ready for the answer? We say we want the truth,
But if the truth is that our airspace is being
penetrated at will by a superior intelligence and our government
is utterly powerless to stop it. Is that a truth
we can actually digest?
Speaker 1: That's the scary part for sure. The admission of helplessness
we don't know is a terrifying phrase coming from the
Pentagon indeed.
Speaker 2: But the alternative is continued ignorance. And in a world
of advanced drones and potential foreign adversaries, ignorance is incredibly dangerous.
We need to know which blip on the radar is
a Chinese drone and which one is something else. Entirely
we cannot defend against what we refuse to acknowledge.
Speaker 1: So here is the provocative thought I want to leave
you with today. We've talked a lot about the government
releasing files, but let's flip it for a second. If
the government admits these objects aren't ours and aren't our enemies,
we are left with that third option someone else. If
they successfully release these files and we finally see the proof,
what does that Pandora's box actually look like for your
daily reality?
Speaker 2: Does it change how you go to work, does it
change how you look at the stars at night? Or
does it just become another background anxiety in an already
complex world.
Speaker 1: And here's my question for you listening right now. Do
you think this disclosure will actually happen or is this
just another pivot, another distraction like Cuomo suggested. And if
the files are released, do you trust the government to
give us the whole truth or just the sanitized version
they think we can handle.
Speaker 2: It is a profound question of trust as much as
it is a question of technology.
Speaker 1: Leave a comment and let us know your stand Are
we opening Pandora's box or is the box already open
and we're just stubbornly refusing to look inside.
Speaker 2: A absolutely fascinating discussion.
Speaker 1: As always, thanks for joining us today, Keep looking up
and we'll catch you on the next thrilling threads.