Speaker 1: Can I get a yeah, hey, man, we're calling all beings.
Speaker 1: I'm your host DJ, and guess what party people, we're
Speaker 1: getting the.
Speaker 2: Band back together. Man, I'd be cla I'd have my
Speaker 2: hands up right now, but Haarah has decided. Yeah, there
Speaker 2: she is. Hanah has decided that she wants to be here,
Speaker 2: and I'm not in a position to tell her otherwise.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to calling all beings.
Speaker 3: It has been a good long time since we've been together,
Speaker 3: approximately a month till we were all together for mister
Speaker 3: James I and Doley James.
Speaker 2: I'm the praise his name. I am totally so here
Speaker 2: is my co conspirator, Hara.
Speaker 3: You start messing with the computer and then the deal's
Speaker 3: off as far as you be in here.
Speaker 2: Uh hi, Harah, that's what Julie says. There she goes,
Speaker 2: all right, remember the cab you're telling you're gonna sit
Speaker 2: in until Courtney gets here? Is that? What's up? All right?
Speaker 3: So welcome back to my brother who I got to
Speaker 3: spend an hour with last night learning how to do
Speaker 3: something that you guys always get to see him do,
Speaker 3: which he makes look so effortless in Canva. And that is,
Speaker 3: of course at a wave soul, my man, money, Nathan.
Speaker 4: What's going on everybody? Man, it has been a minute
Speaker 4: since we've been together.
Speaker 5: It's good to see you guys and catch up. I
Speaker 5: can't wait to get into this discussion.
Speaker 4: I know everybody enjoyed reading the book, and it's gonna
Speaker 4: be a It's gonna be a good one.
Speaker 3: It it really is. Man, We're gonna be about to
Speaker 3: get up into it. Hello, Philip Smith, Benji in the building.
Speaker 3: We haven't seen Benji in so damn long. But before
Speaker 3: we get to all you people in chat, we're gonna
Speaker 3: get to the beautiful face I just saw that you
Speaker 3: guys aren't seen, and that is at study of U A. P. D.
Speaker 2: Can I get hi? All right? Here we go?
Speaker 6: Right? Yeah? Well I got the whole crowd is whole crowd.
Speaker 6: Thank you crowd.
Speaker 2: You are quite welcome.
Speaker 6: Deb.
Speaker 3: I mean I can see you in an open night
Speaker 3: somewhere in Baltimore, you know, doing some sort of a
Speaker 3: reading and then getting an applause.
Speaker 2: What do you think about that?
Speaker 5: Deb, A little snap of fonts.
Speaker 6: I could do it. I could dig it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, you know.
Speaker 4: Book right now, Deb, that's kind of the that the
Speaker 4: book is talking to us.
Speaker 3: It's speaking to me, speaking to me the way the
Speaker 3: crime then spoke to a super Procter and Canton. So ah,
Speaker 3: So we're gonna get into louel Zando's book Imminent and
Speaker 3: this was in my opinion, now standing book. But before
Speaker 3: I get to my commentary, we're going to start off
Speaker 3: with money, Nathan. We're gonna go to Debs and eventually,
Speaker 3: eventually we're gonna go to Montana Slash, Alaska's own Slash,
Speaker 3: Pennsylvania's own Courtney Marcossani.
Speaker 2: But for right now, money please, sir.
Speaker 4: Initial thoughts, Yeah, Well, I enjoyed the book a lot.
Speaker 5: Lou has been a figure of a lot of attention
Speaker 5: in the.
Speaker 4: Community and he's he's dominated the spotlight in many ways
Speaker 4: for the last several years. And since he had his
Speaker 4: last show on the podcast circuit, which was our show,
Speaker 4: he's now back on the circuit. Before he took off,
Speaker 4: he spent some time with us, which was really nice
Speaker 4: you have a chance to chat with him. And before
Speaker 4: that show, I recall him just seeming like he was
Speaker 4: kind of relieved and excited to take a break, and
Speaker 4: I can understand why he had been basically pounding the
Speaker 4: pavement of the UFO circuit and the and the media
Speaker 4: circuit for some time, trying to drop the interest, trying
Speaker 4: to get the effort underway, to get the spotlight turned
Speaker 4: onto this topic in an official capacity. And I think
Speaker 4: he felt like he had gotten far enough in that
Speaker 4: journey to to take a break and work on the
Speaker 4: book and finish that effort. And so it's nice to
Speaker 4: see that the fruits of all of his labor have
Speaker 4: only come to fruition and the publishing of this book.
Speaker 5: I enjoyed reading it. It was very easy to read.
Speaker 4: I think he did a great job just writing it. Generally,
Speaker 4: it gave me a good insight or a better insight
Speaker 4: into kind of who Lou is as a person, his
Speaker 4: journey and his professional career. What he's you know, what
Speaker 4: he values, what he's what he's kind of focused on
Speaker 4: from a mission oriented perspective.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: I think it human him and it also just maybe
Speaker 4: brought this topic closer to him than a way that
Speaker 4: I hadn't seen it before. Like you kind of if
Speaker 4: you talk you're listening to Lou and talking with him,
Speaker 4: you get the sense that he's just he is kind
Speaker 4: of a UFO guy.
Speaker 5: But in this book, it comes out more.
Speaker 4: Clearly to me that he really wasn't a UFO guy,
Speaker 4: not much at all, and he you know, kind of
Speaker 4: landed into this, and even to this day, while he
Speaker 4: feels a strong compulsion to you know, kind of get
Speaker 4: focused on this topic, it's it's clear.
Speaker 5: To me that he's not really a ufologist.
Speaker 4: He's not someone that has read all the UFO books
Speaker 4: and done all of the UFO deep dives and that
Speaker 4: kind of thing. So his knowledge of UFO lore isn't
Speaker 4: as deep as you know, someone like a Richard Dolan,
Speaker 4: for example. But his passion for this is pretty clear,
Speaker 4: and I think that comes in large part from his
Speaker 4: government service, his service of the people through those government agencies,
Speaker 4: and what he sees as kind of an abuse of
Speaker 4: power and abuse of of the of the money that
Speaker 4: has been kind of funneled away into these programs for many,
Speaker 4: many decades. And the public has a right to know
Speaker 4: what the government knows about this.
Speaker 5: So I really enjoyed it.
Speaker 4: I'm looking forward to getting y'all's thoughts on it as well.
Speaker 4: So who want to go to next you?
Speaker 5: What were your thoughts on the book?
Speaker 6: Okay? So, as DJ knows, I am not easy to impress.
Speaker 6: And he teases me about this, I'm I'm really just
Speaker 6: been trying for years impressed.
Speaker 5: Amazing I got from this.
Speaker 6: Book wasn't in a like or story. That's what I
Speaker 6: got from it, Like that was the bigger thing. It
Speaker 6: was a personal story about his journey and some of
Speaker 6: them knowledge that he picked up along the way was
Speaker 6: shared with us. And the fact that he did it
Speaker 6: this way, he has clearly stated, has now given him
Speaker 6: license to talk about the topics that were covered in
Speaker 6: this book with the permission from the Pentagon. So I
Speaker 6: think that was the bigger purpose behind the book, to
Speaker 6: just say, look, if I had this in writing with
Speaker 6: that permission, now I can talk about it, and I
Speaker 6: can just say, having met Lou, I decided instead of
Speaker 6: reading the book, I wanted to hear him, you know,
Speaker 6: I wanted to hear his book. And again, I feel
Speaker 6: like that was the bigger part of it. It was him.
Speaker 6: It's about him and his journey. So I appreciated it.
Speaker 2: And so that far.
Speaker 3: But you know, as far as his journey, what about
Speaker 3: that journey? Uh, did you think was something that you
Speaker 3: didn't anticipate knowing in terms of what he went through?
Speaker 3: What was illuminated in terms of his journey for you.
Speaker 6: You know, I think we knew a lot of it
Speaker 6: because he had shared it, but his personal experiences in childhood,
Speaker 6: he had not shared his experiences with his family. He
Speaker 6: had not shared and he really humanized himself for the
Speaker 6: people who were listening or reading his book. And you know,
Speaker 6: that's actually a really good tactic if you think about it,
Speaker 6: because people then recognize this is another person just like
Speaker 6: me who has knowledge and is doing something about this topic.
Speaker 6: Maybe I too, with knowledge, can do something about the topic.
Speaker 3: So people connect to him inspired you in the way
Speaker 3: that you thought, okay, if he can kind of the
Speaker 3: way like kind of phrase ever inspired me?
Speaker 6: Yeah, And I actually felt like, of course he had
Speaker 6: information that right, But I feel like he went along
Speaker 6: a similar journey in terms of getting knowledge on this
Speaker 6: topic when he described and how surprising that was, and
Speaker 6: you know, sort of like sort of the shock about
Speaker 6: about how much there was right that was like something
Speaker 6: I went through.
Speaker 2: You're you're coming in and out, Deb, I'm maybe thinking this.
Speaker 6: Was written by really important people, people within the government.
Speaker 6: He went through that and.
Speaker 2: Two, hey, Deb, Deb, can you hear me? Oh man,
Speaker 2: we lost her. Yes, deb all.
Speaker 3: Right, what we'd like you to do is if you
Speaker 3: would restart your computer and then come back to the
Speaker 3: studio and in the meantime, I know it's going to
Speaker 3: be difficult, but you'll miss my very very.
Speaker 2: Incisive analysis, initial analysis of the book. But what would
Speaker 2: you do that because you were losing you like right now, restart?
Speaker 2: Thank you? Okay? She in a bit.
Speaker 3: Nathan as I said, I'm sorry having trouble holding this
Speaker 3: one in the biggest surprise for me is finding out that, uh.
Speaker 2: Lou is a Jew like me. I'm sorry, everybody, you
Speaker 2: deserve something better.
Speaker 5: Take away.
Speaker 2: My takeaway is that Lou is a Jew like like myself. Uh.
Speaker 2: And then he's talked about wearing a yamica and going
Speaker 2: to temple. So yeah, that's my No, I'm just kidding that.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's not it's not a small point, particularly
Speaker 4: if you have that shared background. You know, I think
Speaker 4: that that that gives you another insight into his you know,
Speaker 4: his personality, what motivates him, you know, the kind of
Speaker 4: culture that he grew up into certain degree, So yeah,
Speaker 4: I mean, I think it's kind of kind of neat
Speaker 4: that he shared that with everybody.
Speaker 3: And he said he was. He said that he had
Speaker 3: previously said on podcasts that he was a man of
Speaker 3: I don't know if he said deep faith, but that
Speaker 3: he had faith, Am I am I couching?
Speaker 2: That about right?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, that's about right. Yeah, he's referred to that
Speaker 4: he has a faith, but it's not necessarily a specific
Speaker 4: you know, religiosity, right, Okay.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So it was very surprising that louis the Jew.
Speaker 3: God bless you, Lou Mazle my brother. So anyway, uh
Speaker 3: but now I think, to me, really what I saw
Speaker 3: was a lot of detail about how things went down
Speaker 3: that we didn't know. Like what he did was in
Speaker 3: my opinion is we had a lot of pieces of
Speaker 3: his story, and we also had a lot of suppositions
Speaker 3: that turned out to be correct. But what we didn't
Speaker 3: have is how the pieces came together. And he gave
Speaker 3: us some specificity on how those pieces were assembled from
Speaker 3: from soup to nuts.
Speaker 2: Basically from the beginning.
Speaker 3: And and we we supposed, you know, what was it
Speaker 3: like when he left, and what was it like when
Speaker 3: he got there, and how long did he actually serve
Speaker 3: at the Pentagon? So a lot of those things, and
Speaker 3: then you spoke about last night when we were on
Speaker 3: the phone, that he was the senior official that was
Speaker 3: part of the program.
Speaker 2: He was the ranking official.
Speaker 3: So that's why he would have referred to himself as
Speaker 3: the director. I mean, it's a reasonable thing to say,
Speaker 3: because you're either what are you, You're the branch chief,
Speaker 3: You're either you know, flight chief, brand chief, you know
Speaker 3: you're that. You know, you have to have some sort
Speaker 3: of title when you're the ranking person. So maybe director
Speaker 3: wasn't maybe on his performance report, but it was reasonable
Speaker 3: for him to assume that because he was in command.
Speaker 3: He probably palmed for the money program objective memorandum that's
Speaker 3: where you basically ask for money. But in his case,
Speaker 3: I think he got money from Harry Reid, you know,
Speaker 3: which was a roundabout way of getting you know, money,
Speaker 3: rather than the POM. Because normally what would happen in
Speaker 3: the Palm is if you're part of the Pentagon and
Speaker 3: you're starting a program, like you, Nathan, they gave you
Speaker 3: the head of a program, and so you put together
Speaker 3: a budget with you know, your folks that run your team,
Speaker 3: probably similar what you're doing now, and then you submit
Speaker 3: that budget and then like for example, I'm just gonna
Speaker 3: use as sok as an example, just be because that's.
Speaker 2: What I know. Then within.
Speaker 3: Our branch or our function, like a three T, they
Speaker 3: would look at and say, okay, of I just got
Speaker 3: fourteen budgets of that, I like these ten. I think
Speaker 3: these ten meet the priorities of the command and me.
Speaker 3: So those are gonna then go up to the command
Speaker 3: level and so then the command.
Speaker 2: So then the command level they're gonna look at it and.
Speaker 3: Say, Okay, of those ten that you gave me, I
Speaker 3: like eight, and these others are gonna fall below the
Speaker 3: cut line.
Speaker 2: They're gonna be unfunded. There's another unfunded you first, or
Speaker 2: unfunded requirements.
Speaker 3: Because you said I have a requirement to study UAPs.
Speaker 3: I need to be able to have a travel budget
Speaker 3: to go and engage these different witnesses that have seen
Speaker 3: these I need to be able to bring scientists in.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna have so much budget to high government civilians,
Speaker 3: but I also need to take the different pot of
Speaker 3: money and higher contractors because the budget won't allow me
Speaker 3: to staff ten civilians. So I'm gonna get let's say
Speaker 3: six civilians and four contractors or whatever rate whatever.
Speaker 2: So that's kind of how that would go.
Speaker 3: Uh and so Lou probably didn't get that right off
Speaker 3: the bat, but he got money without having to go
Speaker 3: to announce to the Pentagon, Hey I need a PALM
Speaker 3: for this UAP program. This is what we're doing. So
Speaker 3: he went the back route. He went the Yeah, so
Speaker 3: that's a POM. I think it's program objective memorandum and
Speaker 3: you can google that, folks that are out there for
Speaker 3: the POM and everybody. Everybody the Army does it, every
Speaker 3: Marine Corps, all the does it, Air Force, Base Force,
Speaker 3: we all do that stuff.
Speaker 4: So anyway, well, Bunny, because this is the line of
Speaker 4: questioning that I wanted to get into on the show tonight,
Speaker 4: and that's getting your experience with some of this part
Speaker 4: of the way the world works that I have no
Speaker 4: visibility to, and that's government funding of these kinds of programs,
Speaker 4: how the money is allocated or utilized. And then for
Speaker 4: someone with his you know, access with his tickets right
Speaker 4: that they've referred to like that, you know, he's got
Speaker 4: access to all of these different kinds of sources of
Speaker 4: intelligence and differing systems within the Pentagon. We heard just
Speaker 4: last night on The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford,
Speaker 4: he had a guest on who had been a part
Speaker 4: of the UAPTF, and she was talking about there was
Speaker 4: a kind of a chat room essentially, which I think
Speaker 4: you've mentioned to me before, where if you have a
Speaker 4: certain clearance, you can just get into this chat room
Speaker 4: and anything that is of the same level of classification,
Speaker 4: then anybody can basically, you know, partake in that kind
Speaker 4: of intelligence.
Speaker 5: If they have access to that chat.
Speaker 4: Room, they have access to the similar kind of intelligence
Speaker 4: that is that is in that space. And so when
Speaker 4: I read the book and him kind of talking about
Speaker 4: how he is bootstrapping this program in the in the
Speaker 4: kind of period after AWSAP and continuing in that effort,
Speaker 4: the image I have of him is really using the
Speaker 4: resources at his disposal, not necessarily financial, but the resources
Speaker 4: at his disposal because of his access to continue pursuing
Speaker 4: leads and collecting information and vetting information through the other
Speaker 4: analysts that are that are at his disposal. And so
Speaker 4: it's it's an unofficial sort of effort, but it still
Speaker 4: involves very official resources. So it's it's just it's interesting
Speaker 4: to me how that all works. And I was wondering
Speaker 4: if you could add some additional you know, kind of
Speaker 4: color to that or if I got something wrong and
Speaker 4: what I was just explaining, you know, please do correct me.
Speaker 2: Well, which which which party? What's the sort of finite
Speaker 2: question there if you were to form that into yeah.
Speaker 5: How did I guess? My question is is it? Is
Speaker 5: it common or is it uncommon? Let's put it, let's
Speaker 5: kind of go down this track. Is it common or
Speaker 5: is it uncommon?
Speaker 4: For someone of his seniority who has official program budgets
Speaker 4: and official responsibilities under the organization that he is reporting into.
Speaker 5: Is it common for those kinds of individuals.
Speaker 4: To have other efforts that they get engaged in, whether
Speaker 4: they be efforts that they themselves are are driving, or
Speaker 4: that others may include them into, Like they may come
Speaker 4: somebody from another program, may may come to you requesting intelligence, information,
Speaker 4: data sharing, whatever it may be. So how common is
Speaker 4: it that that someone.
Speaker 5: Might have.
Speaker 4: Kind of an interest in efforts and resources and devotion to,
Speaker 4: you know, to programs that maybe are not exactly on
Speaker 4: the books, that are a little bit unofficial.
Speaker 3: So this, this one is a little bit adam a
Speaker 3: wheelhouse because I haven't been read into things that are like, say, example,
Speaker 3: the programs that I was read into that were special
Speaker 3: access are programs that are known that they exist, but
Speaker 3: the details inside the program and who, when, how, what
Speaker 3: where that's not known, But that the programs exist is known.
Speaker 3: These guys are involved in programs that are unacknowledged, like
Speaker 3: he said that at one point I believe he said
Speaker 3: when he talked to Semivan. It might have been he said,
Speaker 3: this is the first person I've spoken to outside of
Speaker 3: our program that I admitted to you know what we
Speaker 3: were doing. So it so this is a little you know,
Speaker 3: this is a little far afield. So I would say
Speaker 3: it's not that common. But his charge, he had to
Speaker 3: have been given a charge, like he talked about that
Speaker 3: moron Gary what's his name, the guy who, yes, sexually.
Speaker 2: I don't know, harassing women and so forth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sexual impropriety with subordinates and so forth. So he
Speaker 3: had to receive that charge from somebody, and then it
Speaker 3: was a question of where was he going to get
Speaker 3: funding from. In general, you have to be very specific
Speaker 3: about the money that you're asking for and what it's
Speaker 3: going to go to.
Speaker 2: Although I did hear, I don't know if it was.
Speaker 3: In Lou's book or one of the other folks say
Speaker 3: that there are SAPs that are funded where the Gang
Speaker 3: of Eight know that they're funding these SAPs and they
Speaker 3: don't know exactly what's going into them.
Speaker 2: And that's you know, that should be obvious to all
Speaker 2: of us.
Speaker 3: Because we all know that there are programs that are
Speaker 3: going on that nobody that's elected knows where that that
Speaker 3: money is paying for it, So you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: But b Lou, obviously, now the other thing you talked
Speaker 3: about additional duties. There are a lot of dudes like
Speaker 3: Dave Grush is an example where the UAP Task Force
Speaker 3: was an additional duty that he had that was stacked
Speaker 3: on to the NRO and the NNGA places that he
Speaker 3: worked at and analyzed intelligence for. So that was an
Speaker 3: additional duty. And some of these other folks also on
Speaker 3: Low's team, it may have been an additional duty as well.
Speaker 3: But it's something you do because you know, you want
Speaker 3: to be part of a team that's doing something important
Speaker 3: and you're going to apportion a part of your day
Speaker 3: to work on that stuff when you're in between your
Speaker 3: other stuff, and those guys were probably there, you know,
Speaker 3: ten hour a day at least, maybe more, maybe twelve.
Speaker 3: Lou said that he wasn't in particularly good health at
Speaker 3: that time, and I'll bet you that he was probably overweight.
Speaker 2: He was probably sitting behind a desk a lot.
Speaker 3: And now what you see is a sort of really
Speaker 3: healthy trim loo that looks like he's working out a
Speaker 3: lot because he's not sitting behind a desk.
Speaker 5: For twelve hours a day. M Yeah, yeah, I don't
Speaker 5: did that answer it? I don't know, No, no, no,
Speaker 5: it did.
Speaker 4: I mean it's very helpful because you know, coming from
Speaker 4: the private industry where where that's all. That's all I
Speaker 4: know is you know, you're on a team, you've got responsibilities,
Speaker 4: and you're doing those things and that's just what you do.
Speaker 5: And and the government.
Speaker 4: World that that he's describing, at least this was the
Speaker 4: impression I had, is that he's officially tasked to certain
Speaker 4: responsibilities and programs, but because of his level of access
Speaker 4: and expertise and professional experience, he also kind of gets
Speaker 4: brought into other efforts that aren't necessarily like officially printed somewhere.
Speaker 5: But their efforts that are that are maybe.
Speaker 4: Kind of side projects or tangential projects to other official
Speaker 4: projects that that he gets involved in. And so this
Speaker 4: this a tip effort, right that that was a program
Speaker 4: and then not a program, and you know, there's been
Speaker 4: so much debate about that, you know, kind of meeting
Speaker 4: that horse to death. But the the officialness of a tip.
Speaker 4: I got the sense from the book that it was,
Speaker 4: you know, just very much kind of a.
Speaker 5: Something that he was carrying the torch for.
Speaker 4: He was championing that in a kind of quasi official capacity,
Speaker 4: not necessarily you know, something that was officially printed on
Speaker 4: letterhead for example.
Speaker 5: I just found it interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he didn't. He didn't tell a lot of people
Speaker 3: about it. If he sought out intel, he wasn't telling
Speaker 3: them what they were working on. That became clear when
Speaker 3: he talked about how his meetings with Christopher Mellen, his
Speaker 3: meetings with Jim Sammy Van so all these people that
Speaker 3: he probably sought intel if they if there were sightings
Speaker 3: or data that were out there that were on some
Speaker 3: of these SharePoint sites or on on Zipper or Jaywick's,
Speaker 3: he probably he gained access and looked at those things
Speaker 3: and then sought out those those witnesses. But he didn't
Speaker 3: acknowledge everybody, So it probably wasn't what they would call
Speaker 3: a program of record, which is an acknowledge. A program
Speaker 3: of record is when you you know, you're going up
Speaker 3: for the palm and you're palming for money for a
Speaker 3: program of record, except for what we talked about those SAPs,
Speaker 3: that that there are certain special access programs that not
Speaker 3: everybody in your command that people know that you're gonna
Speaker 3: palm for that, but they can't they may not have
Speaker 3: the clearance to know what what's involved in that.
Speaker 5: I want to get to Deb.
Speaker 4: But that's another fascinating aspect of this to me, is
Speaker 4: that you can be someone nested within another hier hierarchical
Speaker 4: chain of command and you might have access to some
Speaker 4: things that your superiors may not have access to, Like
Speaker 4: you might be read in on some projects that they're
Speaker 4: not or working on something that not everybody in your
Speaker 4: h you know, in your decision tree necessarily read in on.
Speaker 5: I find that interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Deb's, oh, thank you so much, bro man. Let's
Speaker 3: let's get this super chat up here real quick.
Speaker 2: From Space Oddities, great David Bowie album, Go ahead, Nathan.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so thank you, Space Audities. So his book really
Speaker 4: sells the thought that there's not enough government oversight and
Speaker 4: transparency is needed. Yeah, I think that's one correct. He's
Speaker 4: beating that drum pretty loudly, and you know, it really
Speaker 4: ends the book with a call to action for folks
Speaker 4: to kind of raise the alarm about this. I mean,
Speaker 4: we heard even just as recently as earlier this week
Speaker 4: when again on Matt Ford's The Good Trouble Show, he
Speaker 4: had Chris Mellan on, and Mellan was saying that even
Speaker 4: members of the Gang of Eight who are supposed to
Speaker 4: have been read in on these programs often just decline
Speaker 4: reading the entire program, like they don't really want to
Speaker 4: know what these programs are doing. And so that is
Speaker 4: a huge oversight issue, you know, if you've got the
Speaker 4: access and just saying, you know, I don't have the
Speaker 4: time to look at it, or I don't want to
Speaker 4: know what we're doing because I want to have deniability
Speaker 4: to what we're doing. You know, these are serious problems.
Speaker 4: We're talking about a lot of a lot of money
Speaker 4: in public trust.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm going to let deb go because it's just
Speaker 3: it's an extreme level of patriotism encourage but go ahead, debs.
Speaker 6: Okay, So can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Okay, yes, ma'am.
Speaker 6: Okay. I literally had to minimize stream so I cannot
Speaker 6: see you guys as long as you can no, because
Speaker 6: that was the only way to get the computer to
Speaker 6: stop wigging out. It's been freaking out since we started.
Speaker 6: That's okay, if if the intelligence community wants to be
Speaker 6: on my computer with me, we can share AnyWho. So
Speaker 6: I really I had to go back to a couple
Speaker 6: of things that I was excited to jump to. One
Speaker 6: was you know this this book also highlights that there
Speaker 6: is a lot more information that the government has, including videos,
Speaker 6: of course, and this has been said to us many times,
Speaker 6: but I'm glad that Mellon has also now come out
Speaker 6: and just straight said it, because at some point in
Speaker 6: the past he had messaged that was one of his concerns.
Speaker 6: The government has so much more information, why aren't they
Speaker 6: sharing it? So I'm excited that that's now out, that
Speaker 6: he's out there saying it too, along with Lou that
Speaker 6: was part of some of his campaigning for this book.
Speaker 6: I'm also concerned about something Nathan was kind of hinting
Speaker 6: at about, you know, when he's talking about how some
Speaker 6: of these things were done. As someone who isn't as
Speaker 6: familiar with specifically the Pentagon, right, things like changing name
Speaker 6: and making it more vague so that you get funding
Speaker 6: kind of like had me worried and I'm okay to do.
Speaker 2: Oh we've lost again.
Speaker 4: Even though it's a good question though, you know, ahead,
Speaker 4: you know, I think DJ, maybe you can speak to this.
Speaker 4: You know, the fact what you're saying is that it
Speaker 4: seemed concerning that some of these programs might be morphing
Speaker 4: into other efforts that may or may not be officially
Speaker 4: articulated somewhere or sanctioned. And how often does that happen?
Speaker 4: I mean, this is a good question just generally for
Speaker 4: the public to understand. If if the Congress apportions money
Speaker 4: to a project, and the Pentagon gets a big allotment
Speaker 4: of cash to spend on a you know, how often
Speaker 4: is it that during the.
Speaker 5: Course of those activities, the the scope.
Speaker 4: Of the project, or the nature with the activities that
Speaker 4: are being performed, that those things might change from what
Speaker 4: they were they were assumed to.
Speaker 5: Be when they were initially stood up.
Speaker 4: I imagine that that's kind of often, right, because sometimes
Speaker 4: you're just you know, you have a mission that you're given,
Speaker 4: and in the course of pursuing that and completing it,
Speaker 4: you realize, well, I've also got to do this, and
Speaker 4: I have to do that, and now we have to
Speaker 4: change the nature of our of our strategy in order
Speaker 4: to achieve that goal.
Speaker 2: This is really interesting.
Speaker 3: This is something that we need to earmark for when
Speaker 3: we have our next conversation with loup is this specific
Speaker 3: question is what is his understanding of how this funding
Speaker 3: is unfolding? How many of these how much of funding
Speaker 3: for say Area fifty one, and so you know you
Speaker 3: have an entire facility that's dedicated to secret projects, So
Speaker 3: within that pot of money, how many of those? How
Speaker 3: many things are being done there that are funded but
Speaker 3: that are unacknowledged and that would be something that I
Speaker 3: would have to be happening. And how many SAPs are
Speaker 3: there that are unacknowledged that the Gang of Eight knowingly funds.
Speaker 3: And then the question would be how many SAPs are
Speaker 3: are funded that they don't know about? And that is
Speaker 3: that's a question that we would have to ask to Jim,
Speaker 3: we would have to ask to Dave Brush, or we
Speaker 3: would have to ask to lou But it's obviously going on,
Speaker 3: especially when you have some very very expensive facilities, and
Speaker 3: we have we us we have a pretty darn good
Speaker 3: idea of some of the things that have happened there
Speaker 3: and at those facilities, and we are pretty sure that
Speaker 3: Congress is not aware of that they're funding all of
Speaker 3: those all of those programs. So some of those programs
Speaker 3: they're probably aware that they're funding, because obviously we have
Speaker 3: a runway there, we have air traffic control, we have
Speaker 3: basically building on base because some of the people don't
Speaker 3: go home every night. Some people go and they'll stay
Speaker 3: for four days a week or five, you know, and
Speaker 3: then they'll they'll go home on the weekends. Some people
Speaker 3: come back and forth every day. So there's a lot
Speaker 3: of cost in running facility like that, and obviously legislators
Speaker 3: are aware of that. But the question is how many
Speaker 3: programs are going on there that they're funding that they're
Speaker 3: not aware of, and that we would have to ask
Speaker 3: to somebody with a little more insight than myself.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, all that discussion aside. I mean, I wanted
Speaker 4: to get into that because I am fascinated by just
Speaker 4: kind of the inner workings of the Pentagon and these
Speaker 4: kinds of programs, and it does connect with I think
Speaker 4: a lot of people's questions around the UH the official
Speaker 4: capacity of these programs like OSAP and ATIP and you know,
Speaker 4: who ran them and what what mandates were they given
Speaker 4: or not given to do, you know, whatever they were
Speaker 4: they were doing.
Speaker 5: So it's an interesting conversation.
Speaker 4: But to get into the book kind of more specifically,
Speaker 4: you know, he takes the reader through, you know, really
Speaker 4: kind of his own journey, I think. But he begins
Speaker 4: the book early on talking about this incident that we've
Speaker 4: heard about in Brazil, this Cholaris incident, and you know,
Speaker 4: it's it's one of those UFO stories that is really
Speaker 4: quite alarming.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: What I found interesting is just the stories he chose
Speaker 4: to include in the book and those that he didn't
Speaker 4: include in the book. And I guess the Cholaris one
Speaker 4: kind of checked a couple of boxes for him. One
Speaker 4: that it you know, it demonstrated that there is a
Speaker 4: potential capacity to do harm. Whether or not these entities,
Speaker 4: whatever they are are, actually have ill intent human beings
Speaker 4: just broadly is an open question, but clearly they have
Speaker 4: the ability to do so, to to harm people. You know,
Speaker 4: there's no mention in the book of the aerial school incident,
Speaker 4: which wasn't like that at all. You know, the children
Speaker 4: in Zimbabwe basically saw the craft and had a pretty
Speaker 4: benign interaction with it. And it left a big mark
Speaker 4: on their lives just in terms of psychologically and whatnot.
Speaker 4: But certainly no physical harm was done to the children
Speaker 4: during that incident, and that's not mentioned in the book.
Speaker 4: Of course, there are many other examples that we could
Speaker 4: provide that were or not included in this story, but
Speaker 4: Kolaris fits really well with I think the underlying theme
Speaker 4: of a lot of why he's raising the alarm is
Speaker 4: that we need to take this seriously because we don't
Speaker 4: want to be caught basically with our pants down if
Speaker 4: something bad happens and then we had to tell the
Speaker 4: American public. Yeah, well, we kind of knew about this,
Speaker 4: but we didn't really want to. We didn't want to
Speaker 4: share this information with you. We didn't want to share
Speaker 4: information with our best scientists were yeah, we would be
Speaker 4: you know, we were hoping it would just kind of
Speaker 4: go away and not be an issue. And he's saying
Speaker 4: that that's not an acceptable stance for for the government
Speaker 4: to take. So, yeah, I want to come back to
Speaker 4: deb on that. I mean, deb this this kind of
Speaker 4: speaks just to the overall theme of the book. What
Speaker 4: is your take on on that approach to to the
Speaker 4: UFO topic. Broadly that he's kind of claiming this, you know,
Speaker 4: potential threat narrative.
Speaker 5: What are your thoughts on that. I don't know, if
Speaker 5: we have, we've lost Yeah.
Speaker 6: So okay, No, I'm I'm here, ish like I'm battling
Speaker 6: the strange computer issue, but I'm here. So I think
Speaker 6: this is actually one of the things. I keep going
Speaker 6: back to the fact that we're talking of about there
Speaker 6: are things in our airspace and in our water, and
Speaker 6: we don't know what they are, and we don't know
Speaker 6: who they're from. And the people who argue like the
Speaker 6: UFOs are nonsense, So believe that if you want. But
Speaker 6: do you care about our safety?
Speaker 5: Do you.
Speaker 6: Care about knowing what's going on around us? Do you
Speaker 6: care about our national security? Because if you do, they're
Speaker 6: doing the right thing with this. And I think this
Speaker 6: is more Melani's stance too, actually, like really pushing that,
Speaker 6: like we need to be prepared for whatever this could be.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 6: I do think News sort of addresses this as this
Speaker 6: looks to me like sort of reconn like they're doing
Speaker 6: something a little sketchy here. Okay, they're like hanging around
Speaker 6: our military, they're hanging around our nuclear acids. Right, either way, yes,
Speaker 6: there's now a motorcycle going either way like that is
Speaker 6: a huge part of this and anytime someone's trying to
Speaker 6: stop them from doing that, from trying to find out
Speaker 6: what's going on, I'm like, don't you care about national security?
Speaker 6: I can't believe they don't, So yeah, I am okay
Speaker 6: with the threat narrative.
Speaker 5: DJ, what do you think about that?
Speaker 4: Is the threat narrative the right place to start in
Speaker 4: getting this conversation kind of off the ground with the
Speaker 4: wider public.
Speaker 3: Well before I answer that, I just want to say
Speaker 3: to everybody in the chat, we have you start and
Speaker 3: after me we'll get to and we'll read your chat.
Speaker 3: So thank you for putting those there, and also thank
Speaker 3: you Space Oddities for that twenty dollars blessing.
Speaker 2: That is awesome. This is going to be the first
Speaker 2: year that cab with all our software, pays for itself.
Speaker 3: Thanks to you guys. So it's gonna be great because
Speaker 3: we've been footing the bill for the last few years. Anyway, Okay,
Speaker 3: so I don't know if it's necessarily the place to start,
Speaker 3: but I think it's if we're in a pizza pie,
Speaker 3: it would be a slice of the pie and then
Speaker 3: we can sort of debate on what size the pie
Speaker 3: should be. And Lou spoke about that in there, and
Speaker 3: he's you know, he used to use the analogy of
Speaker 3: you saw muddy footprints when you came down from sleeping.
Speaker 2: And we've also talked about ISR.
Speaker 3: And this is something you'd hear on Nathan's show and
Speaker 3: on Nathan's show with x Y Academian liminal frames is
Speaker 3: that we'll often take, weill anthropomorphize the intention of UFOs
Speaker 3: and we'll say, Okay, they must be doing this because
Speaker 3: we as humans look at it this way. So we're
Speaker 3: gonna take that and we're just gonna paste that, copy that,
Speaker 3: and paste that onto UFO intention, when in fact, in most,
Speaker 3: if not all cases, but most cases, we have no
Speaker 3: idea what they're thinking and what their intention.
Speaker 2: But he talks.
Speaker 3: About the way that they have moved in certain areas
Speaker 3: and how they've reacted to certain things that we did,
Speaker 3: and that it's clear that they're performing ISOR and this
Speaker 3: could be maybe the only and I've struggled with this
Speaker 3: throughout the history of CAB, that this could be the
Speaker 3: only place where when you look at intelligence, reconnaissance and
Speaker 3: surveillance that something that's moving, that has senses that can
Speaker 3: sense who you are, what you are, and what you're
Speaker 3: doing and then react to you. The very bare minimum
Speaker 3: we can interpret that that is a form of ISR,
Speaker 3: and I'm comfortable that may be the only place that
Speaker 3: I'm comfortable ascribing something that we do as humans to them.
Speaker 3: It's what the Kolara situation, that it became aggressive and
Speaker 3: showed as Nathan you were talking about, that is something
Speaker 3: in deb you also spoke about it something we have
Speaker 3: to pay attention to because we can't.
Speaker 2: Assume that all of them are friendly.
Speaker 3: As much as one of us may have had an
Speaker 3: experience that was benign and was maybe pleasant and was
Speaker 3: maybe inspiring, you know, like Exo's experiences, Right, that doesn't
Speaker 3: mean that they're all like that, And.
Speaker 2: You have to you know that.
Speaker 3: It's just like people will say they'll see bigfoot and
Speaker 3: they'll say, oh I saw Bigfoot. People say that they're brown,
Speaker 3: but the one I saw was clearly had red hair,
Speaker 3: oh well, and had a round head as opposed to
Speaker 3: the conical head. Okay, so does that mean they all
Speaker 3: have to look like that? Because the one you saw
Speaker 3: had an ape like face and a conical head.
Speaker 2: And had brown hair, or.
Speaker 3: Is it possible that there's a different kind of a
Speaker 3: bigfoot with that looks different and has a more human
Speaker 3: face and so forth. Some of them look very Native American,
Speaker 3: so same goes for UFOs. We can assume that some
Speaker 3: of them are very friendly, and we believe that because
Speaker 3: we have spoken with credible individuals that have had experiences
Speaker 3: that have been inspiring. You know, James iin Doldie, it's
Speaker 3: never had a bad experience, but he is open to
Speaker 3: the possibility that somebody else has had experiences that aren't
Speaker 3: like his. He has a great James has a great
Speaker 3: perspective on this. So let's read some of these chats
Speaker 3: real quick and then we'll and then we can we
Speaker 3: can follow up. But these people have been so kind,
Speaker 3: So Eli, Eli, m is it mcinness? Okay, Debs, you're
Speaker 3: gonna read? Or Nathan, what do you what do you
Speaker 3: want to do here?
Speaker 6: I can, I can try, I can, I can see
Speaker 6: the screen. Okay. He also points out the government shouldn't
Speaker 6: be in control of the entire conversation.
Speaker 3: On I'd say that's his entire mission in leaving the government.
Speaker 3: That was his whole point. We have here Nathan.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so from space oddities, from what Lou says, it
Speaker 4: is more than just the earmarked money. But in black projects,
Speaker 4: the sky is the limit. There is no limit to
Speaker 4: what they spend. Yeah, this is you know, again, the
Speaker 4: allegations that we've heard from people like Lou and David
Speaker 4: Grush is that there's just a lot of money flowing
Speaker 4: into these programs.
Speaker 5: No one knows how much money is there.
Speaker 4: The Pentagon can't pass an audit where's all the money going?
Speaker 4: And everyone has heard stories of government waste in terms
Speaker 4: of you know, the three hundred dollars hammer or whatever
Speaker 4: it might be.
Speaker 5: You know, these kinds of things do happen.
Speaker 4: It's just it's the responsibility of our elected officials in
Speaker 4: our republic to keep tabs on this kind of spending.
Speaker 4: And if if we've got a situation where even known
Speaker 4: programs are over are going way over budget, and we're
Speaker 4: funding them in imperpetuity just with a blank check like that,
Speaker 4: this really isn't something that is is tenable from from
Speaker 4: a long term you know, financial stability standpoint. So you know,
Speaker 4: it's a huge concern. Let alone, if we're talking about
Speaker 4: you know, funding reverse engineering, crash retrieval clandestine activities, that
Speaker 4: that our elected officials have no idea that that these
Speaker 4: things are being committed in the name of the United
Speaker 4: States or the United States interests or private industry, having
Speaker 4: access to materials and contracts that you know that no
Speaker 4: one knows about, and having you know, that technological advantage.
Speaker 5: Over their competitors.
Speaker 4: And there's a whole host of issues that are brought
Speaker 4: up around this kind of extreme secrecy under under UAP.
Speaker 5: So a really really valid point.
Speaker 3: Someone can fact check me on this. But at one
Speaker 3: point they had said that our defense budget alone was
Speaker 3: higher than the next seventeen countries after US. So somebody
Speaker 3: in fact check me on that because I could be
Speaker 3: wrong or that that information could be dated. Lou also
Speaker 3: mentioned funds being misappropriated for intend appropriate, yes, for due
Speaker 3: to wording and bills. Yeah, and this is what I
Speaker 3: was alluding to, uh Eli, But you know again, I
Speaker 3: have to defer when when it's a dude like Lou.
Speaker 2: That's what I thought. I had said to the cabbies
Speaker 2: a couple of years ago.
Speaker 3: I said that they're signing off on these bills, but
Speaker 3: and they're naming the bill, They're naming the funding that
Speaker 3: the program this, but it's actually funding that. That's the
Speaker 3: only way I could see that they're doing it. And
Speaker 3: apparently Lou if you're quoting Lou there, that that must
Speaker 3: be what has happened, because there's you know, how many
Speaker 3: unacknowledged SAPs can you have? Where before Congressman's beyond the
Speaker 3: Gang of Eight would say, hey, you know, WTF what's
Speaker 3: going on here?
Speaker 2: Here's the one for you, Dan.
Speaker 6: From our lovely Julie. If you have telekinesis or poultric
Speaker 6: ice activity, then you should really try to not get
Speaker 6: highly emotional during those player of times. I am oh
Speaker 6: also known as in my.
Speaker 3: Opinion, Yeah, that must be something you guys have been
Speaker 3: talking about in the chat. Let me know, Star something
Speaker 3: else if you see something else that Oh, here's something
Speaker 3: from Benji.
Speaker 2: Let's get to Benji.
Speaker 3: A question for DJ, with your experiences and perspectives from YESAF,
Speaker 3: what are the chances that these are indeed Russian, Chizing,
Speaker 3: Iranian or anymore air craft infhone gap.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I've spoken about this extensively.
Speaker 3: It you know, it depends on I can't, you know,
Speaker 3: paint with a broad brush, but I can say that
Speaker 3: craft that are displaying one of these observables. I've said
Speaker 3: in conversations, you know, hundreds of times with cabbies and
Speaker 3: on air that I don't believe that that technology has
Speaker 3: been that technology to the extent that hell put Off
Speaker 3: obviously has drawn up something that makes sense and has
Speaker 3: you know, drew all those equations on the board. I
Speaker 3: believe that that that's the case. That there may be
Speaker 3: an understanding of how they're doing it, but actualizing that
Speaker 3: and being able to create that and then being able to.
Speaker 2: Fly that I think is a completely different strata.
Speaker 3: And I don't think that the craft that are displaying
Speaker 3: these five or six observables are something that is human
Speaker 3: made at this point. I think there may be replicas
Speaker 3: that look like that that they may use for different reasons,
Speaker 3: But I don't believe these silent craft are moving around
Speaker 3: and doing the things that lou described in that long dissertation,
Speaker 3: which is very fascinating that he went through with hol
Speaker 3: So that that's my opinion, and I'm pretty comfortable in
Speaker 3: that one, Nathan, go.
Speaker 2: Ahead, take it away.
Speaker 6: And but in additions, and.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, I'm.
Speaker 6: Going to minimize again and see if that works. But
Speaker 6: I just I just don't know how many times we
Speaker 6: have to hear someone say it, you know, like the
Speaker 6: same thing. But these are not human made, Like, these
Speaker 6: are professionals who work around this topic and they're they're
Speaker 6: literally paid and need to look at these human made
Speaker 6: objects constantly and every facet. There's like every every fasted
Speaker 6: of the government, the military, professional billions dead.
Speaker 3: We're losing you. But I just to carry that point forward.
Speaker 3: There's an anecdote in there where Lou talks about bringing
Speaker 3: in aerospace guys. I think he brought in. He doesn't
Speaker 3: say who they brought in, but they brought in people
Speaker 3: like from skunk works type folks, and when they showed
Speaker 3: them what they were looking at, they were like, yeah, man,
Speaker 3: that's not you know, guys that are working on the
Speaker 3: next generation of aircraft that none of us. I don't
Speaker 3: know about them. I don't know what they are. That
Speaker 3: those are the type stuff that's tested at at Area
Speaker 3: fifty one.
Speaker 2: And also he spoke about the test range. Remember I
Speaker 2: said to people, Ah.
Speaker 3: They're flying these UAPs all over suburban Virginia and Des Moines, Iowa.
Speaker 3: And it's like and Lou said, yeah, we have test
Speaker 3: ranges hundreds of miles of test ranges. We do that,
Speaker 3: we don't run those tests. And he explained it exactly
Speaker 3: like I explained it to you.
Speaker 2: Guys.
Speaker 3: You are taking a risk if if you take a
Speaker 3: UAP and if you take one of these craft and
Speaker 3: you fly it against a fighter squadron that doesn't know
Speaker 3: it's coming, somebody can be killed very very easily. I mean,
Speaker 3: we just lost CV twenty two guys over there in
Speaker 3: Japan that crashed into the ocean.
Speaker 2: I mean it is a huge, huge deal when you have.
Speaker 3: A Class A mishap and God forbid that you do
Speaker 3: that in a test when there's no reason to do that,
Speaker 3: because these tests are very you know, Nathan, you're you're
Speaker 3: a methodological kind of a dude, and test when you
Speaker 3: do flight test and you bring a group in and
Speaker 3: you sit everybody down in these briefing rooms, and you
Speaker 3: guys go through months to produce these test cards. Everything
Speaker 3: is scripted. These are the car and you give those folks.
Speaker 3: These are the test cards we're running today. This is
Speaker 3: what we're looking for. This is the outcome. Let us
Speaker 3: know what you see based on these test cards. So
Speaker 3: after you do your after takeoff checklists, I want you
Speaker 3: to pick up these test cards. We're gonna say fights on,
Speaker 3: and then you guys are gonna start going through those
Speaker 3: cards and only those cards. And when we finish those cards,
Speaker 3: you come and land, and now we're gonna debrief for
Speaker 3: five times longer than you just flew to talk about
Speaker 3: what you saw, what was the sigan, you know, all
Speaker 3: the different things. So it's a very very scripted event,
Speaker 3: and it builds and gets more and more complex. I've
Speaker 3: only done it, I think once in my whole career.
Speaker 3: Was I part of something like that once. I mean,
Speaker 3: there are dudes that do that. That's like their job.
Speaker 3: I was kind of like a fill in, if you will. Anyway,
Speaker 3: that's how test goes.
Speaker 2: It's not something like, hey, let's go fly the ticktack
Speaker 2: in there and see what these two Navy F eighteen
Speaker 2: folks do. Because Fraver could have hit that, and he
Speaker 2: actually tried to.
Speaker 3: At one point he he pointed his aircraft at it.
Speaker 3: That could have been fatal.
Speaker 5: So yeah, anyway, that's yeah, No, I completely agree.
Speaker 4: But I've watched a couple of YouTube videos on engineering
Speaker 4: and aeronautics and I feel like I'm kind of a
Speaker 4: specialist now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, of these things.
Speaker 3: Man, you ready, we're gonna get Nathan over to flight
Speaker 3: test squad n and Egglin and you're gonna be running
Speaker 3: the next test man.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 5: Just you know, that's the anthurdity there that we're dealing with.
Speaker 4: It's that, you know, everyone's got all this information at
Speaker 4: their fingertips, and so there's the illusion of knowledge and
Speaker 4: expertise that we can gain through very very minimal effort.
Speaker 4: And when you think about you know what Malcolm Gladwell
Speaker 4: reference to the ten thousand hours people are familiar with that,
Speaker 4: You know, ten thousand hours are doing something to become
Speaker 4: an expert at that thing.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 4: Is it a hard and fast rule, No, but it's
Speaker 4: a pretty good approximation. And if you've been doing anything
Speaker 4: for ten thousand hours professionally or personally, if that's you know,
Speaker 4: maybe you're an exercise fan or something, if you've been
Speaker 4: doing it for that long, you do develop some expertise
Speaker 4: in that and you do know how to do certain
Speaker 4: things way better than others do. And people come to you,
Speaker 4: in fact, they pay you for that expertise, right, And
Speaker 4: so I just get I get exhausted when we continue
Speaker 4: to have more and more individuals who have been close
Speaker 4: to this information, who have been trained and accessing and
Speaker 4: understanding and analyzing this kind of data and coming to
Speaker 4: the same kinds of conclusions, and we hear those conclusions
Speaker 4: over and over again, and then you know, the folks
Speaker 4: from the internet just saying, well, yeah, I mean I
Speaker 4: think that they just you know, they just don't know
Speaker 4: what they're talking about, and it's all just the it's
Speaker 4: a circular reporting, and they just it's all fantasy, firestars,
Speaker 4: fireside stories that they just like telling each other, Like,
Speaker 4: I just if that's how the government works, where all
Speaker 4: of these paid professionals, thousands of hours, millions of dollars
Speaker 4: of training goes into these individuals' lives and they're all
Speaker 4: just kind of winging it because they, you know, sort
Speaker 4: of believe certain things, like it's not how things it's
Speaker 4: just not.
Speaker 5: How the war world works, folks. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: So anyway, that rant aside, what I was very interested
Speaker 4: in in this book that I wasn't necessarily expecting was
Speaker 4: lou talking about his personal experience with remote viewing. So
Speaker 4: that that's one thing I didn't think he would speak
Speaker 4: to directly in the book, even though he had long
Speaker 4: been rumored that he had experienced as a remote viewer too.
Speaker 4: He brought up the orbs in his house, so he's
Speaker 4: had a very personal, close upfront contact with something anomalous
Speaker 4: in his own home. His his wife saw it, his
Speaker 4: daughter saw it, you know. So we've got his word
Speaker 4: that he saw these things, and we've we've also been
Speaker 4: introduced in this conversation that hasn't necessarily come forward before
Speaker 4: other than through things that David Grush has alleged alluded to,
Speaker 4: and that are things like abduction and you know, human
Speaker 4: experimentation or implants. These are topics that he brought up
Speaker 4: in the book that I think if we were to
Speaker 4: rewind a few years ago, we would not have expected
Speaker 4: to see that in a book from someone like Louel Azando.
Speaker 4: And that tells me this is where we are now
Speaker 4: in the conversation, that he's much more comfortable talking about
Speaker 4: these kinds of things, because if anyone has watched his
Speaker 4: podcast in the past, he wouldn't touch these subjects, he
Speaker 4: wouldn't go near them. But now he's openly talking about
Speaker 4: them in the book. So I wanted to get y'all's
Speaker 4: thoughts on that part of it.
Speaker 3: As first of all, let me just say one thing
Speaker 3: to Benji, if you would restate the question that you
Speaker 3: have up there have starred those two. If you would
Speaker 3: just restate that, we'll get that answered for you and Debs.
Speaker 2: You talked about Lou and.
Speaker 3: Uh oh a good night and on e T. Thank
Speaker 3: you for stopping by. I appreciate you. B appetite.
Speaker 2: Deb you've talked about Lou and remote viewing years ago.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it was something that kind of showed up in
Speaker 6: a previous book about the aw Set program that Lou
Speaker 6: had kind of revealed that he had done some remote
Speaker 6: viewing at that dinner that he also mentions in his
Speaker 6: book where he met a whole bunch of people. He
Speaker 6: didn't they didn't say in the all Set book, which
Speaker 6: I believe with skin walkers at the Pentagon, they didn't
Speaker 6: mention the general coming to talk to them about the
Speaker 6: Brazilian cases Kolaris, but they did talk about his remote viewing.
Speaker 6: And you know, I think that people forget that people
Speaker 6: can have their own other paranormal experiences or they and
Speaker 6: everyone does. By the way, just about everybody has a
Speaker 6: paranormal experience at some point, and they can have their
Speaker 6: own spiritual beliefs and their own religious beliefs and all
Speaker 6: those things. And it's still separate from their expertise on
Speaker 6: this subject in my opinion. But yes, he has revealed before,
Speaker 6: it has been revealed before that he could remove you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he has clearly he saved that for his book.
Speaker 3: He's been asked about it before and he declined to
Speaker 3: answer that question.
Speaker 2: And the guy is you know, it was really interesting.
Speaker 3: He said a lot of people say that I'm a
Speaker 3: conspiracy theorist on this and that he said, I'm a scientist.
Speaker 3: How many of you guys have degrees in scientists. I
Speaker 3: was getting a medical science degree in advance of possibly
Speaker 3: going to med school.
Speaker 2: But he said that.
Speaker 3: He said that, and it seems like he was very
Speaker 3: intelligent to hold certain things back for his book, which
Speaker 3: brought a huge amount of anticipation amongst us in the
Speaker 3: public for his book. And you got to see, I
Speaker 3: think this other kind of what I'm thinking about Nathan
Speaker 3: is you got to see his vulnerability in him talking
Speaker 3: about his childhood and and picked on and when he
Speaker 3: decided to fight and stand up for himself. He spoke
Speaker 3: about the frailty he went through with his wife and
Speaker 3: coming home and telling his wife what he did, and
Speaker 3: that he quit, and how his daughter supported him. He
Speaker 3: also came how what makes him feel heroic, his time
Speaker 3: in combat, his titles as special agent, him being willing
Speaker 3: to put himself in the target in the sort of
Speaker 3: in the sights of Islamic terrorists by going interviewing down
Speaker 3: at Guantanamo.
Speaker 2: So he takes you.
Speaker 3: Through his successes, his failures, his frailties, where he felt
Speaker 3: he had charge, where he felt he had no charge,
Speaker 3: and he was sort of given to the whims of
Speaker 3: those above him. And he basically took you through everything
Speaker 3: you got to see. I think a three hundred and
Speaker 3: sixty degree lou in my opinion, family man, everything father.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree, a pretty comprehensive perspective on the man,
Speaker 4: his career, you know, his motivations, all that kind of thing.
Speaker 4: I found that We talked about the remote viewing and
Speaker 4: I found it interesting. You know, he shares the anecdote
Speaker 4: of where he was brought in to talk to Jim Lukatski.
Speaker 4: You know that that first time in Lakatski's kind of
Speaker 4: asking him, what do you think about UFOs, and He's like, well,
Speaker 4: I don't think about them at all.
Speaker 5: You know, I've got my focus on these other things.
Speaker 4: And you know what I'm interested to know from a
Speaker 4: you know, from lou himself, from from his personal experience,
Speaker 4: you know, what was his own journey like going from
Speaker 4: being as someone who before that moment had experience with
Speaker 4: something like remote viewing that you know, very publicly people
Speaker 4: would say this is paranormal, you know, wu wu stuff,
Speaker 4: but he clearly had been trained in that, and he
Speaker 4: himself believed and believed that it works. So he got
Speaker 4: he was that kind of person when he met Jim Lakatski.
Speaker 4: And then you know, here Lakatski is kind of like
Speaker 4: pulling the curtain back even further and saying, you know,
Speaker 4: we'll keep an open mind about UFOs. Like, I just wonder,
Speaker 4: from Low's own personal journey, what that, what that's been
Speaker 4: like to go from kind of these successive kind of
Speaker 4: mind bending reality changes. You know, it's quite interesting and
Speaker 4: weird too that, in my opinion, that he didn't necessarily
Speaker 4: make room for UFOs even though he'd already made room
Speaker 4: for remote viewing. I understand, you know, certainly, how that
Speaker 4: could be. But it's interesting to me that that he
Speaker 4: you know, just never really thought about them. So yeah,
Speaker 4: I wonder what you guys thought about that. You know,
Speaker 4: how do you think his remote viewing experience and that
Speaker 4: the training and his experience just with remote viewing has
Speaker 4: impacted his journey into the uf UFO UAP topic.
Speaker 2: Well, that's hard to say right there as far as
Speaker 2: how it impacted. But what I can say is that
Speaker 2: he said that he didn't he didn't think about UFOs,
Speaker 2: which is not saying that he wasn't necessarily open. And
Speaker 2: by the way, Benji and George, we're gonna get to
Speaker 2: both of your questions after.
Speaker 3: We're gonna get to both your your questions after this.
Speaker 3: But I don't know that he was closed off to
Speaker 3: the idea. He just said I don't think about him,
Speaker 3: which we could say about I mean, you could probably
Speaker 3: say that about about everyone in your office. You know,
Speaker 3: they might be like, I don't think about it. I
Speaker 3: don't know if you have the discussions at work. So
Speaker 3: I don't know that he seems like the type of
Speaker 3: guy that's open to listening and hearing before he just
Speaker 3: runs his mouth that something's not real or it's fake.
Speaker 3: He doesn't seem like he's that type of guy. I
Speaker 3: think it's just something that he didn't think about. And
Speaker 3: the interesting thing he said about remote viewing is he
Speaker 3: said he felt that any of us could do it.
Speaker 2: Debs.
Speaker 6: He also talked about the science behind it, and he
Speaker 6: tried to explain it in scientific terms, which is something
Speaker 6: that he's applied to the UAP topic as well. He's
Speaker 6: trying to understand it in the nuts and bolts terms.
Speaker 6: So obviously there's more to UAP than that, but you
Speaker 6: can see that that's not his real house with it.
Speaker 6: So with remote viewing, he's explained it as basically being
Speaker 6: quantum and that tries to under like that's not necessarily
Speaker 6: so much in the book, but is from conversations he's
Speaker 6: had about remote viewing. He's tried to explain it in
Speaker 6: scientific terms. So I think that's where those two connect
Speaker 6: for him, Like he's like, this is something that other
Speaker 6: people don't understand, but there could be science that can
Speaker 6: explain it, and this is the science that I think
Speaker 6: explains it. And it's the same thing for him with UAP.
Speaker 6: But I have to agree with there are lots of
Speaker 6: things that we don't think about and focus on. So
Speaker 6: it's not like big d All for him to not
Speaker 6: have been paying attention to UAP like I don't think
Speaker 6: about pain points like yeah, now.
Speaker 5: You are, I'm thinking about him right now.
Speaker 4: I mean that you bring up just the point is
Speaker 4: spot on, right, And I think this goes to something
Speaker 4: that is attributed to lou and maybe attributed to him unfairly.
Speaker 4: And that's that, you know, because he has some knowledge
Speaker 4: about UFOs, he has all the knowledge about UFOs, right,
Speaker 4: And I think this book and your comment there demonstrate
Speaker 4: that that's not the case, that that, just like the
Speaker 4: rest of us, he comes at this subject from a
Speaker 4: particular perspective, his own unique background, his framework of understanding reality,
Speaker 4: and he's interpreting and is actively still trying to interpret
Speaker 4: this phenomena through that lens of understanding. So, you know,
Speaker 4: he was trained as a scientist and went through you know,
Speaker 4: undergrad experience as a scientist, and he went through the
Speaker 4: military as an analyst, and all these kinds of skill
Speaker 4: sets that he brought. Well, why wouldn't he be using
Speaker 4: those skill sets and those frameworks to understand what this
Speaker 4: might be be? Now, then the question becomes is are
Speaker 4: those frameworks actually helpful understanding what what this might be?
Speaker 4: And I think that that is the open question that's
Speaker 4: why we need more folks from different disciplines, different walks
Speaker 4: of life, different perspectives, all working together to try to
Speaker 4: understand this, because it may be that just this kind
Speaker 4: of one kind of approach, traditional type of approach to
Speaker 4: understanding isn't going to be adequate enough to really get
Speaker 4: to the bottom of what this is.
Speaker 2: He I mean, clearly he wants to understand it from
Speaker 2: electro mechanical physical standpoint. He also, and you guys would
Speaker 2: have to help me with this quote.
Speaker 3: That quote is that, you know, magic is just something
Speaker 3: that we just don't understand yet, you know what I mean. Like,
Speaker 3: he understands that our science may or may not explain it,
Speaker 3: but he wants to try to explain it. But he
Speaker 3: doesn't have the hubris to think that our physics can
Speaker 3: explain everything they can do.
Speaker 2: He just thinks.
Speaker 3: That that that how Putoff may have figured out how
Speaker 3: they do it, and and that's you know, that's good.
Speaker 3: And there may be all other aspects of them from
Speaker 3: an electrical, mechanical, physical, aeronautical perspective that they haven't figured
Speaker 3: out yet, but they've figured out the part about how
Speaker 3: how they you know, or I shouldn't say they figured
Speaker 3: it out. They think they understand how they're able to
Speaker 3: move and the time dilation and all the sort of
Speaker 3: things that happen inside the craft so that they don't
Speaker 3: get smushed when they accelerate. It as something that should
Speaker 3: destroy a human body. So he's he's very The other
Speaker 3: thing that's interesting about the guy is he whenever he
Speaker 3: talks about colleagues, whether it's Steve Justice or Gary or
Speaker 3: a Gem or any of these people, he always acts like, there,
Speaker 3: you know, significantly smarter than he is. Again, news for you, man,
Speaker 3: this guy is really smart because he's open to being wrong,
Speaker 3: and he he wants to know, and he doesn't paint
Speaker 3: himself as an expert in any of these things that
Speaker 3: he discusses. He basically says that he's like a sponge
Speaker 3: trying to learn about it. Let's get let's get to
Speaker 3: some of these questions. I'm gonna read the first one
Speaker 3: and we'll go to Nathan and then Debbs. So, all right,
Speaker 3: Benji brother.
Speaker 2: Uh. Something that was brought up to me from an
Speaker 2: employee at Northrop.
Speaker 3: What if they have to fly the crafts to the
Speaker 3: test ranges on occasion, but we don't have any crafts
Speaker 3: like that all I can say about that, Benji is
Speaker 3: I don't know the types of craft they have, So
Speaker 3: each craft would have to be an individual. Now if
Speaker 3: you're talking about they meaning they and why they seem
Speaker 3: to show up in Nevada, like Jason Sands, who, by
Speaker 3: the way, I had a great phone conversation with Jason
Speaker 3: Sands not too long ago. We can get him on
Speaker 3: the show like what he saw and others have seen
Speaker 3: out of Area fifty one. Richard what's his name again?
Speaker 2: Help me? Rick?
Speaker 3: Rich Rick Doty has had sightings out there when he
Speaker 3: was out there with OSI. So I don't know if
Speaker 3: you mean those craft as far as craft that that
Speaker 3: are that are mimics, I mean i'd have to you know,
Speaker 3: each case we'd have to look at individually, see it,
Speaker 3: hear it, watch it, see its characteristics, and then we
Speaker 3: can talk about is this something that is being flown
Speaker 3: by another intelligence or being operated or something that's being
Speaker 3: operated by humans? And do we know that humans can't
Speaker 3: operate it?
Speaker 2: I don't know that. I don't know that they can't.
Speaker 2: I just you know, there's a lot of.
Speaker 3: Mental gymnastics that have to happen in terms of, uh,
Speaker 3: what you would have to think to tell the craft
Speaker 3: for it to interpret, and there's just more questions than
Speaker 3: we have answers.
Speaker 2: But great question. Uh, let's get to George. Go ahead, Nathan, please, George.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thanks George.
Speaker 4: So Lou said in an interview on TOW that he
Speaker 4: doesn't meditate and he drinks too much coffee. Remote viewing
Speaker 4: requires meditation, does it not. That's a good question. I
Speaker 4: think there aren't any art. Yeah, there aren't any hard
Speaker 4: rules about how to remote views.
Speaker 5: You know, per se.
Speaker 4: I think there are there are guidelines, there are you know,
Speaker 4: we certainly you have certain practitioners who say that if
Speaker 4: they do certain things they get better results by you know,
Speaker 4: not drinking or not drinking coffee or getting good sleep or.
Speaker 5: Whatever it is.
Speaker 4: You know that they have their own kind of uh
Speaker 4: you know, pre pre remote viewing, pre flight checklist as
Speaker 4: you will, that they go through that they have found
Speaker 4: to be successful. But I think that that's in many ways,
Speaker 4: just like like an athlete has a pregame ritual. You know,
Speaker 4: these are things that help them get dialed in into
Speaker 4: the zone that they need to be in to perform
Speaker 4: at the level they want to perform at. And I
Speaker 4: don't think it has to be a hard and fast
Speaker 4: rule that you know, you don't drink alcohol or don't meditate,
Speaker 4: to be able to promote you more successfully. I could,
Speaker 4: you know, maybe that will one day be proven scientifically
Speaker 4: to our satisfaction. But in my experience with people who
Speaker 4: do this, I don't think it's a hard and fast
Speaker 4: rule per per se. And we also don't know that
Speaker 4: maybe when he was doing it, he was doing less
Speaker 4: of those activities.
Speaker 2: Yes, please, yes, please?
Speaker 6: What what kind of meditation? Because there are multiple and
Speaker 6: not all of them are straightforward as sitting and humming
Speaker 6: or listening to a mineral Institute tapes. You know, there's
Speaker 6: actually quite a huge variety, including just the act of
Speaker 6: driving is a form of meditation for some people. So yeah, sorry,
Speaker 6: I just had to throw that out there, because if
Speaker 6: you if you look into the brain wave stuff, there
Speaker 6: are several several types.
Speaker 3: I agree with you, deb, I think they're from the
Speaker 3: little that I know of me of the meditation modalities
Speaker 3: I know about and the little that I've heard of
Speaker 3: remote viewers talk about. It's a little bit of a
Speaker 3: different headspace because you're more engaged, you're looking around the room,
Speaker 3: you're you know, you're writing on a piece of paper,
Speaker 3: whereas a lot of forms of meditation are about clearing
Speaker 3: your mind of anything and and creating. And I'm sure, Nathan,
Speaker 3: you've talked about it with Darren ad nauseum, so I'm sure.
Speaker 6: I had no because the best one is actually analyzing something.
Speaker 6: The ones that the Shallolin monks use to reach the
Speaker 6: gamma state in their brain, they're analyzing things. They're not
Speaker 6: trying to clear their mind at all. They're focusing on
Speaker 6: a problem.
Speaker 5: So there you go.
Speaker 2: So you're gonna read this one depth, So keep your
Speaker 2: your singing voice on for this one.
Speaker 6: How do you feel about lou using remote viewing as
Speaker 6: cruel and unusual punishment on a detainee at Guantanamo? Is
Speaker 6: this not against the Geneva Convention? Should I answer this
Speaker 6: one first?
Speaker 2: Or you guys want to Yeah, go ahead, go ahead,
Speaker 2: and I'll come in.
Speaker 6: So I, first of all, I'm not sure that they
Speaker 6: thought that that actually would work. First of all. Second
Speaker 6: of all, they presented as people standing near the bed.
Speaker 6: I don't know if that's exactly cruel and unusual. People
Speaker 6: have dreams like that. I don't think that they consider
Speaker 6: those dreams to be cruel and unusual. I think this
Speaker 6: is a little bit worded, a little harshly. So what
Speaker 6: do you guys think.
Speaker 3: Well, the Geneva Conventions I don't think addresses something like
Speaker 3: remote viewing. There are some very specific things that can
Speaker 3: be done in captivity and can't be done. And so yeah,
Speaker 3: I think there are certain types of detainment that have
Speaker 3: unfolded that I would say would violate the Geneva Conventions
Speaker 3: and they were not let us say enemy combatant to
Speaker 3: you know, like, so there are different rule sets when
Speaker 3: you're captured as a card carrying military member by another
Speaker 3: card carrying military then, and I've been through training for that.
Speaker 3: I've been through peace time detention, like if you're kidnapped.
Speaker 3: I've also been through if you're kidnapped by terrorist group
Speaker 3: and what that might look like and what might you
Speaker 3: have to exercise in order to survive that environment. And
Speaker 3: all three of those are are different because the goals
Speaker 3: of all three are different rules set.
Speaker 2: In some cases there's no rules.
Speaker 3: But I believe they they they probably at Guantanamo, I
Speaker 3: think that they were operating under the Geneva Conventions, which
Speaker 3: means no you know, waterboarding and no putting people wet
Speaker 3: in a very cold room and these kinds of things.
Speaker 3: So I think, I, I, I don't know that Lou
Speaker 3: engaged in that, but that would be something that we
Speaker 3: could potentially ask him if he comes on.
Speaker 2: Nathan.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 4: This particularly part of the book definitely raised some eyebrows
Speaker 4: from from readers that, you know, one he put this
Speaker 4: in writing that this is something that he, you know,
Speaker 4: he and other colleagues did, and and that it seemed
Speaker 4: to have the intended effect that they wanted, which was
Speaker 4: really kind of changed the the intent or perspective of
Speaker 4: this particular individual and what they were planning to do
Speaker 4: or wanting to do harm to the the United States
Speaker 4: or its interests or whatever. You know, I think you
Speaker 4: can have ethical qualms with it. I don't see, you know,
Speaker 4: I could totally understand people that would have an ethical
Speaker 4: issue with with the use of what amounts to kind
Speaker 4: of psychotronic a psychotronic warfare technique in this instance, And
Speaker 4: I could see someone taking issue with that, And I
Speaker 4: understand why why they would take issue with it. Is
Speaker 4: it a violation of an individual's autonomy and personal sovereignty?
Speaker 4: Like I mean, it certainly absolutely could be perceived that way,
Speaker 4: So you know, I I do think it it raises
Speaker 4: some questions.
Speaker 5: I think people.
Speaker 4: Again, I've said this many many times, I said DJ
Speaker 4: last night. People have elevated Lou Elizondo so much that
Speaker 4: he's in many ways kind of become this untouchable person
Speaker 4: from critique by his most ardent supporters.
Speaker 5: He's like kind of the third rail of euthology.
Speaker 4: You don't want to touch it because you'll get light
Speaker 4: electrocuted if you if you raise any kind of critique
Speaker 4: of of Elezondo. But I don't think he's even he's
Speaker 4: asking for that himself. If you hear him talking in
Speaker 4: his interviews, he says, you know, I'm not definitely not Yeah,
Speaker 4: he's not perfect. I don't want to be doing this forever.
Speaker 4: I've made mistakes, you know. I don't think that he
Speaker 4: is asking people to hold him to a standard that
Speaker 4: that he himself can't actually achieve. So it's I wish
Speaker 4: we would stop doing that. I think that it's just
Speaker 4: it's okay for people to have, you know, legitimate rational
Speaker 4: concerns about things that Lou Elezondo has said or done.
Speaker 4: I think it's okay to have those perspectives, okay to
Speaker 4: talk about those things. I don't need to detigrate someone
Speaker 4: for having those perspectives.
Speaker 5: You know, everyone's got a right to their own opinion.
Speaker 4: If you kind of flip that and go on the
Speaker 4: attack onto somebody, well then I, you know, I take
Speaker 4: that from a different perspective. You know, I think that
Speaker 4: it's it's one thing to have, you know, opinions about something,
Speaker 4: but it's another thing to go after somebody aggressively and
Speaker 4: you know, kind of helm them or harass them for
Speaker 4: their particular behavior that you just so happen to disagree with. Yeah,
Speaker 4: these are matters that maybe aren't necessarily for us to decide.
Speaker 4: Quite frankly, he said.
Speaker 3: Last I heard was listening last night on the way
Speaker 3: back from work, and he said in the book, he said,
Speaker 3: I am not okay with people attacking others on my behalf.
Speaker 3: That is not attacking someone in their family is not okay,
Speaker 3: And I don't want people to do that on my behalf.
Speaker 3: He's very clear about that. I'm gonna answer this one
Speaker 3: for for George. And this is the problem that we
Speaker 3: run into, George, and we've talked about this many many
Speaker 3: times on this show. People will have an opinion about
Speaker 3: somebody like Lou, and they're gonna look for information that
Speaker 3: they don't believe him, they don't trust him, and they're
Speaker 3: gonna look for any sliver of information that supports the
Speaker 3: thought that they already have about the guy. How can
Speaker 3: I find something that supports that this guy is a
Speaker 3: liar who's not who he says he is. And I'm
Speaker 3: gonna look for any mistake that he's made. And I
Speaker 3: will tell you, Joe Rogan has found this out. When
Speaker 3: you are talking for three hours a week or fifth
Speaker 3: fourteen going on fifteen years, you are gonna make some
Speaker 3: gaffs and say some things, and you're gonna go home
Speaker 3: and you're gonna go like this, and your wife is
Speaker 3: gonna go like that to you and go, man, you
Speaker 3: really screwed up and said something stupid and you really
Speaker 3: just ran your mouth too much. My wife could walk
Speaker 3: in here right now and do that with me, with
Speaker 3: the amount of shows that I've done, and she'd be right.
Speaker 3: The thing what you need to understand about Lou is,
Speaker 3: regardless of what you think about the guy, and if
Speaker 3: you have doubts about him, the guy quit his job
Speaker 3: making a lot of money and security and retirement and
Speaker 3: four oh one k that he could still be working
Speaker 3: there now.
Speaker 2: This dude is younger than me and I'm still working.
Speaker 2: He could still be there now and just increasing his
Speaker 2: retirement every year that he goes on.
Speaker 3: He's been gone since twenty seventeen. Man, he's lost a
Speaker 3: lot of money over this. And when he tells you,
Speaker 3: I was on this damn program, this UFO program, I
Speaker 3: don't care what Lukatski says. He was part of a
Speaker 3: UFO program, and Harry Reid said it, and other people
Speaker 3: that he mentions in the book have substantiated that he
Speaker 3: was part of this program. Whatever, I don't care what
Speaker 3: you want an acronym you want to put to it.
Speaker 3: He was a GS fifteen, which is as high as
Speaker 3: you can go in the general service scale. He was
Speaker 3: a GS fifteen in charge as the lead guy in
Speaker 3: this program. Nathan said, maybe he didn't have the title
Speaker 3: of director. Maybe that wasn't written down anywhere because it
Speaker 3: was an unacknowledged program, a program that wasn't even a
Speaker 3: program of record.
Speaker 2: But he was. He was part of this UFO program.
Speaker 3: Obviously, you've heard that from Fraver, You've heard it from
Speaker 3: k Hill, you've heard it from PJ.
Speaker 2: You've heard from Alex. Yep, we went there and we
Speaker 2: talked to lou. How do you think that happened?
Speaker 6: How many hell put off? Let's not forget I.
Speaker 2: Mean there's so many.
Speaker 3: I mean Jim semi Van you know, you know, director
Speaker 3: of Field Operations for the CIA. For goodness sakes, he
Speaker 3: is who he says he is, and he was part
Speaker 3: of the program, a UFO program, and I couldn't care
Speaker 3: less what the name of it is or was. It's
Speaker 3: not material to the discussion. And now if I tell
Speaker 3: you something and you choose not to believe me, I
Speaker 3: invite you not to believe me because I have not
Speaker 3: put my future on the line for UFOs, nor will
Speaker 3: I ever, because I don't have the courage that Elizondo
Speaker 3: has or Dave Grush has, like that combat courage.
Speaker 2: Sure, go to war and gone deployments.
Speaker 3: I've been on twelve of them, and some of them
Speaker 3: I didn't even have a uniform on. No problem with that,
Speaker 3: but the courage to give up my livelihood over UFOs,
Speaker 3: I am not doing it. I don't have that courage
Speaker 3: of conviction like those dudes do. They did it, and
Speaker 3: that's why you should believe Elizondo that he at least
Speaker 3: was ahead of a UFO program. Whatever the letters are
Speaker 3: that constructs it is completely immaterial and not helpful to
Speaker 3: understanding who he is, what he did, and why we
Speaker 3: can have the discussion that Nathan said that we can
Speaker 3: have now that we could not have had had he
Speaker 3: not done that along with Christopher Mellen, we could not
Speaker 3: have had these discussions. We wouldn't be we would be
Speaker 3: in we would still be in the quote UFO closet
Speaker 3: talking about this at work. I've talked about her work
Speaker 3: the other day, and these guys know where I work.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I think you've made a really you know,
Speaker 4: passionate plea and excellent points.
Speaker 5: That are worth reiterating.
Speaker 4: And you know, we just we owe luel Isondo a
Speaker 4: deata gratitude. You know, is he a perfect person?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 4: And and and keep in mind, like we've got a
Speaker 4: lot of we're talking about shadowy UFO programs. You know,
Speaker 4: we're not talking about you know, they're in the playing
Speaker 4: light of day. You know, a lot lots of people
Speaker 4: know about them. They're they're highly recorded and documented. A
Speaker 4: lot of these things are not well documented, even they're
Speaker 4: kind of kept off the books.
Speaker 5: In many regards. So you know, it doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 4: That we've got some you know, sort of different narratives
Speaker 4: in print that that that kind of conflict with each other.
Speaker 5: Would I like it to be clear? You know, absolutely.
Speaker 4: You know I've been I've read those books, and I've
Speaker 4: had the same questions. You know, I'm like, wait a minute,
Speaker 4: this book said this and this one said that, and
Speaker 4: which one is right and which one is the right order?
Speaker 4: And you know there there are historians who are going
Speaker 4: to kind of sort that out and and answer those
Speaker 4: kinds of questions. But I think to DJ's point, he's
Speaker 4: got S I T. G. Skin in the game and
Speaker 4: your money where your mouth is. You know, he's now
Speaker 4: I'm listening right, He's been out there more than anybody,
Speaker 4: and uh, you know, and and he's taking hits every
Speaker 4: time he goes out. You know, it's not like everybody's
Speaker 4: like great lou. You know, he's taking every every time.
Speaker 4: You know, he's he's kind of in the cross heres
Speaker 4: of a lot of hate and doubt and whatnot, but
Speaker 4: he keeps coming back. So I think that says a
Speaker 4: lot about his character. It's just not easy to do.
Speaker 4: And I look I'm applauding him in this regard, but
Speaker 4: I also you know, I have personal you know, concerns too,
Speaker 4: Like I think again, my point is we're all that way.
Speaker 4: Human beings are complicated. Let's give each other the space
Speaker 4: to be complicated. You know, you allow yourself to be complicated.
Speaker 4: Let's allow others to be complicated. I think that's only fair.
Speaker 6: And you know I have to say it, and I think, uh,
Speaker 6: and there people have missed this, but he had to
Speaker 6: protect all SAP when he first came out.
Speaker 2: He couldn't use he didn't say ASAP, right.
Speaker 6: He couldn't ease because it wasn't unclassified, and he still
Speaker 6: had to consider his security clearances, and you know he
Speaker 6: was trying to keep that, you know. So there there
Speaker 6: are certain things that he was curtailing for the public
Speaker 6: and probably still is.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I figured out last night. I did some
Speaker 3: math and figured out loosely. He Nathan and I we
Speaker 3: went over some of the numbers. He lost about one
Speaker 3: point four million dollars UH in salaries. Since since he left,
Speaker 3: he's obviously recouped some of that, but he said that, uh,
Speaker 3: we know what his salary was, and he mentioned that
Speaker 3: when he went to work for UH to the Stars
Speaker 3: Academy that it was a lot less than what he
Speaker 3: was making. So I'm gonna guess, I'm gonna throw a
Speaker 3: number at you that is based on nothing.
Speaker 2: It's probably one hundred grand.
Speaker 3: They probably offered those guys one hundred grand each, and
Speaker 3: that is well below what an SES would have made.
Speaker 2: In Christopher Mellen.
Speaker 3: I have no idea what the pay scale at the CIA,
Speaker 3: but it's probably similar your government employee. It's probably similar
Speaker 3: to what Christopher Mellen was making. And and Lou obviously
Speaker 3: was making about one hundred and ninety thousand dollars a
Speaker 3: year UH in that area of growth. So so yeah,
Speaker 3: he probably lost about one point four million dollars in
Speaker 3: and recouped maybe, you know, maybe half that.
Speaker 2: So I don't know.
Speaker 3: Anyway, great points, guys. What else we got before we
Speaker 3: close things down for the evening?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I want to just maybe we wrap
Speaker 4: here by kind of getting our thoughts on whether or
Speaker 4: not we think this book has helped push the conversation forward.
Speaker 4: And you know, I'd like to hear from Deb. You know, Deb,
Speaker 4: but what do you think about that? What's the reaction?
Speaker 6: I feel like it's very hard when you know all
Speaker 6: of the data that's in a book to say this
Speaker 6: could make a big difference, you know, Like I feel
Speaker 6: like I already knew a lot of what was in
Speaker 6: this book. The only thing I didn't really know was
Speaker 6: his personal history related to his family. He was very
Speaker 6: careful about using cases that were in the public eye
Speaker 6: rather than disclosing classified cases. You may have noticed that.
Speaker 6: And of course, because of you know, the community and
Speaker 6: the research that we do, we knew about all those
Speaker 6: cases that he mentioned. So I feel like as far
Speaker 6: as going, oh, that's brand new news that happen, but
Speaker 6: as far as hey, I was the guy working with
Speaker 6: you know, these government programs and trying to get this
Speaker 6: information to the public, you know, that could be relatable
Speaker 6: to people who are not familiar with these cases, and
Speaker 6: that might bring some more people into wanting to know more.
Speaker 6: I think what I'm waiting for is what most people
Speaker 6: who are in a similar situation to myself. I'm waiting
Speaker 6: for people who I'm not going to tell about the
Speaker 6: book to tell me about the book, you know, like
Speaker 6: my family. If they pick up on it and they
Speaker 6: start talking about it, then I'll be excited, and I'm
Speaker 6: just waiting for it. You know, I want to see
Speaker 6: if that makes a shift. I'd like to see that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that's right. It I mentioned before that
Speaker 5: he brought us some things.
Speaker 4: In the book that I didn't expect him to bring up,
Speaker 4: and I think that that is a signal that it
Speaker 4: reflects that we are moving into a place where the
Speaker 4: stigma is a lot less than it was a few
Speaker 4: years ago, and that we're and you're seeing that in
Speaker 4: the media appearances that he's been making as well. When
Speaker 4: he's going on these morning shows and stuff and he's
Speaker 4: talking with the folks for thirty seconds or whatever it is,
Speaker 4: he doesn't have much time to talk with them, but
Speaker 4: the reaction is much more one of fascination, of curiosity
Speaker 4: of I wish we had more time to talk to
Speaker 4: you about this. I mean, one of the hosts I
Speaker 4: recall saying, you know, I always knew this was true.
Speaker 5: I always believed that this was true.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 5: So you're getting more.
Speaker 4: I think public reaction that is it is positive that
Speaker 4: this is something that is very likely to be true.
Speaker 4: We've heard recently that he might be at one of
Speaker 4: the UFO hearings that is reported to be coming up
Speaker 4: later this month.
Speaker 5: That would be really quite interesting.
Speaker 4: People have been dying to get him, you know, in
Speaker 4: front of Congress publicly did to hear what he has
Speaker 4: to say.
Speaker 5: Uh, you know, I do think this is moving the needle.
Speaker 4: But you know, look, the needle movement isn't It's not
Speaker 4: only one of those things where it just kind of
Speaker 4: jumps forward and all of a sudden, you know, we've
Speaker 4: we've had this monumental shift. I think this is just
Speaker 4: a part of that gradual movement where this continues to
Speaker 4: uh you know, sde into the public consciousness, the public awareness,
Speaker 4: and and Lou you know, is leading leading the charge
Speaker 4: in that regard. You know, he's he's putting his neck
Speaker 4: out there and he's going for it. So I think
Speaker 4: it's big, maybe not as big as many of us
Speaker 4: would have hoped. We would have hoped for maybe some
Speaker 4: new awesome stories that we had never heard before.
Speaker 5: Like you said that, we're we're not getting that kind
Speaker 5: of thing.
Speaker 4: But from the from a public facing standpoint, I think
Speaker 4: it's a really really solid effort.
Speaker 2: And unfortunately I'm gonna have to go dark before I
Speaker 2: go light again.
Speaker 3: But so George, you can see here it's what I
Speaker 3: said earlier, is that you're looking for information that's going
Speaker 3: to support what you already think about Lou. So the
Speaker 3: math doesn't even work out to him being worth that much.
Speaker 3: Like in terms of what he would have made as
Speaker 3: a retired major and what he would have made in
Speaker 3: government service, it would be really and with two children
Speaker 3: going to school and a wife and living in in
Speaker 3: where do he live in Maryland?
Speaker 2: I think he lived in Maryland. And to thank you,
Speaker 2: thank you love.
Speaker 3: I know it's like a beautiful place to a mass
Speaker 3: twenty six point two million. But if you're watching idiots
Speaker 3: like Manny that did a three hour dosing documentary on Lou,
Speaker 3: or Jimenez or Green Street and these morons that just
Speaker 3: want to again people that have no skin in the
Speaker 3: game right, put your where's your money? Did you put
Speaker 3: any money? Does your mouth have any money in it?
Speaker 3: Or you just talking crap like guy on the corner
Speaker 3: just talking crap. Show me when you put some money
Speaker 3: in the game. And that's what Lou did. So someone's
Speaker 3: saying he has twenty six I have no idea what
Speaker 3: his net worth is.
Speaker 2: But wherever you got that.
Speaker 3: I guarantee they don't know what his net worth is
Speaker 3: unless they have eyes into his four oh one k
Speaker 3: and if he has, like I use Morgan Stanley, if
Speaker 3: they got eyes in his account, you know, like, how
Speaker 3: would I know what Nathan's worth? How the hell could
Speaker 3: I possibly know? The only thing I know more about
Speaker 3: Lou than I know about Nathan is his salary is
Speaker 3: public minus the locality fee. Well, even that, I could
Speaker 3: see the locality pay that he would have had at
Speaker 3: every stop he worked at, so I would know his
Speaker 3: gross pay at every stop.
Speaker 2: So I don't know how he would have amassed that.
Speaker 3: I have no idea, But wherever you got it, I
Speaker 3: guarantee they don't know. And they're throwing it out there
Speaker 3: because they want you to think that this is a
Speaker 3: get rich quick scheme, which is absurd when you see
Speaker 3: what this man did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's stupid.
Speaker 6: I don't know why money becomes this huge divisive factor
Speaker 6: so much in this topic, because frankly, I you know,
Speaker 6: when I was a kid, I was made to go
Speaker 6: to church, and I never one time when my mother
Speaker 6: was handing over money to the donation basket, thought this
Speaker 6: impacts whether or not I believe the priest. You know,
Speaker 6: like that's like what is going on like and then
Speaker 6: and the fact that there are so many people on
Speaker 6: this topic who cannot accept that people actually do work,
Speaker 6: and when you do work, you get paid like they
Speaker 6: I don't like, I will never write a book for free.
Speaker 2: Like I got it. I hope he makes a ton
Speaker 2: of money off this.
Speaker 3: Really no, it is absurd, deb It's but you have
Speaker 3: to understand is that when people want to tear somebody down,
Speaker 3: they need a vector, they need to find new way.
Speaker 3: They're like, Okay, he has a top secret SSBI clearance
Speaker 3: and polygraphs, and he was a GS fifteen, and he
Speaker 3: had an army career and was an intel and he
Speaker 3: served under mad Dog Madison.
Speaker 2: So where can I get him? Oh, he's a grifter.
Speaker 3: Clearly he's he's an arm of the government who's coming
Speaker 3: out to try to you know, all these kinds of things.
Speaker 3: So that's that's the reason why that people do this.
Speaker 3: That that's the reason why people do this is they
Speaker 3: want to they have to find a way.
Speaker 2: So they go, oh, he's a grifter. You hear these
Speaker 2: idiots scrub you.
Speaker 3: Know, content creators say it all the time, call peoper
Speaker 3: grifters when really, you know, usually when you're saying that somebody.
Speaker 3: It's really it's really you that's doing that, but you're
Speaker 3: accusing somebody.
Speaker 2: I have never called anybody.
Speaker 3: A grifter, despite that they had were monetized on all
Speaker 3: their platforms. We've never picked on anybody for that. We're like, hey, man, awesome,
Speaker 3: we just did it ourselves. So I but as far
Speaker 3: as the book, because in answer to your question, Nathan,
Speaker 3: I went dark.
Speaker 2: Now I'm gonna go light.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Julie, who's in library science, major authors rarely get rich,
Speaker 3: that's for sure.
Speaker 2: That's for sure. So here's the thing.
Speaker 3: I believe lou is the highest ranking official government official
Speaker 3: because he's the equivalent what do you say, is it
Speaker 3: a colonel or one star general being a GS fifteen.
Speaker 3: I think it's like a bird colonel, kind of like
Speaker 3: Carl Nell that rank. He's the highest ranking official to
Speaker 3: write a book. Other people have given interviews and all this,
Speaker 3: but I can't think of a government person of a
Speaker 3: higher rank that has written a book than Alizondo. I
Speaker 3: think he stuck his neck out there to get those
Speaker 3: videos released, which started the conversation, and I don't think
Speaker 3: nothing that he's said in there. I mean, I think
Speaker 3: there were some anecdotes of a real world incidents with
Speaker 3: pilots and and so forth that I hadn't heard. So
Speaker 3: there's a couple of those that were kind of neat
Speaker 3: and juicy. But it wasn't nothing he said in there
Speaker 3: was earth shattering or nothing that you know, Debs and
Speaker 3: Nathan and Courtney would not have known or heard about before.
Speaker 3: I think you guys have heard a lot of those things.
Speaker 3: I've heard some of those things. But the highest ranking
Speaker 3: official to come out and write a book, I think
Speaker 3: is noteworthy. And and he's definitely once again he's leading
Speaker 3: the charge. Now, will there be another guy? Will Dave
Speaker 3: write a book you know, and spend a year going
Speaker 3: through the adoptster process?
Speaker 2: Anyway? I think again, Nathan, you know, like and what.
Speaker 3: Actually, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna use the analogy
Speaker 3: you use because people will jump all over that.
Speaker 2: But it was a Brillian analogy. He's not a perfect person.
Speaker 2: He doesn't say he's a perfect person. He doesn't want
Speaker 2: you to think he Actually he is very self affessed,
Speaker 2: effacing and self deprecating. In his humor. He puts his
Speaker 2: he puts others above himself.
Speaker 3: He talks about a brilliance of Hew put Off and
Speaker 3: Eric Davis and Jim sam Van and Steve Justice and
Speaker 3: h Gary Nolan. And by the way, he has a
Speaker 3: totally different pronunciation of kada pattatment than what Gary.
Speaker 2: Uh. That's my biggest problem with him right.
Speaker 3: Now is his different pronunciation of kada patainment than what
Speaker 3: Gary Nolan.
Speaker 2: Taught us and made sure that. Uh.
Speaker 3: One of our guests was no deb I want you
Speaker 3: to say it.
Speaker 6: He was. He's a professor. What can I say? He
Speaker 6: was trying to teach me.
Speaker 2: I know, beautiful, right, I know you should be a
Speaker 2: professor yourself.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I think I think it was brilliant what
Speaker 3: he did. And I'm just hoping that a wider audience
Speaker 3: reads it and then with that they can put more
Speaker 3: pressure on legislators because they've read this. Hey, you know,
Speaker 3: I read this book by this guy says he's a
Speaker 3: Pentagon guy.
Speaker 2: What are we doing about this?
Speaker 3: Because there's nobody who would listen to that audiobook and
Speaker 3: go he sounds like a Nutter.
Speaker 2: So I think we're in a great place, Nathan, in
Speaker 2: terms of that.
Speaker 3: Of the disclosure movement, he I think he did it
Speaker 3: again in terms of he made another step forward that
Speaker 3: everybody else can now follow.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, I mean it's a great effort for sure.
Speaker 4: And well, you know, we're wrapping the show and I
Speaker 4: just wanted to, you know, thank our listeners and our
Speaker 4: viewers for kind of going along this conversation with us.
Speaker 4: We got some great questions from the audience. Hey, Mick,
Speaker 4: really appreciate you joining us. Hey, Mick, you know, this
Speaker 4: is an important conversation to have, and I think all
Speaker 4: of the perspectives are worthwhile and valid.
Speaker 2: And I.
Speaker 4: You know, when we talk about people that are disenfranchised,
Speaker 4: you know, I understand why.
Speaker 5: Right, we've been on.
Speaker 4: The perceiving end of decades of disinformation, misinformation. There are
Speaker 4: noted actual grifters and euthology that have taken advantage of people,
Speaker 4: and you know, have fleeced people of money and their
Speaker 4: hopes and their time and their passion.
Speaker 5: And look, no human being wants to be made a fool.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: If you've ever felt like a fool, you don't want
Speaker 4: to feel it again, right. So, and if you felt
Speaker 4: like a fool a lot, you've got your guard up
Speaker 4: and you've you've developed a very thick skin and shell
Speaker 4: so that you're not going to get hurt again, and
Speaker 4: people who have had that kind of life experience. You know,
Speaker 4: I understand why you are naturally very skeptical of this
Speaker 4: kind of information, of these kinds of individuals, because it's
Speaker 4: difficult to trust them. And I think it's okay, it's
Speaker 4: totally okay to kind of suspend your us for a
Speaker 4: little while until we get better information. And that's I
Speaker 4: hope that you can, you know, sort of at least
Speaker 4: support that effort that we get, you know, as much
Speaker 4: effort as we can into getting to the heart of
Speaker 4: what is really going on here, that we can get
Speaker 4: some greater transparency into into this issue, because it's it's
Speaker 4: been plaguing the American public for a long time. And
Speaker 4: and if if these insiders are just all making it
Speaker 4: up and all consumed by some fantasy story, well that's
Speaker 4: a story in and of itself, right, that's a huge
Speaker 4: problem that we need to kind of address within our
Speaker 4: within our government. So I think that's something we can
Speaker 4: all get behind. Eli, thank you so much for that supersticker.
Speaker 4: Really appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Elive, thank you so much for the blessing. We really
Speaker 3: do appreciate it.
Speaker 2: It's really awesome for cab. We're getting closer. My browsers
Speaker 2: not function. Can you drop off the imminent link?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 3: Yes, I can do that. It just takes me a
Speaker 3: second before we close the show.
Speaker 2: Debs.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I just I'm absorbing some of the things that
Speaker 6: we've gone over, and I think we need to just
Speaker 6: highlight some underlying themes. One of the themes is he
Speaker 6: is a human being, just like everybody else. Let's let's
Speaker 6: get past this messiah thing that some people get into
Speaker 6: or this villain thing that people get into. For him,
Speaker 6: He's just a human being like everybody else. He shared
Speaker 6: a very honest, from his perspective portrayal of what he
Speaker 6: went through, and he even admits that he doesn't really
Speaker 6: know everything, just like everyone else in the government. And
Speaker 6: I think, you know, we just have to you know,
Speaker 6: we can carry on thinking the way we want to,
Speaker 6: and he gives us permission to do that. He even
Speaker 6: says that, like, you know, think what you want, but
Speaker 6: we have to focus on sort of like the underlying statement,
Speaker 6: something wasn't working right in our government really to this topic,
Speaker 6: whether you believe it was NHI or foreign adversaries, that
Speaker 6: was a risk, and they are doing something about that.
Speaker 6: Loui's doing something, Crash just doing something, Melon's doing something,
Speaker 6: Sami A Van so on. A lot of very intelligent
Speaker 6: people who have a lot of experience that expertise to
Speaker 6: offer are coming forward and telling people something is wrong
Speaker 6: and something needs to be done about it.
Speaker 3: So I want to throw in one more thing to
Speaker 3: add on to that, since you mentioned Semi Van, and
Speaker 3: I just for you and Nathan and our folks in
Speaker 3: the chat. That link that Nathan put up right there,
Speaker 3: That is the tiny link right there. If you click
Speaker 3: on that, it'll get you into Amazon and get you
Speaker 3: the book. And also you can get the audible link
Speaker 3: from there. And for a lot of us obviously, the
Speaker 3: audible is.
Speaker 2: Very very helpful, so we can use it during our
Speaker 2: commutes and so forth. Oh there you go, lose YouTube channel.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jules, Jim, Semmi Van. I want.
Speaker 3: I want you guys to try to imagine being a
Speaker 3: CIA officer, senior officer at his level, and going into
Speaker 3: work and reporting that you were essentially.
Speaker 2: Abducted by UFOs. I can't. I can't tell you how
Speaker 2: difficult that would be. I I just can't.
Speaker 5: Huge.
Speaker 2: I mean, Nathan, can you imagine saying it to your boss.
Speaker 4: No, and like, yeah, and the stakes for me are
Speaker 4: way lower than they are for Jim.
Speaker 5: So yeah, it's a huge deal.
Speaker 2: And they believed him, and they brought in somebody, some
Speaker 2: guys to come in there and interview that free him out. Guys.
Speaker 2: And you know, I work in.
Speaker 3: A facility that is is kind of is pretty secure,
Speaker 3: and I saw I saw something like that the other day.
Speaker 3: There was a DV in the building and guys showed
Speaker 3: up that didn't have the didn't have the the badges
Speaker 3: on that that they would need to have, so I
Speaker 3: knew and they were security for that individual. So these
Speaker 3: things happened, and that's what Jim described, And it's an
Speaker 3: incredible amount of courage. I can't imagine telling your boss
Speaker 3: that and him not thinking you're alone. But that's how
Speaker 3: much they trusted him.
Speaker 5: Yep. Powerful.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you everybody. Jules.
Speaker 3: You you know, it's really irritating that you're the smartest
Speaker 3: person in the room every time and that you're able
Speaker 3: to contextualize every damn thing. Where did you go to
Speaker 3: contextualization school? Do you have a degree in it? Can
Speaker 3: you please tell me? Is it an Indiana thing? What's
Speaker 3: going on?
Speaker 2: God?
Speaker 3: Bless Indiana for you, Jules, thank you. And so yeah
Speaker 3: Jessica who popped in earlier. It looks like she's packing
Speaker 3: to move, but we made her a new mod so
Speaker 3: you should see miss Jessica and b She former Army veteran,
Speaker 3: former e O D by the way, like if you
Speaker 3: make a mistake, things go boom. And she told me
Speaker 3: her deployment dates. I think she served from nine to
Speaker 3: seventeen and she does some veterans volunteer stuff and she's
Speaker 3: going to be a guest on for True Crime for
Speaker 3: the True Crime stuff next week actually Saturday, two days
Speaker 3: from today. Anybody who's interested in cab TCU, we're having
Speaker 3: on Mike Crawford of the Young Jerks. Jerks is spelled
Speaker 3: very coolly j u rks, which I think is really cool.
Speaker 3: And Mike is going to talk about Karen Reid trial
Speaker 3: and Sandra Birchmore. There was just a huge arrest in
Speaker 3: the Sandra Birchmore case. They rested the police officer who, how.
Speaker 2: Do I say this, groomed her from a teenager and
Speaker 2: impregnated her and then killed her because his wife was
Speaker 2: having a baby and he didn't want to have four babies.
Speaker 2: So he killed her and her baby. So it's very
Speaker 2: difficult stuff. But we will talk about it on keb
Speaker 2: TCU very difficult content.
Speaker 3: So yeah, Julie's been following it. Julie now is an
Speaker 3: expert in Karen Reid and Sandra Birchmore. Is that a surprise, Nathan, Nope,
Speaker 3: not at all. Yeah, she jumps in the chat and
Speaker 3: she's asking like these super in depth questions when I
Speaker 3: have panelists on who are from Massachusetts, and Julie spent
Speaker 3: five minutes to figure the case out. So anyway, love it,
Speaker 3: I know, deb Thank you so much girlfriend.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm glad I got through some of my technological glitches.
Speaker 2: You. I salute you. So awesome to have you on
Speaker 2: and money Nathan as well, Man, I got to talk
Speaker 2: to you last night, so I missed you. Guys. Context
Speaker 2: the contextual answer.
Speaker 7: You are, I know, Jules, you might as well revel
Speaker 7: in it, man Flowers and you know all right, love
Speaker 7: you guys, Love everybody in the chat on behalf of
Speaker 7: Nathan Debs.
Speaker 2: This is DJ saying peace out, one love, We'll see
Speaker 2: you down the road. And guess what another cab episode
Speaker 2: is just around the bend.
Speaker 6: S