Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
💥Bam!💥 "[AARO] seem to be performing [the] function [of counterintelligence], don't they?" ~Lacatski (Lacatski dropping some truth bombs today!) ~ Lacatski: "I wouldn't say [AARO is] lying. I would say they're doing their job. And that's their job. Counterintelligence is a job, it's a position." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell:... show more
40,538 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
!["What [Grusch is] saying is credible." ~Lacatski Did Lacatski See the Craft? Is the Crash Retrieval Program Illegal? Also, Lying for National Security...and Darkness (One of the most important books you can buy is, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" by Lacatski, Kelleher, and George Knapp. This interview (which includes L, K & GK) is one of my favs.) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "What are your thoughts on David Grusch and what he said at that hearing?" Dr. James Lacatski: "I don't know Mr. Grusch. Never met him. I was asked, almost verbatim, the same question by a congressional office to me. A telephone conversation. And I said, 'I don't have a comment. What he's saying is credible.' Now, let me do say one thing that I never witnessed, and I don't know if Colm ever witnessed this. But I never saw any of what I would consider illegal activities. I saw security procedures that are paramount, but not illegal activities. So, I don't concur with that. But, it's reasonable what he's saying, and that's what I told them." Corbell: "Okay, it's reasonable, that we have UFOs we're reverse engineering, that there are biologicals associated with those craft." Lacatski: "Well, we didn't cover biologicals because I can't say anything about that. Uh." Corbell: "Why can't you say, you don't know, or?" Lacatski: "Uh. I can't say anything about that, Jeremy (laughs)." Corbell: "Okay, no, that's great, that's great. So just another question about that, right?" Lacatski: "Well, let me tell you. These books are loaded with questions because someone criticized me, gave me a three rating on 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon.' Wait 'til they read this one. They said, 'It's textbook-like.' Well, in a sense, they are. They're a learning instrument. And one thing, and I don't know if I discussed this with you, Colm, but I was gonna put, like a textbook, questions in the back of each chapter. What do you think and what do you... Just for the... Now, I wasn't going to give an answer sheet to them. But basically, I think that people really need to delve deeper into the books they have." Corbell: "The big question with David Grusch was there like, well, he didn't see a UFO. Now you're in a meeting in the Capitol Hill, and you're telling them, 'We have a UFO, we've gotten inside of it.' Did you see it yourself?" Lacatski: "Can't answer that." Corbell: "Okay, but if the answer was no, you could answer that, right?" (This is a really important answer. 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼) Lacatski: "No, that comes...goes back to something that occurred, a similar question, very similar to your question. It wasn't asked by you, but it was asked to Colm, and he said, 'We found no smoking gun.' That is the standard answer we're to give. So I could say 'No,' and it still not be the truth. So the thing is, security is paramount, we followed the rules, and there's a good reason to follow them." (In other words, they can lie to protect national security. And THAT is why Admiral Wilson will say stuff like, Eric Davis? Never met him. When, in fact, Davis met and interviewed Wilson in October of 2002. But the crash retrieval program they discussed is one of the most sensitive programs on the planet. And thus, the lies from Wilson. Corbell really tried his best to push Lacatski. What's the reason for not being able to talk about some of this stuff?) Corbell: "Yeah, you can't tell me that good reason. We've talked about that. You can't give me that good reason, but you're alluding to a really good reason why you can't tell me more about biologics, UFOs, exploitation. You can only say what you said. I get that. I wish you could give me a good reason, because it makes me very suspicious. It makes people like me very suspicious. But what is it? Is the reason so dark, is it so disturbing?" Lacatski: "Oh, I see. If you want my opinion on that, I see no darkness at all here."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1956790504668180683/amplify_video_thumb/1956786447383756800/img/8_UjvCXgYfRuDL4J.jpg)
![💥 I Did NOT Expect Lacatski to Say This 💥 Levitating triangles have been reported over military bases. Has the USG been able to achieve that level of technology? Lacatski: "(3-second pause) It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." (I think this is kind of a bombshell claim, but I don't understand why he can say that, but not say if he saw, and entered, the alleged non-human craft that we, supposedly, acquired and have allegedly breached the hull on. And as far not achieving the level of tech to its full extent? How far have we gone? 50% 75%?) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: You (Dr. Jim Lacatski) said, "a study focused solely on UFOs, on various unknown nuts and bolts-type craft, flittering around in the skies over military bases and facilities would never get to the heart of a much larger and complicated mystery. And I think what you were trying to say to us is, if you just think you're gonna study UFOs, you're gonna be smacked with reality. Reality is, the UFO phenomenon is just shrouded and covered with what you would call, I don't know the good word, abnormal aspects of reality." Lacatski: "Yes, yes. That you've gotta look much further than nuts and bolts. Now, can you study nuts and bolts and use it for a levitating craft? [That] would be tremendous. Doesn't have to be a fast craft. But a levitating airliner? Think about where it could go, everywhere in the world, it wouldn't need an airport." Corbell: But don't you think we've already achieved that, like we hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "It hasn't been achieved to its full extent."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1986190354266399146/amplify_video_thumb/1986185326327701509/img/cjJ3pHx6xZMg8ZQ3.jpg)
![▲ Davis: Lacatski Never Told Us We Had Made Progress with Reverse Engineering! ▲ (This may be kind of a big deal. I've posted several times about Lacatski's claim that we've reverse engineered craft, but not to their full extent. Say what? I've always been surprised that Lacatski said that. If it's true, it's HUGE. Today, Davis addressed it, and his answer seems to put to bed the claim that he's (Davis) been trying to hide any progress we may have made on that front, as others have suggested. Hell, I thought he might be downplaying any progress we've made on that because these guys (Eric, Lue, Stratton, etc.) don't want our adversaries to know certain things, and I thought that was one of those things. Yes, Davis has always downplayed (and pretty much rejected) the claim that we've made progress on the reverse-engineering front, but it now appears he was saying that only because that's what he had learned through his investigations and research and not because he was trying to protect that specific secret.) Dr. Eric Davis: "So the military was seeing triangles, and so, we were...so the AAASAP was trying to figure out the physics of how to do that type of propulsion. And [Lacatksi] was asked by Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell, "Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAASAP had a lot of value?' And Jim Lacatski replied, 'It hasn't been achieved to its full extent (laughs).'" (As you've seen me ask more than a few times: If not to the full extent, how much? 50% 75? If we've really had success, that's an important question. Glad to see Davis and I are on the same page with that. And was Lacatski JUST referring to triangular craft, or all craft in our possession?) Davis: "So how much did they achieve it? 25% 50% 75% I don't know because he never told us! So, Hal Puthoff and I have talked about these things, and we're looking at each other like, 'Huh?' So, uhh...no, this isn't disinformation." (I've wondered on here if it was a disinformation attempt by Lacatski to trick our adversaries into thinking we may have made more progress than we actually have. But Davis appears to think otherwise.) Davis: "This is the DOPSR telling Jim what he can say publicly in his books versus what he can't say in his books. And they cleared him to say what he said, and obviously they cleared him to say what he said to Corbell and George Knapp." (Either that, or he slipped up during the interview with "Weaponized." But Lacatski seems to measure his words and he doesn't appear to be a guy who slips up like that. He's VERY hesitant to share too much because he's said that our adversaries are listening to every word he says or writes.) Davis: "I haven't read his second and third books yet, so I don't know if that thing about the triangles is even in there. I haven't gone all the way through the first book yet, either. So, it's real. Lacatski would have the eligibility for access." ~~~ The original exchange between Corbell and Lacatski... Jeremy Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value?" Lacatski: "It hasn't been achieved to its full extent."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2073950830676652248/amplify_video_thumb/2073936760367972352/img/_NhaEXnYuuhK5014.jpg)
