Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
Frozen bodies, recovered craft & “mysterious drones” - Everything is LINKED! Friends - it’s time for governments worldwide to tell the TRUTH! I will say more about the current wave of “mysterious drone” in the coming days. But right now, I want to remind you of 2 things: 1)... show more
208,071 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![This is an essential UAP transparency admission by Senator Marco Rubio: Archived. He publicly confirms that multiple high-level government officials - with accounts of personal and first-hand knowledge of working with-or-on UFO technology - have come forward to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That some whistleblowers came forward before recent UAP protections. That David Grusch is not the only person - that there are more whistleblowers, not yet known to the public. He stressed that some of these people still do work in high-positions of government with very-high security clearances - so he is being protective while intaking the information. Three statements SEN Rubio made that stood out to me... "Some of these claims are things that are beyond the realm of what any of us have ever dealt with". "Some [of these UAP whistleblowers] frankly, are fearful of harm coming to them." "You do ask yourself - what incentive would so many people with that kind of qualification have - these are serious people - to come forward and make something up?" NOTE : We ARE talking UFO retrievals - full craft and materials - that our government (and allied nations) are currently in possession of for exploitation and derivative technology interrogation. And we are talking about whistleblowers with fist-hand access to these craft or materials. Most of this testimony was given in the classified setting. Glad to see this finally spoken publicly. I am also aware that more on this will be public soon.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1673549289749098504/ext_tw_video_thumb/1673536623567335433/pu/img/NmAnw4uj9d6xnYGN.jpg)
![Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News last night that the interview he gave for the new documentary film, “The Age of Disclosure,” about unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) or what used to be called UFOs, was “three or four years ago when I was in the Senate,” that “I was describing what people had said to me, not things that I have firsthand knowledge of.” He described the “pretty spectacular claims” made by “people with high clearances in government” and said, “I just don’t have any independent way to verify everything they said.” And Rubio said the film engaged in a “Little bit of selective editing, but it’s okay, because, you know, you’re trying to sell a show there.” But Rubio also said, “I’m not disavowing” what he said in the film, and, as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor (NSA), he should have ways to either verify or debunk the spectacular claims made in “The Age of Disclosure.” If Rubio feels he lacks the power to verify the claims in the film, then he should explain why. As NSA and Secretary of State, Rubio has unparalleled access to Special Access Program briefings, compartmented intelligence, and interagency assessments comprised of top-secret and classified information. If Rubio cannot determine whether highly cleared officials are telling the truth or lying, that raises questions as troubling as those around UAPs. Many UAPs are, without question, drones and balloons. Rubio said “the point I was trying to drive at” in “The Age of Disclosure” was preparedness for anomalous threats. “We’re looking for missiles and fighter jets, and they’re coming at us with drones and balloons,” the Secretary of State explained. “I remember when NORAD turned on the radars and started looking for balloons, and all of a sudden, they spotted a bunch of balloons flying overhead, and 90% of them were innocent. A couple of them were Chinese. But we never looked for balloons because our radars aren’t trained for that.” But the Intelligence Community, the Department of Defense, and Congress have rejected the notion that all UAPs are simply advanced Chinese or Russian drones. “None of these resolved [UAP] cases substantiated advanced foreign adversarial capabilities or breakthrough aerospace technologies,” noted the Department of War last year. In “The Age of Disclosure,” Rubio, Senator Mike Rounds, Senator Chuck Schumer, and others say the government is hiding UAP information from the public and Congress. Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, said in August she thought UAPs could represent nonhuman intelligence. “Some of these people were Navy pilots, admirals, generals, whatever,” Rubio told Hannity last night, “that would come forward and say that there were programs in the US government that not even presidents were made aware of.” Pointing this out is not an appeal to authority but rather the recognition that their security clearances and activities give them access to information the public and most lawmakers do not have. Such secrecy must be justified. Whatever UAPs ultimately are, the possibility, raised again by Rubio in his Hannity interview, that America’s President, Secretary of State, Senate-confirmed intelligence heads, and Congressional overseers are being kept in the dark, is troubling. Excess UAP secrecy, as displayed by the redacted documents below, not the claims that UAPs represent nonhuman intelligence, is undermining public trust in government, which is essential for democracy and national security. For years, a large share of the American people have believed the government is hiding what it knows about UAP. Earlier this year, a survey found that 44 percent of Americans “believe the US Government is hiding information about the existence of UFOs,” against 28 percent who don’t. Gallup found that 71 and 68 percent of voters believed the government knows “more about UFOs than it is telling us” in 1996 and 2019. The public is right to believe that the government is hiding what it knows. Dramatic visual proof of this can be seen in the blackened-out pages of the handful of documents that the federal government has released about UAPs in recent years. A February 2020 US Navy UAP briefing document redacts the entire analysis section. The entire “Background,” “Objective,” and most of the substantive sections of the Charter for the Navy’s UAP Task Force is redacted. Even the guide for how to classify UAPs, “The UAP Security Classification Guide,” is heavily redacted. I have, for the last several months, urged President Trump and the leaders of the Intelligence Community to lift the redactions on these documents to no avail. Trump has repeatedly said the government is hiding information. In a summer 2020 interview with his son about an alleged UAP crash in Roswell, New Mexico, Trump said, “I won’t talk to you about what I know about it, but it’s very interesting.” In June of 2024, Trump said that the government has information about UAPs that it has not released. “I have access,” he said, “and I speak to people about it. I’ve had actually meetings on it. And they will tell you there’s something going on.” And Trump told Joe Rogan last year that “a lot” about UAPs has not been revealed. Others in the administration point to secrecy. “Frankly, there are a lot more sightings than have been made public,” said CIA Director John Ratcliffe in 2021. John Greenewald, who filed the successful FOIA requests for the redacted UAP documents described above, told Public in 2023, “Secrecy is tightening. If we are in a new level of transparency that some UFO believers want us to believe we are in, then why is that the case?” Whatever the reason for the secrecy, it is time for President Trump to level with the American people about what the government knows about UAPs. The president has significant discretion over what to share with Congress regarding classified national security material. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have expressed frustration with the information they have received regarding UAPs. “I don’t really know what is true on this subject,” said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) at a UAP hearing in September. “But I do know when we’re being lied to and we are definitely being lied to, there’s just no doubt about that.” Said Chuck Schumer in 2023, ”The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena. And Rubio said, that same year, “There is a lot we still don’t know about these UAPs and that is a big problem.” In 1953, the Office of Scientific Intelligence of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked with a professor at the California Institute of Technology to create a panel of experts to discredit (“debunk”) sightings out of fear that the Soviets would use public panic and misinformation to undermine trust in the government or distract from actual threats. “The ‘debunking’ aim would result in a reduction in public interest in ‘flying saucers’ which today evokes such a strong psychological reaction,” wrote the report’s authors. But the report, declassified in 1975 and made public in 2001, simply asserted these risks and offered no evidence of such threats. In fact, while the report expressed concern that “skillful hostile propaganda could induce hysterical behavior and harmful distrust of duly constituted authority,” it also noted that “the general absence of Russian propaganda based on a subject with so many obvious possibilities for exploitation might indicate a possible Russian official policy.” Despite the “debunking” effort, President Jimmy Carter said, while running for office in 1976, “If I become president, I’ll make every piece of information this country has about UFO sightings available to the public and the scientists. I am convinced that UFOs exist because I’ve seen one.” Public distrust of the government is proof that the CIA’s 1950s approach of “debunking” has not worked. And anyone who thinks it’s dangerous for current and former government officials to say that UAPs may represent nonhuman intelligence should advocate for greater transparency and disclosure by the government about what it knows.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the full article, and watch the entire video!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1996315637397016601/amplify_video_thumb/1996314571116888064/img/waEaaB_TVyqEJ6WZ.jpg)
![Mellon knows people who believe 100% that the USG and/or its contractors have materials and craft from a non-human intelligence. But, he also knows this... "I can tell you that there are senior Pentagon people who do not believe that there's any crash material [and] do think that this is all bogus." ~Christopher K. Mellon in Barcelona (People like to ignore this from Mellon but I won't. I shared similar comments from him at this same conference back when he said it but the post did crappy because a lot of people just want info. that will confirm their beliefs. As Rizwan Virk said, it would be interesting to see what Mellon thinks today, as this was in the fall of 2022, before Grusch went public. Obviously, Mellon knew about Grusch when he made these comments.) Mellon: "I can tell you that there are senior Pentagon people who do not believe that there's any crash material [and] do think that this is all bogus, they think it's rubbish. And, uhhh, and, you know, much less disclosure. And I'm talking about very, very senior people who have access to a lot of information. And they're saying, in some cases, to the people on The Hill, 'What are you talking about?' And, you know, 'Show us the evidence.' And, you know, they're mystified, still. "So, the UFO community, of which I'm a part, I guess, but you know, we have a tendency to see and hear, you know, one side of the story in our own stuff. And there's a lot of conspiracy theories because the government has lied and concealed information, and all of those things. The conspiracy theories grow in darkness, right? "But, to the best of my knowledge, the federal government is not in charge of running, it doesn't have any big plan, and disclosure is not imminent. If it does happen, it'll be the result of the efforts of people in Congress right now, and people who are taking action. And a small number of people who may have this information, if they come forward."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2068153674862584273/amplify_video_thumb/2068146697084289024/img/vyFqUTIvqfamjkpD.jpg)
!["It's not a congressional program. Only the president can say anything about this." ~Semivan Semivan: Congress Doesn't Have the Right or Need-To-Know About a Crash Retrieval Program Thoughts? Grusch decided Congress had a need-to-know, and Congress hadn't been told. "Which I don't think was true." ~Semivan ~~~ Semivan: "Some of the congressmen now that are being briefed (laughs) on it are not very happy because they think they have a right to know this. And I like to point out, I spoke to a couple of the committees and I told them, 'Look, it's not a congressional program. It's an executive program, and it's run by the president and only the president can say anything about this. I can't say anything about it, the president has to come out.'" (Note: Semivan was careful to cover his azz and say these were answers about a, hypothetical, crash retrieval program. Although, from his past comments, I'm pretty sure he knows (or at least believes) it exists. See here: Semivan Blockbuster I know where the legacy programs are located. You should take [Grusch] and everything he says to the bank. It's our inalienable right to know about this. ) ~ Semivan: "It's what Dave Grusch said. Dave Grusch...worked for AARO (He meant the UAPTF) and he went to various intelligence agencies and questioned the people that were actually working on these programs. And they all told them the same thing, the same story. So he takes this back, and he decides Congress has a need-to-know, and Congress hasn't been told. Which I don't think was true. He didn't know that, but he thought the public also had a right to know. And I'm perfectly fine... He did the exact right thing you're supposed to do if you're a government employee if you think there's something going on that's not legal. And he did it the right way. So, I give him a load of credit for that. And then he explains what it was, and then he's briefing some of the congressmen on this. Now the congressmen are upset, saying, 'Well, wait a minute, we're in charge of spending for the government and what have you. We should have the ability to know this.' But what Congress doesn't realize is these programs, you know, they exist at a very, very high classified level. They're Special Access Programs, and I would say, maybe the Gang of Eight, if them, have the clearances to basically know of these programs. And even if they were to be told of the programs, they could never discuss it, nor could they ever debate it, publicly. It's not theirs to do. They would be told, officially, but just, you know, as a professional courtesy that these things are going on. "Don't forget, the CIA works directly for the President of the United States, all right? So if the CIA would be running this program (AFAIK, they are. ~Joe), they just, basically, talk to the president and the president talks to them. And those conversations are not subject to congressional notification, approval or anything else. And when CIA goes to the oversight committees and briefs their programs, the committees can't tell them, 'We don't like what you're doing.' Well, they can say that. But the only thing they can do, they can't stop the programs. All they can do is stop the funding. "So, you know, the intelligence agencies that work directly for the president answer to him and him only, really. They do tell Congress, because Congress does give them money and there is...that's been going on since 1975 now, and it's a great thing to do. And they've been very, very open and honest with Congress, and Congress, I think, has been wonderful about it. As a matter of fact, you know, Congress has, basically, said in some of these programs, 'Holy cow, this is great! Give a round of applause, you need more money, because what you guys are doing [is] great.' The relationship has always been very good. I thought, you know, between them." (But the folks in the intelligence agencies who are aware of the alleged Legacy UAP-related programs, do NOT tell Congress about them. Except, as Semivan said, MAYBE some members of the Gang of Eight. Certainly NOT members of Congress like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna or Rep. Eric Burlison. I think they have zero chance of being read in right now.) Semivan: "But that doesn't mean if the president, like Truman or Eisenhower, issued a presidential executive-action document or something along those lines, where he said, 'This is an extraordinary circumstance. I'm creating this super-secret thing that nobody gets to know about, not even Congress.' That's, basically, his...he can do that. That's in the power, that's in the Constitution. He has that right to do that without acknowledging." (THAT is how these alleged Legacy UAP programs are protected.) Semivan: "Now, has he (a president) done that without telling somebody? Probably there's one or two people in Congress that know about it at any given time. Maybe one or two people in the National Security Council know about it. Most presidents probably got a very generalized briefing on it, you know, saying, 'Yeah, this is real. If you wanna know more, we can tell you more. But, if you know more then you don't have plausible deniability anymore. And/or, you can't do anything about it anyway, because we don't understand it. But if something happens [and] we discover something that's groundbreaking or earth shattering, we'll come back and tell ya.' "So, imagine if you're a President of the United States. Do you really want to know this? Do you really want to have that hanging on your shoulders? I think not. Particularly when you have somebody else doing the job for you."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1964791704948703671/amplify_video_thumb/1964765866677141504/img/Oc6iqDE9eLvsulqq.jpg)
!["If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2030480027666747596/amplify_video_thumb/2030373285926694913/img/_-25iW0LmiKeRcjI.jpg)
![[UAP], "were frying the equipment on the aircraft. Some of our most state-of-the-art technology." ~Luna (Note: Transcript is much longer than video clip below) 🤔 Luna: There Are No "Holy Shit" Videos That I've Seen That The Public Has Not 🤔 The 46 videos we requested, "have all now been declassified." ~Rep. Anna Paulina Luna "ALL 46 [videos] have not been released." ~Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell to Me (I'd like to get that clarified from Rep. Luna) "If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up at...you'd be up at night worrying about, or thinking about this stuff." ~Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office to Rob Finnerty And Burchett added that we'd, "come unglued." We also had this... "It was one of those moments where everyone in the room gasped. Everyone. Even the staffers who are like, the most skeptical people in the room just gasped when they saw that video. Because there's not a single aerial thing that can do something like that, that can pull that off." ~Rep. Eric Burlison (Has that video been released?) Compare that to what Luna said... Douthat: "Is there anything else out there (video-wise) that is like, a holy-shit moment?" Luna: "As far as a lot of the meat and potatoes that we've been able to see and gotten briefings on, it's, for the most part, been put out." (So nothing to keep us up at night or to make us come unglued, or...make us gasp. I appreciate her being level headed with that and not hyping it. So, what are Burlison and Burchett talking about? I have learned to see things for myself first before getting too excited about what others say about x, y and z. Some of those videos in the two releases ARE very interesting but nothing has kept me up at night or made me gasp. Do videos like that even exist? It's not the first time I've asked that question.) ~~~Extended Transcript from Segment~~~ Douthat: "You have had access, before these videos were released. In what context have you seen these videos before they were released? Luna: "So I went into the SCIF and...I went and actually observed and saw all the videos before they were released to go through, numerically, to make sure that those were the ones that correlated to the ones that we had actually put out in the request. So those have all now been declassified." Douthat: "All of the ones?" Luna: "Yeah, in the list." (Remember: Regarding the list of 46, Corbell told me that, ""ALL 46 [videos] have not been released.") Douthat: "But how did you get the list of videos in the request?" Luna: "We had a group that came forward, it was bipartisan, former whistleblowers from the intelligence community that had access to... I would compare it to something like YouTube that exists within the intelligence community. And they came up with the files, and they said you need to get access to these files and have them released. And so, before the order came out from the President, we had come up with this list. We had been getting push back, and then after [Trump] gave the green light for it, it was declassified, and those are now up and able to be [viewed] at the Department if War." Douthat: "And what do you think they show?" Luna: "Well, there's some interesting stuff. I think that they show UAPs. There has been one of the videos that has since been debunked to be actually the infrared that was picking up aircraft that was farther in distance, but the optics are kind of an illusion in that sense. So there's been one that's been debunked. But there are ones that they cannot explain. They've tried to cross-reference it with other data, and the way that these things are maneuvering are pretty wild. And so, again, I think that they show UAPs in some instances." Douthat: "Right. And you think that one reason to take this stuff seriously is that they correlate with direct-pilot testimony of the kind that you've heard, right. So it's not like, I'm just... Imagine the completely skeptical listener or viewer, of which there are reasonably many, who says, 'Okay, you have some number of videos, we don't know what they are, but if one of them turns out to be sort of some prosaic explanation, we can assume a lot of them will be.' So what else makes you think..." Luna: "In the specific incident of Eglin Air Force Base, which is where we had the pilot testimony and we were able to see some images, these things were frying the equipment on the aircraft. Some of our most state-of-the-art technology is getting completely fried." Douthat: "And this is something that pilots told you had happened to them? Luna: "Yes, yep. Now, the other issue is, sometimes pilots won't report because they don't want to be taken off flight status. So there's removing the stigma of if you're supposed to have safe flying. You want to also track national security issues. You have to be able to document this stuff. But when you have this type of stuff impacting military training, impacting flight operations, impacting our technology, it's a problem. "We should follow up, and then say, 'Okay, well, is this technology that, potentially, could be advanced tech from adversary nations? I don't, necessarily, think that's the case, because if that was true, we wouldn't be number one, currently. Some of this stuff that we're seeing is pretty wild. You saw the New York Times report (2017 and the Tic Tac ~Joe), and just how it's defying physics, if you will. But then the other aspect of, what can we as Congress do next? We can declassify. I don't think, you know, this aspect of people saying it's not enough..." Douthat: "Are there things that you've seen in a SCIF, or not in a SCIF, that are wilder than this (the videos that have already been released)? That would like, make the front page of the New York Times as, you know, no one can be skeptical anymore?" Luna: "No, I think the aspect of, do I have, you know, a location where there's a little green man on a slab in a fridge (laughs). I don't think I'm gonna get that (laughs)." Douthat: "Wait, we're gonna get to that. Just stick with the videos. Is there anything else out there that is like, a holy-shit moment?" Luna: "Well, I think that there's probably going to be some more release of other videos as well, other testimony. They're still combing. But, as far as a lot of the meat and potatoes that we've been able to see and gotten briefings on, it's, for the most part, been put out."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2064130794973774042/amplify_video_thumb/2063015130917732352/img/1I_Up7yZ_LcHIuXv.jpg)
!["I'm telling the administration...that if they don't release those [videos I've seen], then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." ~Burlison (Transcript and comments by me on one of my fav segments in a long time.) ~ Will Cain: "Missouri Republican Congressman, Rep. Eric Burlison, joins me now. Congressman, thanks for being with us here today. You and I, Congressman, I think we've had a very candid conversation together. We have both talked about the fact that I am open and curious about this subject of UAPs, but I do feel like we're at a place where evidence needs to start meeting expectations. What we've seen today, what does this tell us? Does this meet any expectation?" Burlison: "I think that there's...we have to take a step back and recognize the historic nature of this. Every president prior to President Trump has really demurred any kind of questions on this. They dismissed them, they would not talk about it. People would, if anything, snicker or sneer anytime this kind of subject came up. So the fact that we have a president who is open and willing and trying to be transparent is something to celebrate. "That being said, I think that this is a teaser, this is a kind of a, you know, something to open up with. This was the low-hanging fruit kind of videos and content for this administration to release. A lot of this has been...some of this has been out there before. It's not been acknowledged, right? So, you're looking at Apollo 17 video..." Cain: "I've seen the same thing said by Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office. That this is sort of the beginning, and there will be other releases that could leave Americans with a holy crap moment. I believe that's a direct quote from Congressman Tim Burchett." (This is what Burchett tweeted today: Burchett: "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say 'Holy Crap' is coming." I hope so. Or people are going to be upset that the videos and evidence didn't meet the hype, and you may see a lot of people losing interest in this topic. Last month, he told Elizabeth Vargas: “I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have." ~Burchett And also last month, he told NEWSMAX: “If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff... And for the record, I'm not suicidal and I don't take risks.” ~Burchett (That's some major hype there and, again, I hope future videos live up to it. I'm gonna guess that Burlison is NOT a fan of getting people's expectation up like that.) Cain: "My question for you, or the congressman, would be: Why? Why slow roll this out like it's a season of 'Game of Thrones'? Like, why would Episode 1 be somewhat uninspiring - leave us with more questions than answered - if there's something coming after the teaser? What's the point in staging the release?" Burlison: "So, again, this...just from talking with the White House and this administration, this is not an easy thing to do. There's not one huge repository of all of these documents and videos and photos. Despite what most people believe, they're really...at least we haven't found that one, you know, big repository. So what the Agency is doing is going and finding, first and foremost, the items that are readily available to be released. And they wanna be quick...move quickly and release those." (Okay, so they haven't located the best videos yet? Then what was Burchett shown? And if what he was shown is really THAT amazing, why haven't those videos or photos been released? Drip, drip? The excuse that they haven't been able to locate them yet doesn't hold water IF Burchett's take is accurate and they showed him SOMETHING that blew his mind and will blow our minds. Or, did he just hype it up and whatever he saw is really not that impressive? As I've asked several times in the past: Do these amazing videos actually exist?) Burlison: "I would ask you, would you prefer to have them wait for, you know, years, what would probably take years if they were to do a comprehensive study and then release it all at once, in one big batch? I would prefer that they release it as they find it, and I think that that's...this administration wants to be transparent and do that." (Great! How about releasing what Burchett was referring to in his interviews?) Cain: "My criticism is not for the decisions of the administration." (Well, if the Trump administration isn't releasing the best of the best videos that they already have in their possession because they're afraid of how Americans (and the world) might react (fear and panic), then they DO deserve some criticism, right?) Cain: "My criticism is for the expectation built by many out there that have these conversations, that there will soon be a bomb to drop when it comes to revelations about aliens." (Burchett, and then Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with her repeated comments about interdimensional beings. Luna: "...this is something you can go back and watch with the Congressional hearings - but I was actually able to ask some of the witnesses, 'What are these things?' And they keep saying interdimensional. "I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings and he's very specific about that." Grusch has NEVER said that, nor has any witness who testified in front of Congress, so I have no idea where she's getting that from.) Cain: "And, if that's true, are we trying to prepare the American people with a slow drip, drip, drip tease of this stuff? If not, then Congressman, I would say, if this is all we've got, then I'm not sure that there's anything the American government really has that tells us anything about the existence of aliens? I'm just beginning to feel like this entire story is teased out always just beyond our reach." (That's why we need just ONE (for starters) clear and close-up video of an object performing maneuvers that we thought were impossible. And as of right now, we don't have that. I've said this many times. Does that type of video exist?) Burlison: "I can sense your frustration. I've experienced it personally myself. I've seen videos that I think are in the process of being declassified, so I think that there is more to come. If they're not going to be declassified, I'll probably do an effort to release them myself under Speech and Debate." (In short, the Speech or Debate clause says that a Senator or Representative can speak freely about anything, or share anything, in either house of Congress and have absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability. I'll link to an example in the replies.) Burlison: "But again, a lot of the footage that I've seen is similar to what has been released today. There's some that are pretty interesting, and especially given the environment and the circumstances of the videos. Whether they are videos of UAP that are flying around Russian submarines or a video of our aircraft that are firing on some of these UAPs? I've seen those kind of videos. And so I'm teasing that because I know that...I'm telling the administration, through you (Will Cain) at this moment, that if they don't release those, then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." (How much better are those videos than what we've seen today?) Cain: "Can I say one more thing about this, congressman? I expect you and I will have much longer conversations like we have in the past, where we have fewer time constraints. But what I'm seeing here, and we're sharing today, and what's been released, there are probably hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of explanations for what we see on these video screens. They don't lead us directly to extraterrestrial or out-of-this-world explanations. "Is there something else? Is there some other proof that you've seen? Is there a more compelling video that can't be described or explained as a drone or a light refraction or any other thing. Again, I'm not cynically dismissing these things, as I've always mentioned to you. I'm open and curious. I just don't think the evidence is meeting the moment." (I agree with Cain. The government-released or government-acquired footage just doesn't get us over the hump with the masses and skeptics.) Burlison: "I think you and I are at the exact same place. I continue to look for these things and try to follow the narrative that people are saying. Follow the historical narrative that we have a crash retrieval program, and this is the kind of information I keep getting presented. It doesn't mean that we don't stop looking." Cain: "Fair." (If we have recovered craft and bodies of non-humans, and it can be PROVEN, then these videos from today will be forgotten instantly.) Burlison: "And I have...and so the White House and the ODNI is looking for the next places to go investigate. And I think that...and they've actually been open in asking me where those next places should be, and so we're offering..we're gonna be working to offer those locations. A lot of this, Will, is gonna be in the hands of these agencies that are quasi-private or private companies, and that's gonna be a harder dig for this, for this administration to do, but that's where I think we're gonna get to the truth." (Let's start with the "holy crap" videos Burchett hyped and saw and see if they are as good as he's claiming.) Cain: "Well, to his defense, the President hasn't made big promises about what this would reveal. I don't think I can say that about everyone who purports to have seen something that there are big revelations, and so far, the evidence in the videos haven't met the promises. I do hope we continue to see more, congressman. I hope you do fight so we can see more. Obviously, transparency and answers is what we're seeking here on what would be a gigantic issue. Congressman Burlison, thanks, as always, for your time." Burlison: "Anytime."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2052883224360268226/amplify_video_thumb/2052858049346588672/img/orKO2FR28wwc7S1J.jpg)
![👽🔥 New Dylan - Biologics🔥👽 "There's things that I knew that these people were aware of, but even they would not say. One of those being biologics." ~DB "The agreement was that, if they died, that I run with it and just blow the whole thing up." ~DB Firsthand witnesses to the Legacy program, "would never come forward in a million years unless they were gonna die." ~DB "When I was still in government...I brought the people who worked on [the biological analysis of non-human bodies] to The Hill." ~Grusch ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Did you physically see photos? Did you physically see these documents?" Dylan Borland: "No, but because of how much was given to me in relay that the individuals that had relayed it, they were doing so because they were genuinely concerned for their life, because their careers were taken, their houses were broken into. I mean, computers taken, mailboxes gone through. And again, they knew what I was going through at this time. They had given me enough information, and the agreement was that, if they died, that I run with it and just blow the whole thing up." Corbell: "So he's got his firsthand experience of this tech, but then this is something George and I hear a lot. Which is, in the Legacy, when you're kind of put into the bad camp - you know, you're under scrutiny now - that there are these people that are threatening you, and you do feel afraid for your life. And we'll get to it, but there are some things that occurred to you as this gets kind of deeper and deeper with what's happening. "But just to be clear: So you're in a place where there's some sort of purgatory going on. Everybody has clearance, but they're in this sort of purgatory. You're in this sort of purgatory?" Borland: "A few of us, yep." Corbell: "And then, people directly involved in the Legacy program are afraid for their lives, so they're telling you so that at least somebody at their level can take that information if something bad happens to them?" Borland: "I think it was definitely that, but it was also, this is such an isolating, lonely experience, especially for young people to be exposed to the reality of this. If you already don't have the acknowledgement that it's a possibility, like if you're...I don't want to say closed minded. If you're an average Joe Blow going through life, and then all of a sudden this pops up on your radar, and you're seeing physical proof of it, you probably take a step back and go, 'whoa.' So you have that aspect, then these same people have that aspect of it, and they also have the aspect of their government destroying them." (In other words, people like us would be excited to see proof of what we all suspect. But someone new to the topic might freak out a bit.) George Knapp: "So they are going through the same thing you are." Borland "Exactly." Knapp: "Their clearances are in limbo, home break ins, threats..." Borland: "When I come into contact with these people, they had had to resign from their government position and take a contracting job for less money. They were, basically, blacklisted for six months. The only reason they ended up getting a job was because somebody on the Legacy program had hooked them up after six months. And they ended up where I was at, and they heard me talking all this stuff, and they're like, 'Oh, you ended up here too, buddy. So, uh, what the hell is going on here?' Knapp: "It's like the island of bad toys or something like that." Borland: "Yeah." Knapp: "You know, put them all in one basket." Borland: "After I saw what I saw, and I've experienced what I've experienced, I kind of...I think most of us have, taken the delve into all of this material (points toward a bookshelf full of what appear to be UFO books). And you're like, 'I know this is true, I know this is true, I know this is true. Who else is saying these true things? Who else is relaying information I know to be true, to try and make sense of your own life?' "Um, they were aware of what I was talking about. I don't know the capacity in which they were briefed in. There's things that I knew that these people were aware of, but even they would not say. Um, one of those being biologics." ~~~ (This is the best anecdote we have about government officials being briefed on bodies.) Joe Rogan: "When it comes to these...actual entities...do we have an understanding of how many of them we're talking about, and the variety of them?" Grusch: "There is a variety and we have a certain number of (laughs) different things... I talked to people who were familiar with the biological analysis of everything. So we have some idea, not a complete picture because it's like, you know, looking at it, it's like, well I don't even understand the physiology at all. It's like, what the heck? It's like, way different, right? So..." Rogan: "Is there a description of this physiology?" Grusch: "Yeah, no, I was in the room when uhhh... I gotta be careful, I don't wanna... I was in Washington, DC with a very number of senior people that work for members of Congress (Senate staffers seems like a safe bet ~Joe). Put it that way. When I was still in government. And I brought the people who worked on that stuff to The Hill. And this is why the members were so confident to put out the Schumer amendment and stuff. And, I was like, 'Please explain.' And they went into all those details and stuff. And I remember (laughs) some of the professional staff members were like, 'Whoa.' Like they were like, in G-Loc, right? Cause, I mean, and like, a total world bubble got burst right there for a lot of people." Source, with video... ~Back to Dylan~ Knapp: "You think there's a storehouse of that information that anybody would have put something away in case something bad happened to them? And do you know what happened to these people?" Borland: "You know the ones that I know still continue in the government. Um, I think they continue in classified-operations programs." Knapp: "They're not coming forward." Borland: "They would never come forward in a million years unless they were gonna die. And that's...it really sucks for me coming forward, because I only came forward because I sincerely believed they were going to die. Sucks."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1973836754924024096/amplify_video_thumb/1973828016146120704/img/14hv48VX7OCn30ff.jpg)
