Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
Give everything, , surrender your soul, show your respect, accept 💦🫥👅 #cock #hypno #sissygasm #gooner #trans #shemale #goon #cumslut #cumshot #trans #girlcock #pornaddict
23,812 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![[eng trans] Gunil's 11-Minute Concert Ment at Summer Xcape 2026 🐹 hello, it's gunil. so, did something happen yesterday? firstly, i'd just like to share a few thoughts about how i felt during today's show. i'm always the type to talk for a long time, so i'm trying to be careful because i'm worried some of you might fall asleep. but if you want to sleep, that's okay. you have the freedom. 🐹 anyway, the thing i felt while performing today was that... honestly, i think yesterday we were all still a little shy around each other. i know some of you were here yesterday too. because of that, i was honestly really worried about today. ah, but still, we only had two days to begin with, so since this is the second and final day, we really have to enjoy ourselves and have fun without any regrets. i wanted Xdizzto have fun, and i wanted villains to have fun too. but i kept thinking, will that really work out? i was really worried about it a lot. 🐹 but the moment today's first performance started, you all welcomed us with such loud cheers that i think those worries just disappeared. and honestly, today, even when we made our silly jokes, you reacted so well. you cheered like this even when jooyeon was just tuning his guitar. ah, i'm really, truly grateful for that. so, in conclusion, i had a great time today. 🐹 i think it's almost been five years since our debut now, right? five calendar years, right? anyway, some time has passed, and while we've stood on countless stages during that time, i think yesterday and today, Xcape 2026, will remain one of those performances that i'll remember for a very long time. 🐹 today's concert was really fun. but when i think to myself whether that means it was a perfect performance... personally, i don't think so. while i was playing the drums and listening through my in-ear monitor, there were parts i felt like were lacking. and the more i perform, the more ideas i have about areas we can improve so we can make our concerts even more enjoyable. i've noticed a lot of those things myself, and found parts i wanted to improve. so yes, although today's concert was really fun, i won't let us become satisfied with just this. i want us to continue creating performances that are even more fun and have better quality. that's something i really wanted to tell all of you. 🐹 did you all have fun? you all traveled such a long way to get here. for a lot of people, yeongjongdo is actually pretty far away. so the fact that you came all the way here just to see xdiz, is really an act of love. thank you once again, from the bottom of my heart, for loving us so much and coming all this way to support us. i'm not crying. my nose isn't stuffed either. can you hear my sniffling? when i talk quietly, I don't think you can hear me. 🐹 anyway, along time ago, i made a promise to you all, didn't i? i said that xdiz would always be the kind of team that keeps simmering bone broth. [see reply for the context of his "real bone broth" ment] of course, if you eat bone broth every single day, eventually you might start doubting and think "is this really bone broth?" because you get so used to it. but i really cross my heart on this. i'll bet everything on this. without lying, i'll always give my absolute best. i think that's only natural. isn't it wrong to not give your best? 🐹 anyway, i hope you'll continue to believe in us. i hope you keep trusting xdiz. we'll also keep working hard so we can live up to that trust. i believe that precious relationships, as they get deeper, will have more crises/problems. because, well, think about your precious friends. or maybe a neighborhood friend you're close with. or a classmate you were incredibly close to. haven't there been incidents where suddenly that relationship becomes strained because of a crisis? but i believe that a crisis can become an opportunity. so even if there are any of you who may have doubted us, i want to use that as an opportunity to keep proving ourselves to you. 🐹 i hope you know that we're never the kind of people, or the kind of team, that would carelessly take you for granted or treat your love half-heartedly. and i'm so grateful that there are far more people who don't think that way. we really love you all so much. we'll keep talking together after every show, giving each other feedback among ourselves, adressing the areas we fell short on today, and working hard to show you performances that are even more fun and with higher quality. 🐹 oh, right. earlier, when i talked about that promise while mentioning the bone broth, there was something else i said back then too. do you remember me saying the bigger this group gets, as more and more new villains join us, i mentioned that i was afraid some of you may leave so i said i wanted to protect all of you no matter what. nobody actually says things like "what will you protect? protect yourself first." but i think you all understand what i feel. 🐹 honestly, every single one of you is genuinely precious to me. whether there's just one villain or 200,000 villains, you're all still villains. but as our fandom keeps growing, it naturally starts feeling like one huge group. so because of that, i think we might stop feeling like we're seen as an individual person anymore. once again, what i want to tell you here is that every single piece of love that each of you sends us is incredibly precious. really. every single one of you. everyone here, from zone 1 all the way to zone 7000 is so incredibly precious to us. 🐹 when one person comes together... ah no, not just one person. when one person, then another person come together, sometimes they become ten thousand people. that's how it goes, doesn't it? 🐹 anyway, you all know the song "one candle", right? oh, i'm sorry. this is really the last one... actually, you all know i'm a tmi talker. you know, a too much talker. so for a while, i've been telling myself, "ah, i need to restrain myself" and holding back but it's been a while, so, i'll loosen up my mouth a bit more. 🐹 i really love the song "one candle" it talks about how when one candle joins another, then another, and so on, they become one really great light. you are every single one of those lights. when you're standing alone, in a way, you might sometimes feel insignificant. but truly, every one of you is not insignificant. not at all. 🐹 we will become xdiz that grows by constantly reflecting on ourselves, growing through self-reflection, and will never lose our humility so we can become a team that doesn't feel insignificant even if there's just one of us, and even if there were only one of you, we'd still give everything we have until the very end. we would be really grateful if you'll keep believing in us until the very end. and i'll keep believing in our villains until the very end too. thank you. 🐹 also, wasn't this concert amazing? the drums came down from the sky. the instruments came down too. so many incredible things prepared for this show, but this concert couldn't have happened through our efforts alone. there are so many staff members working behind the scenes, and honestly, i think they worked even harder than we did. please give our staff a huge round of applause. and finally, villains, please give yourselves a round of applause too.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2071207117508468810/amplify_video_thumb/2071185164278104064/img/gbLP7T0LqBWK7vTF.jpg)
!["There was a willingness to communicate. [The non-human entity] wanted to establish communication with us." ~JV 💥 Has AI Figured Out the Identify of Gilbert? 👀 👽 Did an Alien Volunteer to be Studied and Communicate with Humans in a Secret USG Facility? Is it Still There? 👽 "My understanding is that there were teams there that had been working with that being and perhaps other beings for a while." ~JV This is Pt. 1 - Pt. 2 has the AI sleuthing on the possible identity of Gilbert. Excellent job by Ross Coulthart. And if you wanna see my post on Gilbert, the alleged Alien Entity, Vallée...and ALL Gilbert-related entries in FS V7 ⬇️⬇️⬇️ I'm taking with this with a major grain of salt until we hear from Gilbert. Then, I'll revaluate.) ~ Ross Coulthart: "You write in your Forbidden Science (7) diaries, in October 2021 for the first time, you mention someone called Gilbert. It's a pseudonym, but essentially, it's a long-lost friend, a discreet master remote viewer at the level of Uri Geller and Ingo Swann." Jacques Vallée: "Yes." (If your response to hearing Geller's name mentioned is, "Oh, he's been proven to be a fraud. See Johnny Carson,' then you haven't done your homework on Uri. Drs. Kit Green and Hal Puthoff on Geller. ~ Kit Green: "Anybody who has studied Geller and seen what he does and the films of what he does recognizes that there are profound differences between what Geller does and magician's tricks. There’s not even a remotely qualified individual who’s ever investigated Geller who believes this orthodoxy – that it’s all trickery. The RV [remote-viewing] experiments for me were astonishing. He was a superb remote viewer, he was a superstar." ~ Coulthart: "And Gilbert tells you that, through official channels, presumably, government channels, he was taken to participate in a controlled, personal exchange with a, supposed, alien. And you acknowledge in your diary that these revelations are explosive. "And by September 2023, you've received five closely-typed pages detailing how Gilbert says he was taken to a U.S. laboratory, sheltered inside rock, where military guides exposed him to what they explicitly told him was a living alien entity. Now, do you believe Gilbert's account, Jacques? I know at one stage you query: was this a fully veridical (truthful) account? Do you think Gilbert was telling you the truth?" Jacques Vallée: "I have....I believe it for two reasons. You know, believe is a bad word. It's a religious word, it's a commitment, and so on. And everybody is free to believe whatever we want to believe. In science, you know, belief is a contingency. You face a phenomenon. You build a theory of a phenomenon, but the theory, there is no such thing as a theory without a way of testing it. "Now I have no way of testing what Gilbert has told me. I'm not going to reveal the rest of his data because that's his data, and I know there are plans to publish it in the proper way, so that everybody has access to it. I have the data, but it's not up to me to publish it. "There have been other cases, and I've had one personal occasion of coming face-to-face with an entity that is very similar to the entity that he describes. To my shame, I was so scared because this was unprepared. I was not intending to do that." Coulthart: "Are you saying that you had your own personal encounter with an entity? Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "When did that happen?" Vallée: "I had no communication with that entity because I was simply too scared, and I mention it in the book." ~Begin excerpt from FS V6~ Hummingbird. Saturday 27 October 2018. ...something brief and terrifying happened last night, far more tangible than a nightmare. As I review it, I have to accept an experience outside my body. All I know is that in the middle of the night I found myself propelled away into the kitchen, a tall being between me and the window. I couldn’t see a face, but it was tall like me, human-like, solid. A few seconds later I woke up suddenly, back into my lying body, panting and whimpering, terrified. It had been absolutely, shockingly real. No transition, none of that slow lifting of the soul people describe. I had been translated from the bedroom, standing up, totally aware, next to the entity that hovered near me without touching, yet encompassing me in a formidable presence. This is as close to a full out-of-body experience as I have ever had. It left me whimpering and scared. (Not a fan of JV mentioning this dream-like/out-of-body experience in the same breath as Gilbert's, alleged face-to-face, physical encounter with a living entity.) ~End Excerpt from FS V6 - Back to JV with Coulthart~ Vallée: "Now in [Gilbert's] case this was very structured. He was asked to be there. And, by the way, it's not classified. I asked him if it was classified, he said, 'No.' And this was 20 years ago, this is not recent." Coulthart: "So, let's go through some of the detail of what you do reveal in [FS 7]. In December 2024, you write that you've seen Gilbert's structured results, and he says he was, apparently, instructed to put specific questions directly to the entity. And it gets fascinating. "Some of the questions generated impressions and responses he couldn't decipher. And what you conclude is that there may be two different levels of NHI, non-human intelligence. Your interpretation, or your friend's interpretation of what he got from the being, is that the higher-level controllers are genuinely alien, whereas the small beings - perhaps the Grays associated with UFO encounters - may be primitive biological hybrids, specifically engineered for terrestrial operation. Is that your conclusion, Jacques?" Vallée: "Well, again, I'm an information scientist. I try to look for patterns of things, so I don't look at one case, you know, separate from others. I look for patterns of cases. In Trinity, in Socorro, in Valensole, and now in the case in Brazil that was revealed recently. "We have a dozen entities. These entities were small; they were the size of, you know, a 10-year-old or 12-year-old kid. They had two eyes and a mouth. They were breathing air. They did not look like our astronauts with, you know, all kinds of suits and [a] support system. They were breathing air. You could understand the, you know, any sense from their eyes. Overall, their structure was human." "Over the years, there have been efforts to theorize in biology about what it would take to create a different kind of human adapted to certain things. We are going to face that problem in space. NASA has looked at that. But before NASA, you know, certainly in World War II, that question was raised already. "And there are...and I mentioned a case from an American biologist who came back from Russia with at least a rumor that the Russians were developing short humanoids for future space missions, because that would save, you know... The most expensive part in the space missions we have now, like the Moon, is the human pilot, okay? If we could do away with the human pilot, or if we could minimize that pilot, then the technology would be safer and would probably function better. "So that question had been discussed in biology. Now, the threshold was, you know, a moral threshold. Are we permitted to create? I mean, we are clearly at the position where, as you know, that the question arose in China recently. You know, was there an experiment to manipulate an egg and create them? So, those are very current questions in biology. "Could some of the beings be just operators? Because in Brazil, especially, they did not seem to be in control at all. And the same thing in Trinity. Trinity is a very important case." (Speculatively speaking: If Gilbert actually came face-to-face with a non-human entity, how would we know if it was one of the actual alien "controllers (as JV suggests)" and not a different type of lower-level, artificial-intelligence-fused being designed to trick us into thinking we've actually met the controllers? Is there any way of knowing? Maybe Gilbert can shed light on that? Maybe what he encountered was just another type of being engineered and created by the controllers for terrestrial operation in order to keep their distance from us, or for some other reason? Or, maybe JV is correct and that was one of the actual alien controllers?) ~ Coulthart: "Can I just pull you back for a moment, though, to Gilbert's story, Jacques? Because I think it's incredibly important. What it's unique for, is it's actually somebody you have spoken to, directly, giving a first-person physical account of an encounter with a non-human being in what sounds like a U.S. military government facility." (Is the entity still there now?) Coulthart: "And there's actually a moment in your diaries, 12th of March 2025, where you actually get from Gilbert, a physical description of what he saw. He was, apparently, brought in as a specialist. He didn't know whether there were other captured or, interestingly enough, volunteer beings. But he had a rough idea of approximately where he was being taken. "He couldn't see outside the vehicle, but he was inside a small mountain, some kind of, perhaps, deep underground military bunker. Inside was a large, well-lit laboratory staffed by men and women wearing uniforms without rank or unit identification. There was no medical procedures or drugs. "And then, Gilbert says to you, he was brought face-to-face with the alleged entity. And it wasn't a Gray. It was over six feet tall. It, apparently, emitted light from different parts of its body, may have been enclosed in some sort of wired suit, test article, or a containment apparatus." (Was the suit designed to protect the being from our environment or to protect the humans in that room from the being? And just to reiterate, I'll assume it was an alien being. My friend made these excellent points... "We don't know if the parts of its body emitting light were its body or some sort of harness or device it was wearing. And if it was some sort of harness/device what was its purpose and whose device was it? Was it life support? Alien shackles? Was it meant to help, or control? "Say for instance, a harness device that emits a frequency that prevents the being from doing something? Leaving? Disappearing? Communicating?") ~ Coulthart: "And it, apparently, communicated through combinations of light, and permitted questions concerning psychic functioning. And he had several hours of communication with this being. Now, you've made it clear you believe Gilbert's account, you accept Gilbert's account. This is extraordinary." Vallée: "I've known him for a long time, and I know what else he's done, which is extraordinary. So..." Coulthart: "I mean, this is very important, Jacques. Is this person willing to give evidence to a congressional inquiry, if they're not subject to classified limitations, security oaths, or NDAs?" Vallée: "I asked him that because, obviously, I did not want to get into something that would take me, you know, beyond that range. And he said, 'No,' he was not... He asked, 'You know, do I need a special clearance for this?' He has done other work, you know, for the military." Coulthart: "Right. But I was analyzing the implications of what you say in the diary about Gilbert. And to summarize it, it's more than a psychic once met an alien. What it is, is, a classified U.S. group allegedly possesses, or hosts, a living, non-human intelligent being, and they've been operating a systematic, multidisciplinary communication program with it, over time. And Gilbert was brought in as one specialist to conduct controlled communications with it. Do you accept that that's the implication of what you say in the diary?" Vallée: "This is logical in terms of what we know from a long time. What the procedure would be. The structure was...did not go into psychic functioning, you know? The questions that they had been asked were basic physiological, physical questions. They brought [Gilbert] in so that he was authorized to create his own questions and to probe...to see to what extent he could elicit a response that would be a psychic response from that entity. "The question is: At what level do they function? We know we have some ability to function on a psychic level. Some people can practice this better than others. We know from the SRI work by Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ and others that this can be trained. As you know, I was involved in that project to some extent over several years, and with Ingo. So, I went through the procedure with Ingo for an entire year. What Gilbert is describing matches that very well. In other words, there was a procedure." Coulthart: "So, you allude, Jacques, to the fact that Gilbert is, apparently, writing his own book about what he encountered. Can you clarify for me, though, is Gilbert willing to give evidence to the ongoing congressional investigations into this?" (Good on Ross to follow-up because JV didn't answer it the first time.) Coulthart: "There are very few people who are willing to give first-person evidence. And if he's not restrained by classification-security-oaths constraints, what's stopping him from coming forward, even confidentially, to a secure SCIF in the Congress, and giving this evidence?" Vallée: "I cannot answer for him. He has a long career in helping, you know, different projects in a classified setting. So, he's quite capable of answering that. What I know is...I don't know that he is writing a book. There is a project for a series of interviews, and I've participated in that. I've given a few interviews about my own work. But I know he's been part of that project. I don't know how it's going to be released or whether it's going to be released. I'm not part of the business that owns that data." (Well, whatever that is, it really needs to be released. Interviews in written form, or on camera?) Coulthart: "I'm very excited by the Gilbert character, and forgive me for harping on about him. Can I at least clarify, Gilbert is a he." (I'm just as excited. This COULD be HUGE!) Vallée: "I don't want to give away any indication. You know, I have not had communication, recently. I don't know how far that project has gone. It's their project, and there is a boundary to what I can say." Coulthart: "But who are they, Jacques? Like, when you say it's their project, you're talking about the individual known as Gilbert by pseudonym?" Vallée: "And the release of that information. His intent is to release it." Coulthart: "I've got to ask you this, and I appreciate you may not want to disclose, but is the person that you're talking about Keith Harary?" Vallée: "Umm, no. I can definitely tell you it's not Keith." (Later in this interview, JV said he met Gilbert when he (Gilbert) was 22. Out of the public names associated with gifted psychics and remote viewers, Harary comes close. But there's another possibility that I'll let ChatGPT lay out in the 2nd tweet. If you've studied remote viewing, you know the name Keith Harary. If you'd like to read an excellent article written by Keith "Blue" Harary in Psychology Today, here ya go: dot com/us/articles/200411/confessions-of-a-star-psychic ~ Coulthart: "Is it Joe McMoneagle?" Vallée: "[laughs] I shouldn't play... It's an interesting game, but, you know, there are two or three other names." Coulthart: "Joseph McMoneagle, of course, Jacques, as you and I both know, he worked with you at SRI. He was remote viewer number one in the U.S. Army intelligence program." Vallée: "I have enormous amount of respect for Mr. McMoneagle." Coulthart: "So do I. Joe is probably one of the most respected remote viewers known to the U.S. military (JV shakes his head up and down in agreement) and the U.S. intelligence community. And I noted back in Forbidden Science 3, Joe told you about UFO-related material. And Joe talked about how a photograph of a disc had inexplicably disappeared from a classified safe under his sole control. And he you quoted him saying to you, 'There must be a higher level of authority that controls UFO data.' What's going on here, Jacques?" Here's the excerpt from FS V3... "Joe [McMoneagle] once obtained a detailed photograph of a disk. He placed a copy in a locked safe with double combination, a classified safe under his sole control. Yet the photograph vanished. “'There must be a higher level of authority that controls UFO data,' he said, 'a level beyond the folks who run the satellites.'" (The Gatekeepers?) ~ Coulthart: "Clearly, someone - if it's Joe McMoneagle, let's just call them Gilbert. Someone invited Gilbert to a secure facility, presumably, a secure-government facility, yet at the same time we have the government - in the form of AARO, the Pentagon - asserting, blue and blind, that there is absolutely no evidence of extraterrestrial-non-human-intelligence engagement with this planet. We know that's not true. What's going on, sir? You, probably more than anyone, know the answer to that question." Vallée: "It's a central question, of course, and I don't want to make, you know, to treat it in a humorous way. But I recall a conversation with Dr. Hynek when I was working with him back at Northwestern. And I said, 'You know, what does the Air Force say and what does the Air Force think?' And he said, 'Jacques, you have to understand, there is no such thing as the U.S. Air Force. There are projects within the Air Force that do different things.'" (Kind of like when people say, "The GOVERNMENT does this and that." Like the Air Force, the U.S. government is not a monolith. AARO may have had no clue about the Gilbert story, until JV put out V7. Maybe they still don't know?) Vallée: "And that's legitimate. [The USAF] are looking at different parts of, you know, the whole planet, with the tools they have. And they have different opinions about things, and they have budgets to pursue different things with different projects. And many times they don't know about the other project." Coulthart: "Is it possible that Gilbert was being played?" Vallée: "[shakes his head back and forth] No. No." Coulthart: "That he was shown something that was an intention to try and see what a master remote viewer would think of what he was being shown?" Vallée: "He's one of the best psychics in the world today, and has been throughout his career." (It's impossible to know 100% that what Gilbert encountered (assuming this actually happened) was a non-human entity. And even if/when he comes forward, that won't change. We're going to need evidence besides anecdotes.) ~ Coulthart: "So you find him very credible." Vallée: "I met him when he was 22." Coulthart: "What state was the location in, where this facility that he was taken to is located? Did he give you that indication?" Vallée: "I don't know the level of if there is a security wrapper around this. I don't know at what level. So, I've purposely been vague in the book, again." Coulthart: "I got that. Was there a date for the encounter? I think you indicated to me earlier it was about 20 years ago. Is that right?" Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "Have you seen any evidence proving that Gilbert was actually at that location? Has he provided you with any substantiating...or corroboration?" Vallée: "No. No. No. And that's why I don't want to go beyond, you know, reporting about that conversation and my trust in the conversation. I have no way of checking this. My own experience would indicate that that kind of thing is happening. Probably (in many places)." (Crosstalk, so I'm not 100% sure on "in many places." And what "experience" is JV talking about?) Coulthart: "Can I ask you a few questions, though? And you don't have to answer these if you're uncomfortable. Did he physically touch the entity?" Vallée: "No." Coulthart: "Was the entity a prisoner?" Vallée: "No. I asked him that question, of course, and he said the entity was a volunteer." (We need all the details on how that happened. Via a crash retrieval? Did it knock on the door one day? Teleport into their lab? Amazon Prime delivery in a REALLY big box with holes in it? 🙂 And why should we trust the entity? My friend added this: "A death-row prisoner agreeing to cooperate with authorities on something could be considered volunteering…but is still a prisoner. Did the being say it’s a volunteer or was it the people at the facility? Do we really have to wait around for a possible book we actually might never see?") ~ Coulthart: "You, intriguingly, talk about, in your diary, captured or volunteer beings. You're clear that this being was there voluntarily?" Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "But it suggests that there are other beings that are captured." Vallée: "I don't know. I'm not, you know, fudging here. I really don't know the answer." Coulthart: "Okay. Do you know from Gilbert how long the entity had been with this facility, with the humans?" Vallée: "No, and I asked Gilbert that. He did not know that. He was there just for that one presentation and that was..." Coulthart: "Was the entity alive, in the sense that we think of something being biologically alive?" Vallée: "Yes. Now, I have no doubt, as you know, I'm not an expert about Hollywood, but I've, occasionally, seen what Hollywood could do in terms of special effects. And, of course, everything can be a special effect." (Again, according to JV, Gilbert may have seen, "a test article, a wired uniform or a safety container for the being rather than the body of an actual Alien." So, Gilbert may not know what it actually looked like. Hard to be definitive on what this entity was and we'll need to hear from Gilbert for more details.) Coulthart: "Did Gilbert explain why he, a remote viewer, was required to communicate with the being, if, as you say in the diary, it was communicating with light?" Vallée: "Yes, yes. Because the people in charge were smart enough to understand that the communication that that being was capable of was beyond the... I mean, we have the same thing with whales, you know? Whales can read the inside of your body. I mean, women who were attending to whales, the whale would know they were pregnant before they knew they were pregnant." (That hasn't been proven.) Vallée: "So, those situations are, you know...we have aliens (he smiled and I believe he used quotation marks with his hands) here on Earth in the form of some very intelligent animals that perceive things completely outside our range. So, it's not a new situation." Coulthart: "No, but I think this is the revelation - I think, one of the most important revelations in your latest book - that we are talking here about someone who you accept as telling the truth, who says they were part of what sounds like a U.S. government, U.S. military program, where they were asked to communicate with a non-human being. Can I ask you this, sir? Did conventional spoken language fail, or was it not possible with this being?" Vallée: "The answers were in the form of light configurations." Coulthart: "And so, had we learned, had humans learned how to communicate with it through light?" Vallée: "From what he told me, there was limited knowledge of what was positive and negative. He was asked to only frame questions in a way that where the answer could be yes or no, And that's why there were situations where he said he couldn't understand the answer." (Yes or no questions? I'm gonna assume the entity had no thumbs. Thumbs up? 👍🏽 Thumbs down? 👎🏼 😊) Coulthart: "One of the things you say in your diary - and I've learned to read Jacques Vallee's diaries very, very closely indeed - you say Gilbert's answers matched earlier results. Earlier results from whom, Jacques? I really think this is a very important question. What are you talking about there?" Vallée: "Well, the...you know, my understanding is that there were teams there that had been working with that being and perhaps other beings for a while. I mean, this isn't just a one-off situation. They had a base. Again, I said, 'What were the insignias?' He said, 'They were probably people from different branches of the armed forces there. You know, the people there were experts, men and women, you know, who seemed to be coming and going.' There may have been other labs. You know, he was in one lab." Coulthart: "Is it your understanding that this communication with this being is communicating today? Is it still happening?" Vallée: "I have no way of knowing." Coulthart: "So it was happening 20 years ago, but we don't know if that program is still operating today." Vallée: "What was important to me, again, in terms of what we can derive from the database and from other, you know, all the other contact cases, is that the communication was primarily light, in the form of light."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2104287905443434740/amplify_video_thumb/2104285861336739840/img/AgvdmqeGRC_Dzu5K.jpg)
![The Enemy Within: An American Muslim Claims - The U.S. is the Enemy of Islam By: Ofer Binshtok Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose many followers rely on his vast and profound knowledge of Islam, positions the United States—his birthplace and country of citizenship—as an enemy of Muslims. He asserts that the West, led by the U.S., fundamentally opposes Sharia and Tawhid, listing it alongside Israel and Russia as part of a hostile coalition against Islam’s victory. To him, Islam views the U.S. as an enemy, and every believing Muslim must recognize this. "The army of the Jews is a stone’s throw away with tanks and planes, waging war alongside the U.S.," he says, yet emphasizes: "They achieve a stunning, lightning-speed victory"—a clear allusion to the conquest of Damascus and the fall of Assad through Jihad. He declares Jihad as "the central pillar" of Islam, rejecting any permanent treaty with disbelievers like the U.S., who "will never accept Sharia," as it negates the struggle to impose Allah’s laws. Citing verses such as "And fight them until there is no more fitnah" (Al-Anfal 8:39), he permits only temporary truces. Jibril sees the victory over Assad as a step in the Jihad to establish Sharia, paving the way to defeat the U.S. and Israel—Islam’s primary enemies. Details of His Criminal Acts: In 2004, Jibril was convicted in Detroit, alongside his father, on 42 serious charges: conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and possession of firearms and ammunition as a felon. The prosecution uncovered a sophisticated scheme involving the destruction of his properties to collect insurance money, resulting in losses of about $400,000. A mail carrier identified mail sent to over 80 aliases, and fake voter registration cards under fictitious names were found at his sister’s home. Sentenced to 6.5 years in a maximum-security prison in Terre Haute, Indiana ("Guantanamo North"), he was released in 2012 and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. These crimes reveal a pattern of criminal behavior that aligns with his views. Background: Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril is an Islamic-American preacher, a graduate of the University of Medina in Sharia, and holder of a law degree from Michigan. He gained prominence through his lectures on Tawhid and Jihad, attracting numerous followers who admire his deep knowledge, though he sparked controversy after his 2004 conviction. His words are seen as influential among Jihad supporters via social media. Part Two: Implications for the U.S. and the Historical Dimension Muslims in the U.S. who adopt Jibril’s worldview pose a cunning and dangerous internal threat lurking within American society. With his profound knowledge, he makes it clear this is a religious duty for every believer, backed by commands like "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (non-Muslims)" (Al-Anfal 8:39) and "Slay the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them" (Al-Tawbah 9:5), perfectly aligning with Jihad’s practical actions. They live in the U.S. but are loyal to a vision aiming to topple it from within—part of a 1,400-year Islamic colonialist campaign that began with Muhammad’s sword, conquering Persia, Byzantium, and Spain, replacing entire cultures with Sharia. For them, the U.S. is a future battlefield, continuing a patient tradition that waited centuries to seize "infidel" lands. America’s internal security faces a severe threat—not immediate, but as part of a long, calculated historical process that Jibril and his followers represent. They exploit democratic freedoms to grow stronger and plan, just as Islam waited before Constantinople fell in 1453. The victory over Assad proves their plan is in motion, and the U.S. is a future target that could take decades or centuries—a strategy that reshaped the world over 1,400 years and, in their view, will succeed again. Chapter on Additional Supporting References: As stated in Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” As stated in Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." As stated in Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." - The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran ); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana publications-Beltsville. Maryland U.S.A. Page 599-601. [CERTIFICATION OF AL-AZHAR] IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy. General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. Mr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amman, Jordan. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. To commence: In response to the request you have submitted concerning the examination of the English translation of the book 'Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat alnasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib in the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence, together with appendices by Islamic scholars on matters of Islamic law, tenets of faith, and personal ethics and character: we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a). There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. The stamping of the pages of the above-mentioned work with the seal of the department has been completed. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Composed on 26 Rajab 1411 A.H.l11 February 1991 A.D. General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed] Muhammad 'Umar Muhammad 'Umar [signed] Seal of al-Azhar [stamped] General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. - Can Islam live in true peace with the infidels? No. By: Ofer Binshtok Only Hudna (truces), a temporary ceasefire, is made because Islam is in a weak position against the infidels. Hudna buys Islam time until its power overcomes the infidels, and then it will exterminate them, in accordance with Allah’s commands from the Quran and Muhammad. *According to Muhammad, Bukhari 1765, the earth belongs to Allah and his messenger, to Islam: Bukhari 1765: "…The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle…" * According to Allah, from Qur'an 47.35, Allah commands the believers, do not seek peace when your hand is uppermost: Qur'an 47.35: "…So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior…" * When Islam is in a position of weakness against the infidels, they have a holy command from Allah from the Quran and Muhammad to lie to the infidels to buy time: Muhammad in Bukhari hadith 3029: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) called,: "War is deceit". Muhammad in Hadith Sahih, in Tirmidhi 1939: “Lying in time of war”. The message from Quran 3.28: Permission to lie to disbelievers as a defense, when Islam is in a state of weakness. Taqiyya. The message from Quran 16.106: "...Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allāh after his belief...except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith..." * Indeed, Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels: “Islam is in an eternal state of war against heresy and disbelievers”. Quran 9.29 begins with: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah...” The message is also from Quran 8.39 Fight the disbelievers until only Islam will exists in the world. Quran 9.123 begins with: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you..." The message is also from Hadith Bukhari 25: "Fight the disbelievers until they all convert to Islam and only then will their lives and property be protected…" * In 628 AD, Muhammad moved towards Mecca with an army of 1,400 warriors, a force that was not strong enough to face the mechanical army of the Quraysh tribe. This is why he signed the Hudna Treaty of Hudaybiya, a temporary 10-year ceasefire with the Quraish tribe. An agreement that was considered humiliating for him since he was forbidden to sign it while mentioning his status as a prophet and messenger of Allah. But Muhammad saw this agreement as a victory that gave him time to break the Quraysh's defense agreements with third parties (Bukhari 2731-2732). Which indeed allowed him a year later, in 629, to also attack the Jews of Khaibar. * According to Sharia law, hudna is a temporary ceasefire agreement for ten years; this is the only agreement that Muslims are allowed to sign with the infidels: * TRUCES (Hudna) 09.16 (O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as: (1) "An acquittal from Allah and His messenger..." (Koran 9:1); (2) "If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also" (Koran 8:61); as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim. Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions. There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says, "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran ) Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires. * In 630 AD, Muhammad's power increased; he broke the agreement with Quraish and moved towards Mecca with about 10 thousand warriors and conquered it. The Quraish tribe converted to Islam, and Muhammad abolished the religious tolerance that existed in Mecca. With his own hands, he began to destroy the 360 holy sites for the different religions that lived there in mutual tolerance and harmony. He abolished this tolerance and left only the Islamic holy site. * Quran 8.58, in fact, allows Muslims to cancel any contract for "fear” that the other party will break it. Not because the other party violated the agreement, but only out of fear. So signing an agreement with Islam is basically meaningless. Quran 8.58: "If you are afraid of the treachery of some of your allies, you may disregard your treaty with them. God does not love the treacherous ones." In conclusion: As a religious command, from Allah, from the Quran, from Muhammad, and from Sharia law: * Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels, until it destroys them. * When Islam is weak, the believers are commanded to obtain a hudna (temporary ceasefire) so that they can gain strength that will surpass the strength of the infidels. * There is no meaning in signing an agreement with Islam since they are allowed to violate it at any moment. * When the power of the believers exceeds the power of the infidels, the believers are ordered to abandon the Hudna agreement and destroy the infidels. - A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." - Islamic Conquests Throughout History](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1893989034554253679/ext_tw_video_thumb/1893986101515149312/pu/img/su5JR-omZK5TyU5m.jpg)
!["How do you know you can trust what [a non-human intelligence is] saying?" ~Bigelow Bigelow/Knapp 2: If I Was President, I'd Tell the World We Have Non-Human Craft and Bodies "The President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation...is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something." ~Bigelow Do China and Russia also have non-human bodies and craft? "Oh yeah, freaking yes!" ~Bigelow ~ "You've opened up Pandora's box." ~Bigelow ~ 17:44 (I'm using the KLAS YT video for time stamps. As you'll see, I add a lot to these, so they take forever to put together.) George Knapp (GK): "Would you guess - based on what you know about the topic and how it's been handled over the decades - would you guess that [Trump] had been briefed, or that any other presidents have been briefed? You know that Bill Clinton was not, even though he expressed an interest in it. So at some point, the President has to be told, 'No, we can't tell ya.'" Robert Bigelow (RB): "I think Bush Sr. knew quite a bit because he was the head of the CIA." (Dr. Eric Davis says Bush. Sr. told him some interesting things, including that he (Bush) was partially briefed in 1976 about the alleged 1964 Holloman AFB landing and meeting, and more, when he first became the director of the CIA in 1976. Watch Davis explain it, here. ) ~ RB: "I think Nixon did." (We have the Jackie Gleason story, where Nixon allegedly snuck away from his Secret Service detail and took Gleason to see non-human bodies at Homestead Air Force Base. But that was a claim from his ex-wife, and Gleason, who died in 1987, never said anything about it, on the record. The controversial Larry Warren (Rendlesham) claims Gleason told him the same story, but that's it.) Bigelow: "I think Eisenhower did. So, it's kind of hit and miss over historic...over the period of history as to who has and who hasn't." 18:20 Knapp: "Can you tell us what would be in the briefing document that you left behind? Was it cases? Here's a wave of UFOs, here's a case, here was a crash. Anything like that?" Bigelow: "Yeah, I related conversations I have had with General De Brouwer, who was the chief of the Air Force for Belgium. And there was a very interesting flap that was about 18 months long (1989-1990) with triangular craft. And he was in command of all the Air Force, and he really chased the heck out of these. "And he told me, he said, Bob, 'I'm just burning fuel, and it makes no sense.' He said, 'We're gonna stop because we're not getting anywhere. All we're doing is getting closer, you know, photographs and things, but we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any information that is really valuable for us to understand anything.'" (I wonder if those were OUR triangles? If so, it's still a solid case/flap of anomalous craft. Dick D'Amato was a longtime (18 years) senior staffer for Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.) "Dick D'Amato has returned from Belgium where he met with Colonel De Brouwer, a 'very interesting fellow.' Dick’s conclusion, again, is that the triangular objects are very plain human craft. ~Jacques Vallée's Forbidden Science Volume 4 - November 1992 And then we have this... Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer 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: "[three-second pause] It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." Video... ~~~ RB: "And I gave [Trump] other examples of where large amounts of witnesses were involved, and so that he could read about these particular [incidents]. And, of course, the one with Fife Simington in '97 was so interesting. Because there you had a governor who was an actual witness, and he made a joke of it on and brought a guy in an alien suit on stage because he was scared to death." GK: "It's the Phoenix Lights case." (Great case for Bigelow to show Trump.) RB: "The Phoenix Lights, which weren't just lights, it was actually friggin' craft, and it came from northern Arizona. I think it started, actually, in southern Nevada, is where the craft began. In the Henderson area (not far from me. ~Joe), I think, somewhere in there. And, so you see this huge triangular craft, gigantic craft, going slowly, and [Symington] was scared to death. "But finally, fast forward 10 years later, and he confesses that he was an eyewitness, but he didn't know what to do. So he was there at a point in time when the dynamic of disclosure could have been forced, and actually, confirmation could have been from a governor of the state like that. He was a credible guy. "So we've had many [incidents] like that in the early 50s, flying over the White House and the Capitol building. We've had so many of those. So, in my report, I included a lot of very dramatic, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of witnesses of exhibitions." GK: "Did you share with him anything about your knowledge of a classified program?" RB: "No." GK: "You got a Top-Secret security clearance, right?" RB: "Yeah" GK: "It was for the AAWSAP program for BAASS." RB: "Right." GK: "Operated under the DIA." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You learned a lot during that program. It's the largest accumulation of UFO info. of any government-funded UFO program ever." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You didn't tell him about it." RB: "It wasn't credible enough, I felt, for him." (Someone on here watched this interview and told me that Bigelow said the AAWSAP data wasn't credible. That is NOT what he said. Not credible enough for Trump, is what he said. And if you read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" or listen any of Lacatki's interviews where he talks about UFOs being under a paranormal umbrella, I think Bigelow made the right decision for an 11-minute briefing for someone (Trump) who seems to be struggling (at least in public comments) with the reality of the basics.) RB: "[The AAWSAP data is] just something pertaining to me. And whereas, these other examples are historic, and they're in a lot of literature, they're very famous. The amount of witnesses were huge. We operated under a private situation with the Skinwalker Ranch, and he wouldn't relate to...well, we all had hitchhikers, we all took things home with us. You know, we all saw a lot of stuff. Whether it was at the ranch or where we lived, it didn't make any difference where in the United States we lived. We saw a lot of things, but that wouldn't be relevant for him to be able to relate to that, right?" GK: "Well." RB: "So, why talk about it?" GK: "Yeah, I mean, you know, you're kind of jumping into the deep end of the pool when you get into hitchhikers and skinwalkers." RB: "Yeah." GK: "Maybe for your first big conversation on this topic, that might not be the place to go." RB: "No, you know. And I couldn't even...if he said, 'Oh, I need a beer (Knapp laughs),' I couldn't even give him something to drink. You know, maybe stronger than that. So, I didn't wanna do any, you know." 22:15 GK: "You used the term non-human intelligence in the sentence you gave him. Hey, try this as you're climbing aboard Air Force One. Say that to media, and then, you know, close the door." RB: "Right." GK: "You said non-human intelligence, not ET. Are they the same, and did you share anything with him about what you think it is?" RB: "Well, there have been reports of humans on board, right? But the non-human are more interesting. I mean, if a human's on board and he or she has free reign of the craft, that's pretty damn interesting, right? And you don't know where those people are when they're not on board." (I wonder what cases he's talking about? Travis Walton reported seeing humans with non-humans and John Keel wrote about humans being seen onboard craft.) ~ Bigelow: "But the other ones are...some are scary, you know? It's not surprising, that, in the Universe, everything is [not] gonna look like us. Every intelligent organism is [not] going to look like us. But you have to have... It's also a matter of respect for any really intelligent animal or creature, whatever it is, right? And the more advanced, the more respect because you don't know what they know, and you don't know the future. And they may know. They may know more than just the now." (In interviews (which I can't find right now), Bigelow has hinted at an unstoppable, not-so-rosy future for mankind. Have people in the Legacy programs told him that the NHI have warned us about our doomed future or some cataclysmic event? Or, has Bigelow encountered these non-humans (or humans) and had them make claims about our future?) ~ 23:34 GK: "If you were to have a second conversation with him, would you explain that ET is one idea, but it's not necessarily the only option for a non-human intelligence that's out there?" RB: "You have to tell me first how much time do I have with the second conversation?" GK: "[laughs] Let's make it an hour. You have an hour with the President. What would you tell them about who they are, who they might be?" RB: "Umm... So, I would try to get into the complexity of the relationship. That once you've had confirmation, you know, you've given that text of that little sentence I wrote and quoted there, and you start to go down the path of disclosure, where it's more than than just FLIR videos, and you're seeing other things that are much more crystal clear, you know, in video. "Or, legitimate people in places that you recognize these people, and they're around something, or with some thing, or somebody that's a holy cow, that's wow, you know. That's a very dramatic kind of disclosure about something landing on the lawn somewhere, you know." (I have no idea what he's talking about. Anybody else able to decipher that? Is he saying that there's evidence (that he's seen?) of people that we know (a President or head of state?) hanging with a non-human or next to a downed or landed craft?) RB: "So I think what I would have spent time doing is talking about, how do you establish: You've been in 80 years of denial as a nation, and the world. We have countries who are very upfront, and others that are also in denial. Now you wanna pivot 180 degrees. How do you start that relationship? How do you do that? "And it's not as though that we've ever been in control. We haven't been in control of anything, ever, for this 80 years of modern history. Nothing. We have no ability to control anything." GK: "That's a tough thing to tell the President, right? I would think that would be a tough thing for a President to accept." RB: "Well, you're giving me an hour to talk to him, you said." GK: "[laughs] Yeah, okay." RB: "So I'm using my hour." GK: "All right." 25:46 RB:" So, yeah! So, that's a really intriguing thing is: How do you do that, where do you start? And into a relationship? And I would say more like, well, I would wanna start with, the biggest question I would ask, I would say, what I wanna get from them is... My first question is: What are the chances we are gonna survive ourselves? That we are not going to annihilate ourselves. "Because they already are familiar with a whole lot of other species on a lot of other worlds or other planets. So, chances are they have a pretty good idea of percentage." (That assumes a lot, since we have no idea how long they've been around, what they've seen, or where they're from. Unless...Mr. Bigelow has seen evidence that relates to those questions or heard it from folks who work in the Legacy programs?) RB: "And it's not that we're a spiritual species. You talk to people that have near-death experiences; they're changed for the rest of their life. They've become a spiritual person of a caliber that they've never been. "Well, we're a long way, as an average, from that category, from that level. There are monsters among us, as human beings, and they're angelic people among us. So we are a danger to another species, we're potentially the Klingons. We have a technological maturity that is not just going on a line, but it's vertical and it's segmented because it's jumping. "And meanwhile, our spiritual maturity just bumps along the bottom, you know? So, we look at the 20th century; 60 million people were killed. Are we ever gonna get beyond that? So, the thing of it is, we know so little about how to have a relationship. I'm not in any position to really advise, except for the few ideas I have as to where to start, and the how is really super important. 27:49 "It's not gonna be like a 'Close Encounter of the Third, Kind,' which was a really cool movie. And it's not gonna be because of SETI. You know, it's gonna be by some other kinds of means that you're embarking on. And I'm interested in that kind of research." 28:06 GK: "We go back to your meeting with the President. You walk into the Oval Office, they clear off the Resolute Desk, you spread out your seven piles of stuff, and you start making a presentation about each one, in particular about ET, non-human intelligence. You can't say what he said to you. Can you say whether he asked questions? Was he curious?" RB: "He was distracted by other things. So, he also asked me... He did ask questions, but he asked questions about other stuff that wasn't necessarily just on what I was talking about." GK: "He's getting your input on other things going on in the world." RB: "Yeah, yeah." 28:49 GK: "If you had to make a guess, would you guess that you got through to him on this issue? I mean, he hasn't stood in the doorway of Air Force One and made those remarks yet, but he has taken some pretty dramatic steps on this topic since you met with him. Do you think you made a dent?" RB: "Don't know. I advised him on something that I can measure, and he hasn't taken my advice so far on what I suggested to him, on a totally different, unrelated subject. But so far, he has not taken my advice." GK: Well, somebody seems to have got through to him, because he's been taking steps that we're seeing real results. I mean, people are either..." RB: "Well, I'm talking about an unrelated subject altogether. So, yes, there there are a couple of different task forces that are involved. So, there is an initiation of an activity in this subject, [but] it remains to be seen, though, that he gives actual presidential confirmation. I don't, I haven't... Maybe you're more aware than I am. Has that been...has he done that?" GK: "Not, not really. Nothing like what I'd call confirmation. But that's really what you're talking about. I remember us having a conversation in 2008, right after you had signed the contract with DIA for BAASS to run [AAWSAP]. And you made the case then that what we need is not Disclosure; it's confirmation." RB: "Yeah." 30:25 GK: "For somebody like the President, I'm not sure if it could be anyone less than the President that steps forward and says this, and it carries the same kind of weight." RB: "Yeah. It's a big appetizer. You know, you're looking for the entree, and where's the dessert in this whole buffet? But the confirmation is a huge appetizer to start with, and that's why I started with that in my conversation with him. Is, pushing him to try and make a confirmation. And maybe he wants to get personally more comfortable?" (I have said that I want the entire enchilada NOW, but I'm also a realist, and would take a simple confirmation that somebody else is on this planet with us. That SHOULD wake up the mainstream media and masses, but no guarantees since Trump is so controversial and people might just ignore it, IF he ever did it. I've also said that I'd surround him with people like Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and Gillibrand in order to show that it's bipartisan. And a few firsthand whistleblowers who say they worked hands on, IN one of these alleged Legacy UFO/UAP programs.) 30:57 Bigelow: "And, you know, he will go down in history for a lot of things, for better or worse, that people are on both sides of the fence about him and so forth. But he's involved in so many different things and has been, that I don't know what his legacy is gonna be, I really don't. "He has an opportunity, in this serious subject, to build a legacy using this as part of the blocks, part of the brick and the structure...the content of a structure that is very unique. So, you can have all the political programs that you want, and so forth, and nobody is gonna really remember those as time goes by, as the decades fade away. "Nobody can remember Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq, different kinds of things, and that's just recent history. You know, the world goes so fast. But the President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation, and actually built a satisfactory conclusion of a relationship between human beings and that subject is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something. And if it's handled right, it can be done successfully." (To me, it's a no brainer. His presidency would go down as one that changed the world and our species. Or course, I'm sure he has people in his ear telling him that confirmation would cause societal disruption that we're not prepared to handle, and that THAT would be his legacy.) (32:21) GK: "A lot of Presidents have made comments, often after they're out of office, on this topic. 'Yeah, gosh, I'm real interested in that.' Or, 'Wouldn't that be something?' Or, 'I think aliens could exist.' Something like that. But nothing like what you're talking about, which amounts to confirmation, saying, 'It's real. They're here. We gotta figure it out,' and stopping it there, not disclosing..." RB: "Well, the dialogue, the ability to learn something from them is huge. What can we do for you? I mean, that's where...one of the first things I would ask is, not just, are we going to survive ourselves? Yeah, that's pretty damn important. That's like, probably number one, you know? "But close behind that is: Okay, we've been aware of you for a long time, and the government's never admitted it. But us as a public, we know it, and we're really curious. Is there anything that we can do for you? Not just what can you do... I loved what John Kennedy, what he said famously: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That huge. So that's giving them a kind of a respect that they deserve." (Do they deserve respect? I'm not so sure. It all depends on if they're upfront with us and tell us their true intentions. Of course, how do we know they're telling us the truth? Why have you (or some of you) been abducting us against our will, and injuring some of us? See Jim Semivan's abduction story with his wife. "I don't think [the phenomenon] cares whether it does harm. I think it may go out of its way not to do harm, but, if it does harm... "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." ~Former CIA Officer, Jim Semivan to Engaging The Phenomenon ~ 33:33 GK: "If you were President, would you announce that yes, we've got crash retrievals, yes, we have reverse engineering programs, and yes, we've got bodies?" RB: "Yeah, because the rest of the world already knows that. The people that count in Russia and China already know." GK: "Because they've got their own." RB: "Oh yeah, freaking yes! Yeah! They've had their missiles shut down, they've had their missiles activated. You know, depending on which country you're talking about." 33:56 GK: "Have you considered the political fallout for a President? Let's say it's Trump, because he might be the guy that would do it and just cast his fate to the winds. But, he makes an announcement: 'Yeah, they're here. Yeah, we've got programs. Yeah, we've got crashes, we've got bodies. That's as far as I'm able to go right now.' What happens to him, politically? Is he able to get anything else done?" RB: "That's more than I would have said, for him to say. What you just said." GK: "That goes too far." RB: "I wouldn't advise him to say, initially, what you just said." GK: "You just say, non-human intelligence, been here a long time, and leave it at that." RB: "Yeah, that one sentence is a starter because it's a huge canon. You've opened up Pandora's box, in terms of, 'Oh my gosh, what's gonna happen?' Okay. So now, you can categorize and segment into topics. And you need time to do that, and it needs to be digestible." ~ “I have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.” ~Jim Semivan to James Iandoli ~ RB: "And it needs to be not packaged in a scary kind of way, and it can't be packaged in a way that you're divulging what you shouldn't be divulging. You know, other countries aren't, so there's reasons to have national secrets. There really are. I mean, that's kind of like common sense, right?" (Well, David Grusch claimed that some other countries aren't divulging for a specific reason." Grusch on Yes Theory: "So there are certainly friendly governments, both across the pond and say, local to where we...our landmass, that are for this. And a lot of them know that they got a raw deal with the U.S. because they were, basically, part of the secrecy, through kind of agreements like, bilateral, unilateral agreements. And they're like, you know, they kind of wanna be, 'Release me!' Like, you know, because they they do realize it was a bad deal. "With the ecosystem secrecy, some people, one of their arguments is like, 'Well how would they keep the secret?' I'm, like dude, I was cleared to some of the most nation's most sensitive programs, I used to handle the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing). You know, I had full access to most DoD activities. And most of the stuff, BROAD programs that were enduring, have NEVER leaked. "So the U.S. and its allies are very good at keeping secrecies, to include programs that are, let's say, global in nature. And really, it's been leaking like a sieve in some weird way for many decades. Now it's been mixed in with some BS in ufology and stuff, but the general gist of it's actually been out there for a long time. It has been leaking in some sense, so." ~ 35:06 GK: "We don't want the Russians and Chinese and maybe other adversaries to know how far along we are, or are not, in configuring this out." RB: "Absolutely. Especially of that. I think that the relationship (with he phenomenon) thing is a mankind relationship. It's not just for America. When you are embarking as a President on trying to initiate a solemn relationship, you're not doing for U.S. of A. only. "And so, the...and then we probably can do a show on communication (with a non-human intelligence), but it's really complex because, who are you going to have initiate it? Are you going to have politicians initiate? Are you going to have military people? Because everybody has kind of their own mindset. Are you gonna have a bunch of lawyers initiate it? Are you gonna have scientists only, initiate it? (And what if we're dealing with more than one non-human intelligence? Who do we communicate with? And what if it's one intelligence pretended to be multiple? How would we even figure that out?) "[Hynek] cited the 'poltergeist' phenomena experienced by some...after a close encounter; the fact that some witnesses develop psychic abilities after an encounter. 'Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?'" ~J. Allen Hynek ~ RB: "And how do you know to whom you're talking? You know, how do you know you can trust what they're saying?" (I'm so glad he said that. We don't, and we don't.) RB: "Because it depends on the form of communication, and what are you asking for in the way of proof or demonstrations to establish trust, both ways, in the communication process?" "Because, we haven't had that happen before. It is totally new ground, and frankly, we need The Others' help. We need the help of The Others to help, to guide us." (Firs off, it MAY have happened within these Legacy programs. And, if we don't know who we're talking to, or if we can trust them, why would we enlist the help of The Others? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2087243559091261706/amplify_video_thumb/2087241641329561600/img/dSAd4v8WLh8yq8Qw.jpg)
!["I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~~~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~~~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really can’t go into a lot of…more detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "But…simply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~~~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~~~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸 Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reid’s name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and I’m not sure where we’d be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2084538028572430772/amplify_video_thumb/2084536612109860864/img/9DvVsfAYTKl5EUNt.jpg)