Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
⚫(🍫🪢Interracial/Bondage🪢🍫) ⚫ ✨Doing What's Expected (Extended Preview)✨ (Some of my best work yet!!! Let me know if you wanna see the bloopers... ☝️🤪) #trans #interracial #blacked #blackowned #bnwo #ts #mtf #tgirl #bbc #sissy #femboy #blackbred #anal #bondage #gagged
712,531 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfügbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![Kid Buu Destroys Planet Earth [HD]💥1080Pee🔥 Original Funimation w/ Bruce Faulconer🐦⬛ Audio✅ (BEST! Version)💯 (Not KAI)🤮 #DragonBallZ🐉🟠 🚨Copyrights ©️Akira Toriyama, Toei Animation, and Bruce Faulconer.⚠️🔫👮 All 291 episodes of DragonBall Z are available to stream in [HD] quality on Crunchyroll.🐉🟠 / Subscriptions start at $9.99/mo 💻🖱️ Visit for more details 🖥️ Bruce Faulconer's #DBZ discography is available on Spotify. 🎵🟢 (on Mobile, it may bring to a screen to hit play, then 'Get App'. If Spotify is Installed, 'Get App' should automatically load both for you.) 📱 ⚠️This is a FANMADE re-imagination of what our childhood 'could be' today. 🤔 See Pinned Post for "Pee Universe Explained by Pee" #PeeU🌎 See Bruce's Gooses📋below to find out if joining the Pee Warriors is for You. 🚫 (I'm just a fan like you, NO Affiliations!) 🛑🛑🛑 Now that's out of the way. Thanks for being here this evening! I'll be excited to bring you guys another ✨NEW Edit!💫 tomorrow around this same time. I'm trying a few new things out with my content, to reduce posts / and overall reposts down by including everything for the day in the last post of the day. (aka this) I have been doing Goku vs Cell over the past week. (Parts 1-4) are in the comments if you would like to watch that! Lastly, let me know in the comments some of your favorite DBZ moments you would like to see in the future in HD w/ Bruce Faulconer! Thanks again for being here, and just a reminder if you enjoy my edits please give them a like! It means a lot.❤️ -Pee](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2097070055787827624/amplify_video_thumb/2087242689460760576/img/E7aL8UMVrS2X0piM.jpg)
!["Where the hell are the [NHIs] in all this? Why aren't they coming out?" ~Semivan "What I experienced, you know, physical marks the whole thing, and my wife, worse." ~Semivan on their abduction "I would be very careful giving these entities that are f**king with you, like, all this great credit and putting them on a pedestal." ~DeLonge to Chris Bledsoe "It's indifferent to man." ~Vallée to Semivan "Are we evil when we go fishing and we hurt fish? Are we considered evil to the fish"? ~DeLonge Jay Stratton's, "got orbs flying around in his house, scaring the hell out of his wife and his kids." ~Semivan ( I enjoyed this episode because a lot of this is where I am when it comes to thinking about the phenomenon. I'm not saying this is the truth but it definitely resonates with me.) ~~~ Jim Semivan: "When we started 'To The Stars,' a while back, we took a little bit of flack because we were talking about...we weren't going along with the idea that the phenomenon was always a great, beneficial thing. We were saying, like, 'Look, let's just wait. There's been instances where it hasn't been...' I always like to use Chris Bledsoe as an example. He's just a dear, dear man, but when you listen to his story, up close and personally, and you could see the absolute fear that he went through, and his family went through, when he first encountered these beings, and this phenomena, and then later on how it transformed him into a very, very deeply spiritual man and healer. So you see this dichotomy. "And if you talk to Chris, Chris will tell you, 'No, this is a beneficial thing.' And then, you know, you run into guys like Keel, and even Jacques Vallée to a certain extent, where they'll tell you, 'Well, no, no, hold on a second.' Because I remember when when I had my experience, I was visited. It was years after my experience, I had met John Alexander at a conference and John put me in touch with some people. And then next thing I know, Jacques Vallée, you know, the guy, right? The house god of TTS calls me up and says, 'Can I come out and see you?' "So he flew out from San Francisco, came to my house in Virginia, and spent the day with my wife and I. And we had some very, very long, involved conversations about this. And I asked him, I said, 'Well, you know, what I experienced, you know, physical marks the whole thing, and my wife worse.' (That may be the first time he's said he had physical marks from his abduction-like experience with his wife when he was in grad school. We don't know details of what his wife experienced.) Semivan: "I said (to Vallée), 'Do you think this is evil?' And he said, 'I don't know, I don't think anybody knows. But I will tell you one thing: What I do know is that you can say that it's basically indifferent. It's indifferent to man. In other words, people get harmed by walking into it or getting caught in it, but it doesn't seem to have an evil intention, per se.'" (Reminds me of what Lue Elizondo said to Curt Jaimungal) Lue: "What if it turns out that a lot of the things that we thought were one way, aren’t. Are we prepared to have that honest question with ourselves? Are we prepared to recognize that we’re not at the top of the food chain, potentially?” (Most humans are indifferent to the welfare of most beings that are below us on the food chain. If we're driving and hit a squirrel, and they get hurt or killed, we may feel bad for a little bit, but we get on with our business and enjoy the rest of our day. How many cows, chickens and pigs are killed every day so we can eat them? Most humans, including me, don't give that a second thought. Indifference. That indifference may be happening with an intelligence (or multiple intelligences) that's above us on the food chain. And I'm not saying they're eating us, although that can't be ruled out 100%. I'm saying "they" just do their thing and if we get hurt or killed, it's not a huge deal to them. Indifference. And maybe some of them enjoy messing with us?) Semivan: "But then when you read Keel and you know, you read the Mothman and and a lot of these other stories like 'The Mojave Incident.' Well, holy cow! You look at this stuff. And, you know, you get these hobgoblins flying around, you know, with Jay Stratton. He's got orbs flying around in his house, scaring the hell out of his wife and his kids. I don't see, I don't know where there's any kind of a spiritual turn to that where you could look at all that and all of a sudden you say, 'Oh, now I'm a better person.'" (Most of us have known that Axelrod in "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" is Jay Stratton but that's the first time one of his colleagues/friends has said it. And I agree: What's the purpose of orbs scaring, and leaving marks on, his kids? And the wolf that his wife, kids and their friends say they saw? Why? To make them better people? It makes zero sense to me.) Semivan: "It happened with Chris (Bledsoe) and, you know, great for him. Sure, as hell didn't happen to me. And I don't think it happened to Jay Stratton, either. I think it gave Jay a different outlook as with me, but sh*t, I mean, nothing I couldn't have got from reading books. What do you think?" Tom DeLonge: "I think like, yeah, you know, the idea of what we might call something evil, but to that, it's like, you know, are we evil when we go fishing and we hurt fish? You know, are we considered evil to the fish? So it's things looking out for its own interest." (100%. Someone asked me about good vs. evil last night and I wrote back, "Not about good vs. evil. About survival and food chain. Somber.") DeLonge: "The thing that I look at, you know, a lot of the ideas of good and evil come from like, religion, all different types of religions where it really defines the metaphysical nature of who we are and what we're living in. But I look at religion... I cannot think of one religion that hasn't left a wake of destruction. I mean, literally, every single one has done so much harm. And the one pattern in all these religions is that most of them, outside of the pagan ones, have really tried to just to get us to believe that the creator of the universe is some kind of human, or something. It's not like a source, an energy, it's like, it's a Jesus or an Allah, or it's a Buddha, or I don't know. Buddhism doesn't really say that, but you know what my point is. It's trying to humanize something. "And so, to me, it's like when Chris Bledsoe, or some of these others that have these kinds of spiritual experiences, these are the exact same experiences that are written about throughout the entire Bible, in the Quran, and like, all these other texts. And all of them are really setting the stage for us to worship the UFO and their occupants, to some degree." (You see this a lot with the folks who think we're dealing with ETs here to uplift humanity. The Space Brothers theory. I don't know the truth but, to me, it doesn't seem like that's the answer.) DeLonge: "And that, to me, is the one strong pattern, is to confuse us and not let us know of our own spiritual nature to source consciousness." (I've said many times that I believe a lot of this is about human potential and our untapped capabilities in the psi (psychic, pk, consciousness, etc.) area) DeLonge: "And as long as we don't know that, then we will think that, 'Okay, the aliens like, f**ked with our DNA and made us like this,' or 'The Tall Whites showed up and they were the Greek gods, too, and they gave us philosophy and all this whatever.' It's like we're always like, giving some kind of humanized form credit for everything. "And the one thing that's common in all these religions is that it's not giving credit to source energy that allows us to heal, that allows us to be telepathic, that allows us to have telekinesis, that allows us to have, like, compassion in energy to healing. Like, whether you do Reiki and meditate, or whether you sit and pray, it doesn't matter. Why does it work in every religion? Because it's source energy, it's not about the religion." (The one thing I could never get behind is healing because there was no data to back it up. That was until I was shown the work of Bill Bengston. Tons of data. How does it work? I don't know. Nobody does.) DeLonge: "But if you look at who's responsible for all the religions? Well, it's whatever UFO the Star of Bethlehem was, or whatever UFO the Fatima thing was, or whatever the Tall White was that met with Joseph Smith and started the Mormon religion was. Whatever the Jinn are that are in the Koran, or whatever the Demons are there in the Old Testament, they seem to be the things that come in, that take you in your sleep, and make you think things and deceive you. It's all the same." (Deception, deception, deception. A lot of this is very similar to what David Icke (and others) has written about.) DeLonge: "So you have all these things f**king with you, as the good ones and the bad ones. But all the religions, the pattern is, is never ever, ever let humans know the physics of their existence. Which is meditate, you can heal somebody and have all your information you need, or pray. It's the same thing, it doesn't matter. "That's more like my line of thinking is, is why it's so important for us to understand the true nature of spirituality, and why I step back when I hear the Chris Bledsoe stories. And it's wonderful that he's gotten to a place that it's helping him, because I really do like him as a person, and I really respect and honor his experiences because I firsthand have heard them from him. And he's just a wonderful human. I mean, it was an incredible story. But I told him personally, I said, I would be very careful giving these entities that are f**king with you, like, all this great credit and putting them on a pedestal, because these are the same groups that have been doing a lot of weird s*it throughout time, good and bad.' (Again, I think Bledsoe has had real experiences but IMO, his interpretation of what he's dealing with is off.) DeLonge: "And that, to me, seems, you know, that seems suspect. You know, it seems like if there is any really, true, beautiful, great force, and entities representing that force, like your angels in the Bible. I mean, even in the Bible, people would, you know, when they saw an angel, they would collapse on the ground in extreme fear, and like, they couldn't even look at them. It was like the scariest thing that's ever happened. And that doesn't sound like a real loving interaction to me (laughs). That sounds like some scary shit, you know? "So I think whatever would represent true love and unparalleled love, that doesn't seem to be showing up and f**king with our society and our timelines, and our behaviors, and trying to manage us. It's letting us do it on our own, you know, like, figure it out on your own, you know? But everything else that's showing up, seems to have its own interest at heart." (I think TD is saying that a loving/caring intelligence wouldn't try to manipulate us into doing things that just benefit THEM. And that's what appears to be going on. "They" only care about themselves. If there were ones here who truly cared about us, they would leave us alone and let us figure it on our own.) Semivan: "I tend to agree with you on this. I did a podcast a while back and somebody related to this. They were talking about why there hasn't been Disclosure? And I said, 'Well, you know, there's two sides of this story.' I said, 'You have the non human-intelligences, you know, or the phenomenon, and then you have the governments.' And I said 'Well, where the hell are the non-human intelligences in all this? Why aren't they coming out? They pretty sneakily running around, and they meet people in weird, obscured circumstances, make their experiences sound crazy. Yet, they sort of wanna be known, but they don't wanna be known.' As I mentioned to somebody once, 'They'll screw around with you but you can't take them home to meet your parents. They're not landing on the White House lawn for a reason.' I'm not quite sure what that is."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1773078284487798811/ext_tw_video_thumb/1773040319740948480/pu/img/LNfQpFjqV8ZVbffs.jpg)
![Dr. Thyme finding out that there's one person he couldn't be in time for... #久リップ #Clippuccino #DistrictV [arrives at the airport after his business trip > sees text about ❔'s death] 📖: what? wait, what? 📖: whose number is this again? 📖: oh, wait, this is Justine 📖: Marcus is dead? wait– [calls ❔ and leaves a voice message] 📖: straight to voicemail... 📖: [📼] h–hi, Marcus, I'm a little worried, um, how are you doing? I just got back from my business trip, uh, I was just wondering, you know, since uh, since I haven't been able to, you know, say it out straight to you 📖: [📼] I was just wondering if, uh, if you wanted to go on a date, just me and you, just me and you 📖: [📼] wanna get to know you a little bit better, um, you wanna meet at the aquarium– you wanna meet at the aquarium, um, later tonight? 📖: [📼] if you, uh– if you're– if you're not too busy, um, I’d really like to see you if that's okay? 📖: [📼] so uh, if you see this, I know you must be busy with, uh, police work so, uh, if you could get back to me as soon as possible I'm very– I'm really worried about you man, bye 📖: what? is Marcus– I don't– I– the fuck? 📖: nah, Justine must just be pranking me 📖: yeah, alright, let's head back to the ems then [gets a rental car, drives back to the city] 📖: oh, is this the place where I saved him from his bike? 📖: oh my god, I should take a nostalgia photo [sends the picture to Marcus] 📖: [💬] hehe, remember here? :3 📖: I wonder if he does remember [runs into 🐰☕ on the way to the hospital] 📖: hi, I was just wondering is Marcus in town right now? I've been looking for him. 🐰☕: no, he's not. can I ask who's asking for him? 📖: it's Justin Thyme 🐰☕: oh I heard you were out of town, haven't seen you in a couple of days 📖: yeah, I just got back, I was on a business trip and now I'm back 📖: I'm back to see my love interest, y'know what I mean? 🐰☕: let me talk to those at the shop, okay? back at PD, I'll see if we got some news for you 📖: thank you, appreciate it, he hasn't been answering his phone, it went straight to voicemail 📖: I was just wondering, maybe he has his phone turned off or– 🐰☕: we'll get to it, don't worry, okay? 📖: okay, thank you [drives off] 🐰☕: hey guy, I just ran into, uh, Dr. Justin, apparently they're back in town. they're asking about Macaroni 🐰☕: should I, uh– is this something that's public knowledge now? are we allowed to talk about this? 👹: you are allowed to talk about it, yeah remember the official story is that he is missing but presumed dead 👹: I don't envy your position mate, good luck, alright? 🐰☕: 10-4, let me swing back around [🐰☕ calls 📖 to meet up at the hospital] 🐰☕: hey, listen I don't wanna mince words, but uh, there's a good chance that Macaroni is dead 📖: wait, what? say that again 🐰☕: we weren't able to find him, so we're calling him dead for now 📖: find– like, what? they– what? like their phone died or something? 🐰☕: Justin 📖: their phone died? I mean– 🐰☕: Macaroni's dead 📖: I– that can't be, right? he's the toughest guy out there 🐰☕: listen, I know it's hard, he's a damn good cop 📖: no, no, I– I think you're a mistaken, he– there's no way he's dead, like, I saw him in action, he– he's really good at– at driving his car, he's– he's got a good shot 🐰☕: I heard from the chief myself, he's gone 📖: no, no, no, no, no, I refuse, I refuse to fucking believe this shit, what– I– 🐰☕: I'm sorry 📖: is there any proof? 🐰☕: unfortunately I haven't been given much to go on myself [...] 📖: w– when did he go missing? 🐰☕: uh, about two days ago [...] 📖: I– please find him, please find him, I'm a doctor, I– I can patch him up, I can– I can fix him 🐰☕: hey, he's gone 📖: please tell me– please tell me he's alive, please, please, please 🐰☕: if you're as close as you guys say you were, he would want you to go on, he would want you to keep saving people, keep doing what you do 📖: what's a world to live without the person I want to live with? 🐰☕: that's an answer we all still have to find for ourselves, I could tell you I'm still trying to answer it myself. 🐰☕: as long as you're alive you should be able to find the answer 📖: I'll try find the answer then 🐰☕: keep going 📖: y'know what? I have some business to attend to 📖: thank you so much for letting me in 🐰☕: if you need anything, we'll be here, okay? 📖: thank you [...] [goes to the pier] 📖: there's no way, there's no way 📖: we were supposed to come here together 📖: Marcus... 📖: y'know, I scoped out here a little bit before and I looked at all the rides and I was like wouldn't it be so fun– wouldn't it be so fun if Marcus was here with me 📖: now what am I gonna do? 📖: y'know, I never went to the haunted house, or on the roller coasters, or any of those ferris wheel or anything as a matter of fact because I– I wanted to save it 📖: I wanted to save it for when I went with him...looks like that's not happening anymore](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2028329724024697027/amplify_video_thumb/2028324903846584320/img/MpE6AcJPLn6DBkP_.jpg)
![I'm starting to get a little excited about this... "Everyone in the room gasped. Even the staffers just gasped when they saw that video. There's not a single aerial thing that can do something like that." ~Burlison 🛸 Disclosure Soon? Plus: Burlison Complained to the White House About Not Getting Recognition. Does He Have a Point? 🛸 (I appreciate the honesty from Rep. Eric Burlison but I still have some questions and comments, which are in ( ) ). Burlison: "I know that there's more to come because the White House called me and said, 'Hey, can you talk nice about this release of videos?' And I said, 'I don't even know what's in it. You guys have not engaged with us, at all.'" (Whomever is in charge of communicating with Congress on this issue needs to step up their game. I mean, Burlison has been one of the most vocal Reps. and they're not giving him a heads up on such an important, initial release? That's political, and common-sense, malpractice.) Burlison: "And I'm probably spilling the tea here a little bit, but... And they said, 'You're right, and we're now at a point where we need you, because we don't really...you've kind of done the recon on this, we don't really know where to go...take the investigation from here. Like, we kind of know where to ask and we have videos that we're still declassifying, we have content that we're still declassifying. But as far as like, where to take the investigation, who do you think we should talk to?' "And I'm like, 'You're really asking me? Of all... You're asking me who to go talk to? So I gave them a (audio cut out so I'll try my best) list of people that I've always wanted (to talk to) but they never really talked to me because they're all protected under their non-disclosure agreements and, you know, all of that kind of stuff." (If the White House wants any of those folks to talk to them, involve Trump, and/or Vance and Hegseth. That may convince them to risk it and start talking. And members of Congress need to do whatever they can to get protection, amnesty and anything else whistleblowers need to feel comfortable enough to come forward. Make it happen!) Burlison: "And so, I said, 'But I wanna...I wanna be, you gotta bring me in because I've been doing all of this work with no recognition, and so, if now, things are going to start getting real and real disclosure is gonna happen, I deserve to be a part of this.' And so, that's kind of where things are." (People may get on Burlison's case for being worried about recognition but can you blame him? He should be getting lots of praise, directly from Trump, IN PUBLIC (which will help his re-election efforts), and be given as much information as Rubio has in the National-Security-Advisor position. Maybe make Burlison and Grusch the co-UAP Czars?) Burlison: "And last night, we had about an hour and a half briefing with AARO, where we saw about 30 UAP videos. Some of them are incredible." (This is really encouraging but, as always, I wanna see some of these videos with my own eyes and see if any of them get the masses and media talking about this 24/7. That's when we'll know we're getting closer to more and more disclosure. But what about Disclosure, capital D? Meaning, will we learn about any alleged crashes, bodies, craft or analysis about intent and origin? I don't know.) Burlison: "And I'll describe the two of [the videos I saw]. One of them is of an object that is flying at a very aggressive speed, I don't know how fast. And then suddenly just instantaneously goes from whatever speed is flying... And my guess is it's flying with the wind, probably 80 miles an hour in the atmosphere, and then suddenly just goes like, Mach speed. I mean, it just instantly takes off." (Mach 1 = 767 mph. Again, we need to see this video to figure out if it's actually going as fast as Burlison claims. And if it's released, it would be nice to have data from more than one sensor.) Burlison: "It was one of those moments where everyone in the room gasped. Everyone. Even the staffers who are like, the most skeptical people in the room just gasped when they saw that video. Because there's not a single aerial thing that can do something like that, that can pull that off. (This gives me hope that future videos will contain better footage. Just how much better? Stay tuned, I guess. I've heard things hyped privately in the past and they usually fall flat and don't get the attention of the masses when made public.) Burlison: "The other video was one of a submarine, I think it's a Russian sub that we're filming. And there are about three objects that are buzzing around this Russian sub that the camera operator - who's supposed to be watching the Russian sub - suddenly starts realizing, I've gotta be watching these objects." Kim St. Onge: "I love how passionate you are about UFOs, by the way, which is why we trust you with all our UFO updates." (They then proceeded to cut off his UFO talk and changed the subject. SMDFH!!! Hope we get to see lots more videos!)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2056135523002142818/amplify_video_thumb/2055747267202867200/img/uzrt0rWN-miyvaem.jpg)
![Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1994972575768727743/amplify_video_thumb/1994972220930621440/img/_5CCZJyz89oDfqQJ.jpg)
!["If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2030480027666747596/amplify_video_thumb/2030373285926694913/img/_-25iW0LmiKeRcjI.jpg)
![Oh My God!!! 😱 Corbell Threatened to Release Hundreds of UFO Files, Which Were Also Given to Hundreds of Journalists! And Then He Backed Down! One Problem: It Never Happened I found the Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell clip I wanted to show you. But First: The claims... "Jeremy Corbell threatened to release hundreds of UFO files." ~Red Panda Koala And... "Jeremy Corbell says hundreds of journalists have been given the secret UFO files that will be released, if..." ~Red Panda Koala Full (inaccurate, IMO) claims, and the actual transcripts, are here: ⬇️⬇️⬇️ The following interview was uploaded several days after Corbell made those early-June comments that are now going viral, and for which he's getting a lot of hate over. This is a more complete explanation of the situation. Andy, forgive me for uploading such a long clip. I know this won't answer every question but it should educate folks on what was said. Or what was meant. And I'm sure it will calm the haters. 🥴 ~ Andy (That UFO Podcast): In 'Sleeping Dog,' you get your laptop out towards the end of the documentary. You know, dramatic, you dig some sh*t up. You've got a pen drive, you open it, and you see these files. And I'm sure, like many folks, I'm pausing frantically, reading all these names of files. I can just see the bottom of and the top. And I'm looking around your laptop screen. "And we begin to see clips of those videos. Now, those came out within the second release from the war dot gov, UFOs. Can you, first of all, clear up for me...we heard you had 46 videos that you were going to release." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "No, who said that?" Andy: "So, generally, online, there was 46 videos were coming out. I think 52 came out. This is what I want cleared up, though. You know about those 52 videos that came out. How many came from you? Because the feeling online - and this even was for me - was, Jeremy's got his documentary, he showed what's going to come, and then within a couple of weeks we had the second drop, and bang, here's all these videos. Can you just clear up how many videos that were dropped, came from your end, and what's the story there?" Corbell: "Zero came from my end. Zero. Those are government-filmed UAP. They were provoked to release them by a variety of ways. George Knapp and I gave a multitude of lists of UAP filmed by our military, to Congress. They validated, they vetted, they found out where they were. We told them where they are, we had eyes on them, making sure they're not going to be deleted. "This is something we've acquired over decades, George and myself. You know, the newer ones are kind of the the best, I would say. You know, better hardware than, let's say, 15 years ago. But...so none of them came from us. That...it is government-filmed footage. "We identified the file names and file structures and location of holdings, gave that to Congress, and it's not just the 46. It actually surprised me when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna put out, and it was a gangster move. Rep. Luna put out a public letter to Pete Hegseth saying, 'Here are 46 files that we want.' "They didn't mention...it's actually 14 Air Force files that we've identified - even to the Department of Justice - that there's a bottleneck in UAP reporting within our own government. Remember 'Immaculate Constellation,' the idea of like, siphoning off the best footage. Well, George and I were able to identify that in Central Command, that there was a nexus point where there was a bottleneck, and the best UAP footage and evidence was being siphoned off even before it got to AARO. "Even our, you know, who were kind of enemies at a time, we informed AARO that there's this bottleneck, and if you want to find out where the good sh*t's going, we told them where. So, when you say 46 videos, 52 videos. Bro, there are probably hundreds of thousands. Very little ever get to reporters like George and myself, and it takes years for us to vet and verify. "And then, you know, anybody that leaks videos to journalists - if you consider them sources- they're at risk, you know, when journalists publish them. So, I have always been fighting. And then people yell at me, and they're like, 'It's not good enough, and the frame rates aren't right.' And all this weird sh*t. They're just baiting to try to like, dig in and try to investigate sources. It's all a charade. Everything with that online is a charade. They're just trying to entrap people. "So what we do, is we take the heat and we just keep doing the reporting. We gave Congress way more than 46 file structures, file names with locations, with evidence they exist. But we don't possess anything. We can't, legally. We can obtain and release. I'm familiar with, have access from time-to-time, too. "You know, you have to be really smart as a journalist on what your rights are. That's why I have a federal lawyer, which you learned in the movie is Chuck McCullough. Kind of one of the best federal lawyers you could have, now that I've admitted it, right?" (McCullough was the first Intelligence Community Inspector General, represented David Grusch, and is HIGHLY respected. The fact that he's representing Corbell is something that's lost on the Corbell haters.) Corbell: "So, basically, those are the protocols. Our government has hundreds of thousands, in full-motion video, which is like a layered, sensor system from satellite platforms, as an example, which you've never seen, no one's ever seen. With incredible fidelity, showing all-domain UAP coming from space-to-air-to-sea and back out, from sea-to-air-to space. That's fact. I know that for a fact. I have been witness to a lot of that information. "But I did not give anything to Congress except file names, and they verified, vetted, and put out a public letter for 46. They kept the other ones private, which I think was smart. Because sometimes even just the the file names themselves, you know, could be an issue for 100 reasons. Does that clarify what you're asking?" Andy: "100% And even in the Discord, when that drop happened, everyone's Discords and stuff were going crazy. People were asking, 'Are these the videos that Corbell and Knapp have provided?' So there has been this idea, from some, that you guys gave them the videos. But what you've given was the locations, how to get them, where they were." Corbell: "The exact file names and locations, with verifiable proof that they do exist, that they did exist upon delivery, of those titles. You know. I'm not gonna just... You know, and also, what we get, when they ask for them, from Pete Hegseth and Department of War, is when they do release them, which they were provoked to do. That's the thing. "And they're not all out. The 46, just read the file names that were in that list, and then look at what was released. They are not all out. So think about that. They give you the underhanded pitch, the bottom of the barrel. And George Knapp and I, as I have said, we're gonna continue our reporting. "But it's kind of like a warning shot. You're like, here's what is in the hands of over 100 journalists, including podcasters now. Meaning they they can get access if they need. That's a whole process. But, essentially, we're telling them what journalists have. So what you can do is get in front of it and release the full, original files. And then nobody argues about frame rates, nobody goes after sources. "That's the way it should work because the onus is on the United States government because they themselves have said that we are going to be transparent about this, we're gonna be putting out all this information. Good, good. "So you've started, and it was total happenstance that the first release was on the premiere of 'Sleeping Dog' date, In in the sense that, I had no idea they were going to do that. It's kind of hilarious. But, you know, we did inform them before about the movie and that we're gonna, you know, do our journalism. So, you do the math." Andy: "Yeah, no, that's useful. And can we just confirm, I am not one of the podcasters who has those files before I am raided, or the CIA get in touch." Corbell: "Nobody has the files. You know, George and I have been sure to back up our work and provide an ability, if anything goes sideways, that, you know, the American public gets what they need. You know, it's very simple, dude. It's not like cloak and dagger. "You have to make sure that when you're reporting on things of national-security concern, that you don't damage national security, A number one. I'm an American, I live here, I love my country. Like, straight up. But also, you put things in place so that you're not the only one who's been able to see or have access, at time. And that's what we did. "We did that to protect sources, whistleblowers, and the information itself getting out to people. I don't possess anything, Andy. Of course, you don't. You're a foreign journalist to me. I'm sorry, but that that's another aspect to it. Is that, even though we have Five-Eyes Alliance, we've never hung out and had a beer, dude." Andy: "Not yet." Corbell: "[Laughs] I hope to." Andy: "Next year's Contact [in the Desert], maybe. So those 100 journalists... Because so many folks got in touch with me to ask..." Corbell: "100-plus." Andy: "100-plus, journalists and podcasters. It's not like you've sent out a special-edition pen drive and went, 'Here's all the files, if something happens.' But there are ways and means that if something did happen to yourself and/or George (Corbell: "Oh yeah"), these folks can access this material?" Corbell: "Yeah. I said it in Episode 60 of Weaponized, right? So we have, as journalists, we have covered and made sure the American public will never be, you know, the American public will never stay in the dark about what we've reported on or what we have to report on. But, you know, we have to go slow, we have to vet everything. It's just an insurance thing that that people would have instantaneous access. "I don't want that, either. Like, I don't want...you can't tell your friends, somebody, without telling your enemies. You know, and I don't...I would rather that we just continue doing our journalism under First Amendment, in America, without any interruption, in any way, that is illegal. And that's what's been happening. You know, the influence campaigns and the threats and that kind of thing. "So, yeah, man, I don't know how far we wanna go into that, but just base-level, we have made sure to protect the information that George Knapp and I have obtained over the decades. We don't hold in possession of anything, but at the same time, we've democratized the way that information will get out if we're stopped in any way, and that's just how it is." Andy: "And you guys are in full control of that, that no one can go rogue that has the information, or, you know, 'Ah, f**k Jeremy and George. I can access this. I'm gonna go off and find.' No, you guys are in complete control of that?" Corbell: "No, because that's a national-security issue because the nature of any information that comes to us in this realm. But additionally, that's not the right way to go about... I don't wanna go too deep into this, but that's not the right way that journalists operate, right? Is, you don't just haphazardly... So, no. Is that okay? Just end with no?" Andy: "You can end with 'no' on that one. It might come back round in one of these other answers to a different question." Corbell: "Okay, yeah."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2081202383699493125/amplify_video_thumb/2081202165331509248/img/jsys9LHkgy_JDuJI.jpg)
![The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036795243681423518/amplify_video_thumb/2036794127560613888/img/52_cdbzzL6_foTSI.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)
!["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)