Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Proof that I'm a professional eater 😋. Just look at and hear this cute kitty bust getting eaten out 💦 💦 😺 🍑: NudeSnep🔞🔜Furpoc, ANE, FWA (maybe) 📸: Socks 🦊 🔜 Furpoc, ANE #nsfw #murrsuit #rimming #yiff
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1999618259063308336/amplify_video_thumb/1999591424954957824/img/RtJss2MFC_SNRr-Z.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)
![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)
!["Multiple members of Congress received a briefing from an agency task force (it's the FBI). All of that info. will be declassified, and the stuff that we saw [that] we can't explain." ~Luna (I think Luna did an excellent job on tonight's Real Time - Overtime with Bill Maher. Transcript and my thoughts below.) ~ Bill Maher: "The first question is for you. Do you think we are headed, Congresswoman, for a full disclosure and transparency about UAPs, which we used to call UFOs? I do. I mean, I think it was just this week, didn't they start a website for releasing this information?" Rep. Anna Paulina Luna: "From my understanding, they're gonna put it on the National Archives (website), but if they've booked the website... So I actually head up the Disclosure Task Force in Congress on Declassification of Federal Secrets. And what I will tell you is, there's something..." Maher: "So that's why you know so much stuff (audience laughs)? I see." Luna: "(laughs) I'm a nerd. In all seriousness, there's some things that we can't explain, and there is a problem with over-classification. But also, when you have duly-elected members of Congress being denied access, that's a problem, because we're supposed to be the, you know, check and balance on some of these agencies. And so, you'll see some interesting stuff. The federal government will ever come out and tell you what to believe." Maher: "I think they're here." Luna: "Well, there's definitely stuff that we can't explain." Maher: "I'm not shy about it." Paul Begala: "I'm still searching for intelligent life on Earth, so I'll be very (audience and Luna laugh)... I'm not into that." (Begala saying he's, "not into that" most likely means he's ignorant on the subject. IMO, anybody who takes the time to look at the decades of evidence, with an open mind, will be "into" the possibility that another intelligence is sharing this planet with us.) Luna: "I think we're in a big Universe." Maher: "Well, you may not be into that, but they're into you, okay?" Begala: "Ohhh." Maher: "I mean, whether you want [to] believe it or not, things..." Begala: "Why do they always put the probes there? If they're that sophisticated, can't they just like, scan us or something?" (Maybe they're trying to extract semen from a prostate orgasm to help with their hybrid/breeding program? Not a new theory.) Maher: "But, you know, but see, there's...okay. But if you want to be serious about it, there was an era where we heard a lot about probing. That ended." (Has it ended? I'd love to hear from experiencers and people like hypnotherapist/researcher, Yvonne Smith, who works with experiencers, to hear what people are saying about their experiences nowadays.) Maher: "Because, I mean, we never heard about any of it before we got nuclear weapons. Right after the nuclear bomb went off in 1945, suddenly, the aliens were like, maybe we ought to pay attention to these people." (Not exactly true.) Luna: "Well, there were reports of sightings and whatnot dating back into even, you know, for many, many, many, many centuries." Maher: "If you're talking about some of the stuff like what we see in the hieroglyphics and drawings, it could be, yes, it could be like they built the pyramids. That's true." (Absolutely no need to jump to the hypothesis that whatever is here (aliens?) built the pyramids. We just know that sightings and abduction cases go back to before the atomic age.) Luna: "Well, I think that there's a lot of theories, but based on what we're seeing, evidence-wise, there is one specific agency where multiple members of Congress, to include myself, received a briefing from. All of that information will be declassified, and the stuff that we saw in that briefing we can't explain." (Luna has spoken to Matt Laslo and others about being briefed by the FBI about UAP but the FBI effort was first reported in February 2025 by Politico: "FBI agents who are part of a secretive group investigating the surge of 'unidentified anomalous phenomena,' what the government uses to refer to UFOs... "The existence of the FBI’s informal working group on the issue has not been disclosed publicly before." Link to article in replies... ~~~ Maher: "But, I mean, if I can get back to the anal probing, um...." (Everybody laughs/smiles.) Luna: "Odd topic." Maher: "It seems like there was a time where they needed to do that to find out about if they...I mean, like so many people have this, almost the exact same recollection. Maybe it's some psychological phenomenon that we don't realize, but people, independently, seem to have this kind of vague memory, and (laughs) they lost a little track of time. Maybe it was the GHB (date-rape drug. ~Joe), I don't know (audience laughs). But, it seemed like the aliens were trying to find out: What makes these people tick? Who are these humans? And then, I think, they got that information. "And in the last ten, twenty, years, it's not been that. What it's been has been very, very serious people. I'm talking about military people, who are constantly saying, 'We see things we cannot explain. Either China has a weapon we don't know about, which is unlikely, or it's just something you're gonna have to tell me what it is.' (Very serious (including military) people have been reporting these things for decades. It's just getting a lot more coverage in the media now, and more people who have had access to classified data are speaking up.) Luna: "What we've seen in the briefings... And I actually asked this question to Secretary Clinton, as she was actually going to, had she won her election, be in charge of disclosure and actually releasing some of this information. And she thinks that the American people - I think this is one of the most bipartisan things in Congress, currently, and bicameral in the Senate as well - but we should be able to release the information that we have, specifically pertaining to this and let the American people decide what it is. "Look, some of it is balloons, some of it is drones, and then there's a portion of it that we can't explain where you have credible people from all walks of life confirming it. And I will tell you, based on the evidence that we have seen, there's something there." Maher: "And credible people, not just in the military, but in government, including Democrats." Begala: "I was struck by what President Obama said, and I agree with it. The vastness of the Universe is such that the arithmetic makes it pretty likely." Maher: "Right!" Begala: "And, the vastness of the Universe is such, it's pretty unlikely that we're gonna cross paths. And I think that's also true." (Well, as I've said (and others have, too), we don't know if "they" (whatever "they" turns out to be) are traveling any great distance to get here or need to "cross paths" with us. They may have been here the entire time and consider Earth their home, just like we do.) Begala: "I mean, it's just, it seems to... I'm a skeptic, but I like what you're doing, Congresswoman. Put it all out, let people decide. I'm a skeptic. Maybe you can persuade me?" Luna: "I think this gets into a deeper...if you have time listen to the Joe Rogan podcast I did. But this gets into a deeper discussion on where you are at ,spiritually. And I think there's just a lot that we have, and can't explain." (IMO, I don't think our spiritual beliefs or "where you are at, spiritually," has anything to do with what we're dealing with. As I've said before, I think the phenomenon is just part of the natural world that we don't yet understand or comprehend.) Luna: "But look, my biggest concern and why I got involved is because I had the Department of Defense at the time tell me that we were not allowed access, and I have the highest clearance possible." (She has a TS-SCI clearance. That doesn't mean she has access to, or is read into, every compartment where various Special Access Programs (SAPs) reside, or that she has a need-to-know for everything. Some feel every member of Congress should have access to everything. Others disagree. We've also heard about the DoE, which, supposedly, has their own levels of clearance. Also, in 2020, as I worked on my Wilson/Davis MegBlog, I made a cold call to someone who was the executive secretary of the Special Access Program Oversight Committee in the mid-90s.) ~Begin MegaBlog Excerpt~ "I spoke with a former military man mentioned in the Wilson/Davis documents who, in theory, also should have had access to every SAP during a specific portion of his time with the government. He told me, "that there may be levels of secrecy people don’t know about." ~End MegaBlog Excerpt~ ~~~ Luna: So if you have a duly-membered, elected-member of government - not just myself, but other members - being denied access, you have this aspect of then, who's really in control? If we're writing the checks, if you have the Pentagon failing audits...denying access, this is a problem. And so, there is this aspect of government transparency, going back to, how do we actually fix this country, and you have to start with transparency." Begala: "I'm with you on that." (Audience applauds.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2035280269792677983/amplify_video_thumb/2035257819856007169/img/8UUAdFHCewv1w8zI.jpg)
!["Tell us this isn't true." "They had a live being out [near Area 51]." "There were human experiments that went on." 👽🛸 Roswell: A Non-Human Craft or a Darker Secret? 🤫😶 (Transcript is shorter than clip. I don't have room to type more in this post so I'll just wait for replies.) ~ Lex Fridman: "In your book on 'Area 51,' you propose an explanation that I think some people have criticized, at the very end. That this might have been a disinformation campaign from, I guess, Stalin, that the Roswell incident was a remotely-piloted plane with a quote 'grotesque, child-sized aviator.' Just looking back at all that now, years later, what's the probability that it's true? What's the probability it's not?" Annie Jacobsen: (AJ): "So, you know, I've never revealed who that source is." Lex: "Yes." AJ: "You know that? Want me to tell you?" Lex: "Okay, who was the source?" AJ: "So, before I say anything on that, let me speak to the question that you asked, right? So, you asked me, 'What's the probability that that is still standing as an idea, 12, 13, 14 years later,' right? So, I continued to work with that source for years, afterwards. We talked about this. Look, I mean, his whole family knew it was him. And I knew his family because I was an integral part of, you know, I was at his house, met all his kids, grandkids." Lex: "And we should say, the source is the main expert advisor behind the story that it was. Maybe you can explain what the story is that your report in the book, that it was a disinformation campaign created by Stalin to cause mass hysteria in the United States. The very kind that we've been speaking about with the CIA and so on." AJ: "Yes! Predicated on the narrative of the 'War of the Worlds,' right? And the 'War of the Worlds,' when it was a radio program in the United States, made people go crazy. 'Oh, my God, we're being invaded by aliens!' Well, the government was always interested in the story and Joseph Stalin was, too. We know that from declassified documents, right? "And so, the source told me that the reason for this program, and that the real Roswell crash remains, were in fact, it was a black-propaganda hoax infiltrated, you know, or rather, predicated at this idea that you were gonna overwhelm America's early-warning, air-defense system, cause mayhem and maybe be able to attack the United States. That was the plan. And Stalin was also messing with the United States, messing with Truman, who sort of, you know, turned his back on him, right? At Potsdam. "And so, this idea, and the reason that the source is important... And unlike, you know, a lot of people, 'I saw this, I saw that, I learned that.' Was, according to the source, once it was determined that this was a hoax and that Stalin was able to get a craft over the United States, and it crashed. And it had, you know, people inside of it, they were people that were sort of deformed and meant...surgically altered to look like aliens. "The United States government decided that it needed to know what on earth that was all about, and if it was possible for us to have the same program. This, according to this source, right? And so, it sounds preposterous, and if it was just someone saying, 'I...,' you might say, 'Well, it's ridiculous, get them onto another subject.' But, the difference was, is this source, who was very well placed, and friends with all of the other 75 people, you know, told me this as a confession, right? A real, tearful confession, because what he said is he was involved in the American program to do the same thing. And people died, because there were human experiments that went on." "And I write about this in the last 12 pages of 'Area 51.' It was an explosive, you know, revelation, and I felt very confident in writing this because the source wanted it written. Why? Because he said, 'I'm dedicated to my country. I know about being committed to national security, and this kind of thing must never happen. And if you give people too much power, they will take advantage of it.' And he wanted it on the record. "And his wife of 60 years did not know until after the book published. Nor did His children, okay? So, after the book published, I was called to his house and sat there with his family. And they said, 'Tell us this isn't true.' And he said, 'It is true,' right? (We need a tape of this confession or...for his family to confirm they heard this from him.) AJ: "Now that source is Al O'Donnell, who is the nuclear-weapons engineer who armed, wired and fired 186 nuclear weapons, okay? So if you wanna talk about someone..." Lex: "Woooooow." AJ: "You're the first person I've told that on the record, but it's kind of about time." Lex: "Woooooow. Well, you received a lot of criticism over this story, and it confused me why, because it's...given the context of everything you've described with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it is reasonable that such action would be taken. AJ: "And, the source is extraordinarily credible, right? If you wanted to take the position, 'Well, that person isn't very reliable,' then you have to ask yourself, 'Why did they have Top-Secret clearances that are higher than any in the United States whatsoever?' Because he was responsible for arming nuclear bombs. He was called the trigger man. "And by the way, he told me that I could tell the world who he was. There's a lot of details that are really dark, involving that program. And when is it appropriate, right? Well, it feels appropriate now. First of all, because you and I have been talking for several hours. So this is what is truly a long-form conversation and it's the outcome of, you know, a very long time of my reporting, and also being judicious about what, you know, closing the loop on that, right? Because I do think it's important for people to know that sources have revelations." Lex: "And, like you said, the programs, both on the Soviet side, and the American side, conflicting, I think's the term we used previously? Ethically, morally, on all fronts. People have done some horrible things in the name of security. In your book, 'Surprise, Kill Vanish,' you write about the CIA." ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "So, today, I want to focus on a really important story that you once told me, that has never been told all the way [from the] beginning, to all the way to the end. And I just think it's just so cool we get to do this today. So, the question I want to ask is: After you got hooked on the UFO thing, with Bob Lazar, and you as a journalist said, 'I'm gonna start getting sources.' Like, 12 people coming at you, people shut down by the government. You can tell that. But you finally, finally got to a credible individual who had direct, firsthand knowledge about UFOs, exploitation, reverse engineering, and beings. And, oh my God, I want the world to hear this story. Tell us the story." George Knapp: "I've shared some of it in very broad strokes over the years- little bits and pieces of it - without ever actually referencing, in my statements, the guy the source. But this will be the first time I've told it in totality. "And it takes me back to when I first started in this. It's 1989 KLAS-TV, we put together, we spent eight months working on this project called 'UFOs: The Best Evidence.' Nine-part series. It airs on television, it's the biggest thing that's ever been produced for local TV, to this date, and still. "And, along the way, as I'm trying to find...telling the story about Bob Lazar, and his allegations about what was out there at S-4, near Area 51 - recovered discs, alien technology being reverse engineered - I'm looking for people who would support that. And I found about two dozen people, witnesses who had worked out there, who had seen bits and pieces, who could corroborate parts of what Bob had said about these kinds of craft being out there in the Nevada desert. But there wasn't anybody big picture who knew as much as Lazar claimed to have known, so I was still looking for them. "In 1990, I started working on a follow-up series to Best Evidence, looking for new witnesses. And I got a hint from an elected official that I had known, I'd covered him in Nevada politics. He says, 'You know, you should talk to my dad one of these days.' 'Your dad?' 'Yeah.' And he told me what the dad's name was and what he had done, what job he had had. And I said, 'Ah.' So I started stalking the guy. I just started showing up at events where I knew he would be. One of those events was a reunion for employees of EG&G." Corbell (JC): "So I'm assuming that this source was working within EG&G in some capacity, which is, by the way, who Bob [Lazar] said, hired him to go out to Site-4, S-4 at Area 51. So you're like, 'Okay, I can now find out if this is bullshit, or if there's an element of truth to it.' Do I have that right?" Knapp (GK): "Pretty much correct, yeah. So, I'm looking for someone whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike Bob, whose credentials were questioned, and people still attack him on where he went to school and where he worked, and was he at Los Alamos? This guy is documentable. There's a paper trail of where he worked, what he did. There's no question that he was in a position to know. He was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada. His name was Al O'Donnell, and he has a prominent family. "When I heard that EG&G was having a reunion, I went there. We took a camera [and I figured], 'This is a great chance to get him on camera before I start asking him the questions I really want to ask.'" JC: "And when you say he is a general manager, like, does that give him certain roles and responsibilities that would give him insight? Like, he's not a secretary, so what does that mean?" GK: "He's the boss. He was the boss of the Nevada office. And I'll tell you a little bit about EG&G. So, it was a company that was created in Boston, right around the end of World War Two. Al O'Donnell had been in the Navy, serving during the war. He got out of the Navy while the war was still underway and went to work for a company called Raytheon, which became this massive, gigantic defense contractor that's still around today, still in Nevada in fact." JC: Yeah, they've got a big connection to the UFO topic, right? But, when you say Boston, like, where in Boston was it created?" GK: "Well, MIT is where the company was born. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier were the three guys, the EG&G in that. They were at MIT. Scientists, engineers, they created this company there. And Al O'Donnell, who had been working for Raytheon, working on the Manhattan Project. He didn't know he was working on the Manhattan Project, but they were building these devices, complex triggers, that allowed them to detonate nuclear weapons. He learned later what he was doing was part of the Manhattan Project. "He goes to MIT, starts working with EG&G. Their company in those days had, I think, 15 employees, Al said. So it was a very small startup. But it suddenly exploded because the American atomic program exploded in those years. In 1950, Harry Truman decides that we need a permanent, nuclear testing site somewhere in the continental U.S., so they looked at a bunch of places, and they settled on Nevada. "Prior to that, Al O'Donnell had been sent out to the Pacific. They had five of these massive, atomic bomb tests out in the Pacific, and they decided to move it into a continental U.S. location and Nevada's Test Site - it was called the Nevada Test Site in those days - was chosen. Al O'Donnell leads the exodus from Boston, out to Nevada. They start hiring engineers and scientists, physicists and other security, spies." JC: "What are they working on at this time when they make that move?" GK: "Atomic bombs. They're building, testing atomic bombs. EG&G was a really precise organization that was created in order to detonate, measure and photograph atomic weapons. If you look in the history of photography, you'll see some of these amazing photos that they took of, you know, water drops dropping in water and...they're pretty famous shots because of these cameras that they developed. And it was perfect for use and testing atomic weapons and documenting what the process was. "So, EG&G comes out to Las Vegas, they are the managers of the Nevada Test Site. They, subsequently, years later, become the managers of Area 51 when it opens in 1955. So Al O'Donnell is the top guy. He oversees the nuclear testing program out there, manages it for EG&G, works with the Atomic Energy Commission. He has a Top-Secret security clearance and he can go anywhere and see anything. There's, basically, no restrictions, nothing that is outside of his ability to find out and see." JC: "So, this is an impeccable resume. This is somebody who was in position to know, and would know if someone like Bob Lazar was telling the truth or not telling the truth. I find it, personally, humorous that EG&G was, its genesis, its seed, came from MIT, right?" GK: "So, late 1990 or early 1991, I'd have to look up the dates. But somewhere in there is this event, this EG&G reunion. I go there, we got a camera, I interview Al O'Donnell, introduce myself, and say, 'Hey, I'm really interested in this, can we continue this conversation?' So he invites me to his home. He says, 'Come on over, we'll arrange to come over on a Saturday or something. We'll sit down, I'll go through my scrapbooks and show you some documents and memorabilia and photos from that era.' I was like, 'Great.' "So I go to his house and meet this wife. And we sit down, he opens up these big scrapbooks, and he starts showing me all the stuff that he had done. Photos that had been taken out in the proximity of these gigantic nuclear tests. They had great stories about the camaraderie that developed among the engineers and scientists. And he's going through all this stuff and showing me all this. And I love it, I loved every bit of it. I've never had a bad day at the Nevada Test Site, by the way. Every time I've gone out there to do a story, it's just a terrific way to spend some time." JC: "Secrets should be kept, secrets are kept, and you are a proponent of keeping secrets when it's that kind of thing." GK: "Sure, absolutely. And I respected the boundaries that they set up for us in doing these kinds of stories. So I did go out to the Nevada Test Site a lot over the next 40 years or so and put together a lot of different stories. And they knew of my interest in that area that's just outside what the Nevada Test Site, a place called Area 51. In 1955, Area 51 was, basically, created and EG&G got the contract to manage Area 51, and had kept it for the next 30, 35 years. So, whatever went on out there, they had an inside knowledge of what was going on." JC: "So, you meet this guy, Al O'Donnell, for the first time when he's at this public thing. You probably say something like, 'Your son told me to talk to you,' or something. Whatever. It ends up, he invites you to his home, and you're going through scrapbooks, and he's showing you all this atomic testing stuff that he was involved in. GK: "Yeah, and I'm telling him, 'Boy, this is really interesting. That's fascinating. I'd love to do a story on it.' And after we're there for maybe two hours, he closes this one big scrapbook and he goes, 'You're not here to talk about this, are ya?' I said, 'Well, not exactly.' He says, 'I know what you're here to talk about. I know what you want to ask about.' And right about that point, his wife walks in and she says, 'Don't start telling them that stuff! Don't even tell him!' And he kind of joked about it.' JC: "What were you there to talk about?" GK: "UFOs, UFOs. Area 51, Bob Lazar, crashed saucers, reverse engineering, to see if he had any knowledge of that, because I'd been led to believe that he did. So he closes that book and he says, 'We'll have we'll get together another time and we'll talk about it in private.' And over the course of the next two years or so, he and I would meet at coffee shops and talk about it. And I would ask him questions, and really, it was like pulling teeth. He wanted to tell me stuff but he made me work at it." (AJ says his family was there for the confession. Knapp has over two years of meetings with him. A bit confusing.) GK: "And the condition was, I couldn't take any notes. I couldn't record it, I couldn't take any notes. So each time I'd meet with him, I'd rush back to my car and start scribbling notes on pieces of paper so I'd remember everything that he said. And the story that he told me, that evolved over those couple of years was pretty fantastic. "He said that they did have a flying saucer that had been recovered from New Mexico. I think he indicated that it had been taken from New Mexico to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which is... He never said Roswell, but I think it was the Roswell incident is what he [was] talking about. And it confirmed some of the details about what we know, likely, happened with the Roswell craft." JC: "When he's telling you, 'We have recovered a craft,' did he say it like, this is secret, don't tell anybody?" GK: "Yeah, it was just for my knowledge, my background and information. It wasn't a story I could do then. We were negotiating about how, or when, or if I could ever use that information or make it public. He told me the details about this craft. He said that it had been stored at Indian Springs. Indian Springs is an Air Force Base that's been there for a long time. It's now called Creech. Indian Springs existed before Area 51 was made. "But he says it was there, they kept it there. It might have been in an underground facility, I'm not quite sure. But then when Area 51, after it opened in 1955, they moved it to an adjacent facility. He didn't say it was S-4, he didn't say it was Papoose, but I think that's what he's talking about. Papoose Lake is where Bob Lazar said he worked, and where they had built nine hangars underground, disguised to look like the desert, and where they had other recovered craft. "He says they worked on this recovered craft, reverse engineering, trying to figure out how it worked, who built it. Whether or not they could duplicate the technology because, apparently, they thought this was pretty advanced, and they'd like to be able to build more of 'em. "And he says it was a very closed program, very small. It was only, I think, five of them that were aware of it, at least in the early stages, that were working on this project. And it was very hush hush, and they didn't share it with anybody else in the company, or anybody else in the area, or the military. They just kept it to themselves. "So, after we're having these meetings - and I go back and write down all these notes and stuff, details about what he had shared with me - we have another meeting at a coffee shop, and I said, 'Well gosh, you know, aren't you worried that it would get out, that the word would get out?' "And he says to me, 'We were worried It would get out?' That's right. 'I mean, what...it? What do you mean, it?' It. Meaning a live being, they had a live being out there. I go, 'You had a live being, an alien as well?' [O'Donnell said], 'Tell you the truth, we didn't know what it was.' I said, 'You know, maybe it came from millions of miles away, out in space, and you're keeping it in a cage near Area 51?' He said, 'To tell you the truth, we couldn't communicate with it in the beginning. We didn't know what it was, we didn't know where it was from, and we didn't know what to do with it.'" JC: "When Al O'Donnell says to you, 'We had a live alien, a being,' obviously from another world, what was your feeling?" GK: "Well, I was overwhelmed, because it was, in effect, confirmation of things that I had come to believe, because of the reporting we'd already done. And then the evidence of cover ups and lies that had been told to the public. Here's this guy in a high position, with a high security clearance, telling me that it was true. That they really did have a craft and they had a being. "My second feeling was, one of overwhelming sadness for the being, whatever it was, you know, that was kept out there. I asked him, you know, what had happened to it, what became of it? He says, 'I don't know. I don't know whatever happened to it.' But it was out there for a while, alive, and eventually they figured out a way to communicate with it. "And so I asked him, 'Well, what did it look like?' And he made me guess, as he did with all these questions. He made me guess. He said, 'Well, it kinda looks like a certain political candidate.' I said, 'Well, who? A political candidate? Who?' And at the time, Ross Perot was running for president. He said, 'It looks like Ross Perot. A little skinny guy with a big ears and tiny head.' Not a classic Gray-looking alien, but a very odd-looking creature with really big ears, that looked like Ross Perot. And I laughed. "And so we had these conversations for a while, and I was blown away by the information that he shared. I took all these notes. I was hoping that someday, I might be able to get the information out. And I asked him, 'Look, you're getting up there in age. If I can't record something with you, could you record a statement to the effect of telling me the story on camera, and then when you pass on, I can have the tape?' And he said, 'Yeah,' he would do it." JC: "You know, look, I've heard a lot of wild stories that I can't verify. A guy's telling you something, and you get a sense as a journalist, when you go down a road with somebody, and you take your time and you vet it... Did you feel...I mean, is there any world where he's trying to f*ck with ya? Or is there a world where he's trying to, you know, dissuade...kind of put crazy information into your brain? Like, how did you feel when he was telling you this? Was he like, straight with you?" GK: "Yeah, he was very straightforward. And again, this was not information he was giving up, willingly. I mean, I had to really dig and coax and arm twist to get him to cough things up. And it was very slow-going over about a two-year period, maybe a little bit longer. And I know that this...you always have to be wary of people with different agendas and people that just make stuff up. I didn't get that sense from him because of his standing in the community. He had shared this story with members of his own family." JC: "And that's why they came to you, is because they kind of [gave] you a tip. And these members of his family, they're serious people, too." GK: "Yeah. One of his sons is an FBI agent, or was, he's passed on now. One was an elected official in Nevada. That was the one that gave me the tip." JC: So, I just want to nail this [down] so I understand. You were approached because he had shared this with his family, privately, and then you had to kind of coax to get through to him about the story?" GK: "Right." JC: "I think that's important because look, these things don't happen, like, people [don't] just come to us and say, you know, crazy stuff, and we're like, 'Hh, yeah, cool. Sounds good.' Like, the dynamic of that, socially, as a journalist, like getting in there, taking time. You know, we have to verify if what he said is true, and there are some major bombs coming about that. But it's like, that process is so important. "So here you are, you're sitting with him, he tells you now, they have a live alien. And you felt sad because you're an animal-rights activist, you love animals. I know with your cats at home and you've done horse stories and all the stories about like, the inhumane stuff to animals. So it made you personally sad, makes me sad, too now thinking about it." GK: Yeah. Well, we had these series of meetings, and then the last time we met, after he'd agreed to go ahead and record a tape - and give it to me after making an arrangement so I got it after he passed on - he said that he had been told to not talk to me anymore. He said he had been given a warning [and] it was not a good idea for him to talk to me any more about anything. Not just that topic, but anything." JC: "Well, who knows that you're talking? Who would warn him?" GK: "I don't know. I don't know. But you recall, back in those days, there was surveillance. We had our phones tapped at KLAS-TV. There were guys following us around. Me, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, maybe Robert Bigelow." JC: "People were also coming to your news station, OSI. And they would come in and try to like, get to you and then they'd show you their card...and take it back. And you know your phones are tapped. So it's like, because of this story, all of a sudden you're on high alert. So, anybody could have called him, been watching you, had meetings with the guy. So what you're saying is one day he just said, 'I can't...I'm not allowed to talk to you any more.'" GK: "Yeah, I've been told not to talk to you anymore. I've been told not to."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2079616298435400152/amplify_video_thumb/2079612656366112768/img/mxq1uM4Cp0iG8pyw.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)
![🤯Whitney Webb pitches mind-blowing theory on Joe Kent's real narrative purpose: engineer "anti-semitic, right-leaning domestic terrorists" to feed to the "pre-crime" machine: "[Kent's] an intelligence officer and top CIA guy." "Be careful in trusting 'former spooks' who come out of nowhere and are saying what you want to hear right away." "Basically, the first Trump administration defined the rising domestic terror threat because after 9/11 they've been building all this infrastructure for a war on domestic terror. Every administration has advanced it, Democrat and Republican. So who are they saying the domestic terrorists are? Anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists." "I worry when people from that exact nexus that existed in [Trump's first administration] come out and are trying to get Right-leaning populists in particular to do things that the Trump administration itself—even if no one else agrees with the definition—would define as anti-Semitic." This clip of Webb (Whitney Webb), author of One Nation Under Blackmail and contributing editor of unlimitedhangout(.)com, is taken from an interview with Jimmy Dore (Jimmy Dore) posted to Rumble on March 26, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Dore: "What do you make of Joe Kent?" Webb: "Yeah, so with Joe Kent, he's a intelligence officer and top CIA guy. I think a lot of stuff is going on right now, and I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it. But I think people should be careful in trusting former, quote–unquote, former spooks who come out of nowhere and are saying what you want to hear right away. Because a lot of times what happens is that these figures will do that to build up trust with the public and then they'll misdirect you somewhere else if you're not careful. "So I would advise vigilance and critical thinking, which is often in short supply, but should not be, about, that figure in, in particular. But I think— Dore: "So you think there's like, there might be some kind of a long-game plan with Joe Kent?" Webb: "Oh, yeah. So you saw—" Dore: "So, so I've heard this argument and, and that you know, don't take him as face value, that they're just setting him up to be the next Trump or JD Vance or something and then he's going to do all the horrible thing. So that's—" Webb: "They could. It's very possible, but I don't know how it'll go. But let me give you an example of why I'm really skeptical of him. "So when Trump was, I encourage people to go back and look at the first iteration of the Trump administration to understand what's happening now. And since my career in journalism began during Trump's first term, I thankfully remember a good amount of it. "So, about a year before the January Six event, there was this DHS official and this is the Trump administration, Elizabeth Neuman, I think her name was. She was basically saying, there's going to be a domestic terror event. We can see it building, but we can't quite stop it. It's another 9/11. Oh no. If only we had more surveillance powers and whatever, we could maybe stop this other imminent 9/11, whatever. "And so basically in that hearing, it was a hearing where she was testifying. Top officials from DHS and, and other intelligence agencies were basically painting who is the up-and-coming domestic terrorist profile in the United States, what Americans are domestic terrorists. "And so basically, the— I, I really wish I could remember the specific name of the hearing to direct people to that because it is on C-SPAN, still. But basically, the profile they gave were anti-Semitic Trump supporters or anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists. So I worry when people from that exact nexus that existed in Trump One come out and are trying to get Right-leaning populists in particular to do things that the Trump administration itself, even if it, no one else agrees with the definition, would define as anti-Semitic." Dore: "So, so what I— explain that again to me because you lost me a little bit right at the end. So you're saying that—" Webb: "Okay, so basically the first Trump administration defined the rising domestic terror threat because after 9/11 they've been building all this infrastructure for a war on domestic terror. Every administration has advanced it, Democrat and Republican. So who are they saying the domestic terrorists are? Anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists." Dore: "And so do you think Joe Kent is, is one of those?" Webb: "So before this era they had the domestic terror threat they were trying to put in front of you were obviously these groups of like Feds, like Patriot Front and the Proud Boys. And all of that. Okay, so how, if you, if, if you can't fake the demographic, how do you engineer the demographic?... "So basically if you have Trump officials that are part of this apparatus claiming right-leaning anti- Semites are domestic terrorists that need to be targeted by this infrastructure and the surveillance infrastructure, in pre-crime and all of that, that's been a part of this buildup of the war on domestic terror. And then you have people coming out and being like we're going to blame, you know, you know, saying what people want to hear because obviously Israel absolutely is intimately involved with getting us involved in the Iran war. "But the other side of it is you create— you, you signal boost that with people like Joe Kent potentially. And then you have people sort of muddy the waters between Israel and all Jewish people, which is not fair. And then you can have the Trump administration swoop in and you know, look at Alexis Wilkins. Foreign government operators are driving these narratives. "It's, it's like reverse Russiagate. And well, I mean I probably should have thought this theory a little bit more before explaining it on your show, but basically I worry that someone like Joe Kent is coming out of, out of nowhere to try and sort of engineer this problem that the US Government has had is we can't make domestic terrorists appear that fit our profile. "So now we want people to create a class of right- leaning populists who basically fit our definition. If we just define anti-Semites as people who are critical of Israel and then we can target these people with our domestic terror infrastructure. So I worry that could be happening."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2037354939635442113/amplify_video_thumb/2037350889284071424/img/h0fAF1sNQM8NIvCW.jpg)
