Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
When a handsome guy gives big head - docking style! This was a challenge! #docking #bigdick #foreskin #uncut #intact #headspin #cockring #dockandroll Intact & Restored 🍆 Scandinavian Shoutout Channel (11.4 k) #Zebratos
238,359 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![So Jefferson Morley says that "the evidence does not support the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president." Jeff relies on the eyewitness account of one of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK at Dallas, Bob McClelland. And he says I failed in Case Closed to challenge Dr. McClelland's credibility. Below is an excerpt from CASE CLOSED, Chapter 13, “He Had A Death Look: Parkland and Bethesda." Read it and decide for yourselves what you believe. And check my source notes, almost all based on my own interviews in 1992 with the chief attending Parkland doctors. It is their judgment of Dr. McClelland's account that is critically important. “However, some of the Parkland doctors who treated the President described a gaping wound in the rear of JFK’s head (the occipital region), not the right side (the parietal). If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front, with a large exit hole in the rear of the head. Several Parkland doctors also thought they saw cerebellum, tissue from the base of the brain, on the stretcher or in the operating room. Yet, the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum intact. If the Parkland descriptions of the cerebellum were true, this raised legitimate questions over the authenticity of the photographs of JFK’s brain, which showed no such damage. Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, in their book High Treason, devote more than thirty pages to highlighting this conflict between the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the head wound. However, it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertion about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail. When Dr. Kemp Clark looked at the wound to determine whether the President could be revived, it was the first time it had been examined. “From what I read in later books, everyone looked at it in detail from the beginning, but that is not true,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldn’t look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants.”83 “We never had the opportunity to review his wounds,” Dr. Carrico told the author, “in order to describe them accurately. We were trying to save his life.”84 Dr. Adolph Giesecke agrees: “We had no time to examine the wounds. That was to be done by a forensic pathologist, not by us.”85 “I don’t think any of us got a good look at the head wound,” confirms Dr. Perry. “I didn’t examine it or really look at it that carefully.”86 “And when we realized he was dead,” Dr. Baxter recalls, “none of us had the heart to go and examine the head wound while Mrs. Kennedy was in the room. We all just made our way out of the room.”87 “When things were over with,” Dr. Jones says, “you felt it was her time and you should get out of there and let her be alone with him.”88 Dr. Baden of the Select Committee concurs: “Parkland was not concerned with whether the bullet was going from front to back or vice versa, they were only treating the symptoms, not the wounds. Some of them could be good surgeons but lousy pathologists. A third of the time, an autopsy shows something was missed by the treating doctors at the hospital. In unnatural deaths, it is common for the treating physicians to mix up stab wounds and gun shots, and they are wrong half the time about exit or entrance. The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off—there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about that wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don’t know what they are talking about since there is nothing there but the entry injury in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies. “One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It’s very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.”89 Yet mistaken descriptions of what the Parkland doctors did and saw continue to be published. High Treason asserts that some doctors examined the wound with a flashlight and that Dr. Jenkins picked the head up from the stretcher to show other doctors the extent of the rear wound.90 The eight principal doctors who attended to JFK on that day all told the author that such reports were false. Moreover, Groden and Livingstone cite early interviews and some testimony before the Warren Commission to support their hypothesis that the Parkland doctors saw a different head wound than the one described at Bethesda.* Yet the Parkland physicians, in their discussions with the author, were almost unanimous in supporting the autopsy findings that the massive exit wound was on the right side (parietal) of the President’s head, not the rear (occipital), and that there was no sign of damaged cerebellum tissue. They insisted that the explainable differences in the wound descriptions between them and the Bethesda doctors have been exploited by conspiracy writers, who created a controversy where none exists. Some admitted that their early statements about the wounds, which they now consider to be mistaken, may have contributed to the confusion. Dr. Bill Midgett, who helped wheel the President from the limousine into trauma room one, says, “The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue. All of us were so shocked … and to have Mrs. Kennedy there—none of us stared very closely to see the wound. But it was more parietal than occipital—that much I could see. I did not turn the President over to look, but there was no cerebellum in that car or on the people.” “We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound,” recalls Dr. Carrico. “We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don’t believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken.”91 Dr. Giesecke also admits an error in his original testimony when he described the wound as more occipital. “I guess I have to say that I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. But, for instance, Lifton spent six hours with me trying to get me to say the wounds were like he wanted them. The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn’t do that, nor did I see anyone else do that.”92 Dr. Peters had said that the cerebellum was damaged. “I saw the photograph of the brain when I was in Washington for the Nova program, and I saw the cerebellum was depressed, but it was not lacerated or torn. It is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to in 1964.… The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear.” Dr. Jenkins’s original report also stated he saw cerebellum. “The description of the cerebellum was my fault,” he says. “When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.”93* “I did not really look at it that closely,” says Dr. Perry. “But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/ parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where that wound started or finished. I did not see any cerebellum.”94 Dr. Baxter agrees that it was difficult to determine the precise location of the wound when treating the President: “He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn’t tell what was wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That’s just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.”95 Dr. Jones makes the same observation, saying he did not even know there was a head wound for several minutes, and then finally realized it was a “large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there.”96 Dr. Giesecke agrees “that the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other.”97 The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of the head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw. “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99 “I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 “Bob is an excellent surgeon,” says Dr. Jenkins. “He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right. In 1988, when I went to the National Archives, the photos showed the President’s brain was crenelated from the trauma, and it resembled cerebellum, but it was not cerebellar tissue. I think it has thrown off a lot of people that saw it. I guess a last point is that Bob and Groden [co-author of High Treason] are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.”102 “McClelland may be a fine surgeon, but he is a lousy pathologist,” says Baden. “I am sure he thinks he saw that, and has developed it in his mind. But his memory is just completely wrong, and the autopsy photos and X rays prove that.”103* Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book in 1992 in which he claimed he examined the wound, that the hole was in the rear of the head, and that the cerebellum was lacerated.104† Crenshaw, a junior resident at the time, arrived late at trauma room one and assisted for only a few minutes near the end. He was in no position to make the judgments he sensationally proclaimed in his book. In fact, his role was so minor that most of the other doctors do not even remember him. “I don’t remember Dr. Crenshaw in the room,” says Dr. Ron Jones. “I don’t remember him in there at any time, but he may have been,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “Neither do I,” says Dr. Baxter. “I feel sorry for him,” says Dr. Perry. “I had thought about suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate.… He is a pitiful sight.” A senior Dallas doctor who is a close Crenshaw friend told the author, “I think it is a bag of worms of ego, going over the hill, the last hurrah.” While almost all the Parkland doctors who treated JFK support the findings of the autopsy team, their confirmation may not be as important as the studies conducted by subsequent panels of experts. The Clark and Rockefeller commissions, as well as the House Select Committee’s medical panel, affirm the original autopsy conclusions about JFK’s head wound. The most detailed work was done by the Select Committee. All nine forensic pathologists agreed that the beveling of the skull and the damage to the brain meant the small rear hole in the President’s head was an entrance wound.105 The exit hole was consistent with a wound caused by the two large bullet fragments found in the front of the President’s car.106* SOURCE NOTES 83. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 84. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 85. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 86. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 87. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 88. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 89. Interviews with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992, and November 7, 1992. 90. Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 46. 91. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 92. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 93. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 3, 1992. 94. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 95. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 96. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 97. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 98. Interview with Dr. Robert McClelland, March 9, 1992. 99. Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 140. 100. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 101. Interview with Dr. Paul Peters, March 10, 1992; Dr. Peters also drew a diagram that showed the doctors’ positions around the table and provided it to the author. 102. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 103. Interview with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992. 104. Charles Crenshaw, op. cit., p. 88. 105. HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 110, 115. 106. Ibid., p. 128. AND the Footnotes to that section *Although no one at Parkland saw JFK’s back wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins later told Dr. John Lattimer that he had felt it with his finger when he positioned the President’s head and neck to facilitate the passage of oxygen (Kennedy and Lincoln, p. 153). * After the autopsy, Humes and Boswell wrote their report from memory, without the benefit of the photographs or X rays. Robert Kennedy, who feared the public display of the X rays and photos would be offensive to the Kennedy family, reached an agreement with the Warren Commission not to publish the materials, and except for Earl Warren, the commissioners did not examine them. When the film was turned over to the custody of the National Archives in 1966, a metal box containing the President’s brain was missing from the inventory, together with some tissue slides. Humes had given everything from the autopsy, including the brain, to JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. “He told me,” said Humes, “that the [Kennedy] family wanted to inter the brain with the President’s body” (Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, Vol. 267, No. 20, p. 2803). The House Select Committee concluded that Robert Kennedy likely disposed of the material for fear it would become a lurid public exhibition (HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 367–68). * In 1988, four of the Parkland doctors—Pepper Jenkins, Richard Dulaney, Paul Peters, and Robert McClelland—went to the National Archives at the invitation of a PBS documentary show, Nova, about the assassination. They were the first Parkland physicians to see the autopsy photographs, and each confirmed the photos represented what they remembered seeing that day, including a picture of the rear of President Kennedy’s head, which shows no defect. It has been suggested that the reason the photo shows the rear of the President’s head as undamaged is because the doctor (whose fingers are present in the picture) is holding a large flap of skin to cover the rear defect. “False,” says Dr. Michael Baden. “There is no flap of skin there. There is a bony protrusion from the right side of the head, but the rear is undamaged, except for the entry hole near the top of the skull” (Interview, January 23, 1992). * High Treason asserts that Jenkins originally said JFK was shot in the chest. Jenkins laughed when the author read him the Groden and Livingstone charge. “I don’t know where they get this stuff from. We put tubes into the President’s chest, but there were no chest wounds caused by anything else.” * In his original report, McClelland said there was a wound to the left temple, one that does not show up on any autopsy X ray or photograph. This has caused some to charge that Kennedy was shot by a second gunman from another location at Dealey, and that the autopsy team either negligently or intentionally overlooked that wound. “I’ll tell you how that happened,” Dr. Jenkins explained to the author. “When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, ‘Where are his wounds?’ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President’s temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.” † Crenshaw also said the autopsy photograph of the tracheotomy opening on Kennedy’s neck shows that it was larger than it had been at Parkland, implying that additional surgery might have been done between Parkland and Bethesda. “That’s ridiculous,” Dr. Malcolm Perry told the author. “I did the procedure. Tracheotomies are not pretty things, as speed is of the essence. Tissue can sag and stretch after death, but the photos I have seen look like the opening I remember making.” * While the Select Committee’s forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President’s head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side “could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.” In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President’s head, a front shooter fired into the wound created by the rear bullet. That is Wecht’s way of explaining why there is not another entry hole on JFK’s head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit for a front bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that “the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.” He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which would have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, “Yes, that’s true, there should be more fragments.” Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible—except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination. * The author viewed a video taken of the execution of a journalist by army troops in Central America. When the victim, who was lying flat on his stomach on the ground, was shot in the rear of the head, his upper torso and legs arched off the ground, in the opposite direction of the bullet. It was similar to the neuromuscular reaction JFK suffered. Also, when Governor Connally was struck in the rear shoulder by a bullet, he did not fall forward, but is clearly visible on the Zapruder film, his wounded shoulder pushing back into the car seat, toward the direction from which he was shot.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1907374209979842573/ext_tw_video_thumb/1907371183789539328/pu/img/H5emFOslkouoPfyv.jpg)
!["If [Ross] had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard." ~Murgia Lockheed, Landing Drones, Stupor, and Trump Did think this would be another LAP (Long-Ass Post), but here it is. Ross Coulthart: "It's been a very interesting week with the public response to the comments that I've made on the show that I do with my friend and colleague,Bryce Zabel, "Need to Know," where we discussed what I've been told by my sources, multiple sources, by the way, that Lockheed Martin was indeed behind the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 with the USS Nimitz battle carrier group." Let's rewind: This is what Ross and Bryce said on the @Coulthart_Zabel episode uploaded on July 6th. My comments in ( ). Ross: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." Bryce: "Ooookay." Ross: "The Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Why are we being lied to? This is the issue. Why is the United States government now participating - at White-House, executive level, in collusion with the national-security state - to keep secret the fact that they've made these advances? I suspect it's because they've realized that they're being overtaken by their foreign adversaries, and they don't want you to know that." Bryce: "Okay, the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin. Well, in some respects, given how insane the Tic Tac behaved during the Nimitz, where it went from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second, then I would say, well there's one for the U.S. team. Obviously, we have some good stuff out there, if that's the case, right?" Ross: "How much of that is being shared with the actual Defense Department that's responsible for the defense of the United States? This is the kind of questions that Congress should be asking." Bryce: "So you're saying Lockheed Martin might - or anybody, but Lockheed Martin in this particular case - has a Tic Tac that they are testing, and have been testing, and have access to." (One can argue that when Bryce said LM has a Tic Tac that they've been testing, that could include the possibility that it's an NHI craft they somehow acquired and not something they built. That would go against my "Ross is flip flopping" allegation.) Bryce: "But they might not have shared it with the Defense Department of the United States? Which probably paid for it in their trillion-dollar budgets. That's kind of mind-blowing in itself." Ross: "Those are the questions I think Congress should be asking. I mean, what I'm saying, basically, is..." Bryce: "Why are you saying this, by the way? Where did you? Where is this from? How do we know this? What's going on?" Ross: "I'm...I'm sorry, Bryce, I can't go there." ~ Bryce: "Frankly, the only major row that you and I have ever had, which was over eminent domain, and who can... Is it not possible that that legislation has eminent domain in it as an issue that the government would be able to go seize potential things from private enterprise, if the government, in fact, thought that Lockheed Martin had a Tic Tac? Wouldn't we want to go seize it?" Ross: "Bloody hell we would. Exactly. But that hasn't happened. And, you know, I can tell you, David Grusch has told them exactly where to look. Jake Barber has told them exactly where to look. This is why I just found it, in many ways, I find it absurd that we're still debating the issue whether the NHI technology recovery is real. Of course it's real!" (I think/suspect it's real. But if I'm gonna play journalist, I need to see proof before I say, "Of course it's real!" Or, "I know it's real." Walk me into the building and show me. I don't think this has happened with Ross so a debate is still warranted, IMO.) Bryce: "This thing you just said about Lockheed Martin. Is this the first time you've said that in public, or have you said that before?" Ross: "Look, there's been speculation for a while that it's Lockheed Martin, but I'm now very, very sure that it was Lockheed Martin. And I think the Tic Tac is part of two, at least two different platforms that Lockheed's been working on. Different platforms that they've been working on. And it's technology that, until very recently, most of Congress was completely unaware of." (To me, that sounds like Ross is saying, that whatever LM is working on, they built it.) Bryce: "Well, I just hope, if there's a war with China or a war with NHI, I just hope Lockheed Martin remembers who helped pay for it, and they're on our side. That's what I would say." Ross: "Well, I hope they are. I don't think we can have any expectation, though, unless the public demands answers, that we're going to get the truth." Full post here: ~And more from yesterday's "Reality Check"~ @MeaganOurada reads a question: "You recently mentioned the Tic Tac was a produced/manufactured by Lockheed Martin, but you never mentioned if it was under autonomous flight or piloted." (This shows that others took Ross's original comments as LM manufacturing a Tic Tac and not figuring out how to fly an NHI Tic Tac that they somehow had acquired.) Ross: "That's a good question, and I'll be honest with you, I don't know for sure." (Here was a chance for Ross to say, "I didn't mean to suggest it was 100% produced/manufactured by Lockheed, just that it was one possibility. The other is they operated a NHI Tic Tac that they had acquired.) Ross: "I have been told previously that when Tic Tacs... You see, one of the other things I want to clarify here as well is, there are NHI Tic Tacs." (We don't know that for sure, and later on, Ross adds that they are "suspected" to be NHI.) Ross: "A lot of people seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. That's not the case at all." (A few people who follow me thought that but I think the overwhelming majority realize that Ross didn't say that.) Ross: "What I was told, and I'm reasonably sure that this is the case, is that Tic Tac was being operated by Lockheed Martin, and it's conceivable that that was being operated neuro-meditatively, psionically, by a human psionic, which is what I understand, is the way that these retrieved, non-human craft are being operated." ("Reasonably sure" and "operated," is different than what he said on N2K: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." I think most people took that as: "I now now, categorically, that Lockheed built a Tic Tac and that's what Fravor chased in 2004." That's why you saw such a pushback from people on social media.) Ross: "It's not clear to me, though, whether this is a craft that was built by Lockheed Martin, or whether it is Lockheed Martin testing the use of neuro-meditative signaling, as our friends at Skywatcher called it, to operate one of these craft. I just can't answer that question, specifically." (If Ross would have said this in the N2K episode and didn't use the word, "categorically," I think the reaction would have been, "Oh, that's interesting." I'm still skeptical that Lockheed has ANY role in the 2004 Tic Tac incident but I'll keep my mind open.) Ross: "All I can do is tell you what I've been told by my multiple sources, which is that the operation of the Tic Tac was being controlled, on the day, by Lockheed Martin." (Again, if he had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard. I hope humans have developed the ability to control a Tic Tac and make it perform like what was reported on November 14th, 2004. But, again, I'm skeptical. The SPY-1 radar on the USS Princeton tracked objects for a week or so, leading up to the encounter Fravor and the others had with the Tic Tac. Were all of those objects LM-controlled craft? Seems unlikely. In 2019, at UFO MegaCon, Kevin Day said that on around November 10th, he started witnessing these strange tracks on his radar scope. He wasn’t really concerned with them because there was a lot of air traffic off the coast of California and they were a significant ways from the strike group. So they just monitored them and reporting them to 'higher authorities' and maintained track of them. They stood out and were anomalous because they were at 28,000 feet and going at 100 knots. Day said that was, 'extremely bizarre.' His entire job was to identify stuff and he had no idea what these were. None. Radar was shut down so they could do an extensive diagnostics to make sure it was working and these were real contacts. They were. ~ Just going through all the possibilities I can think of.... Did LM "hijack" or summon one of those craft, psychically, and "make it" have an encounter with Fravor and Friends? Or, maybe none of the above? Maybe it was a NHI craft and had nothing to do with LM? Remember, Fravor said it looked like it might be docking with a submerged object, so maybe that's why it was in that specific area? To me, that suggests NHI.) Ross: "Now I want to say here, let's be really clear about this: There is always the possibility that sources that talk to a journalist like me may be maligned. They may indeed be running some kind of psyop." (I know he has said that kind of thing in the past but I wish Ross had reiterated that point in the N2K segment. I have heard from a few people who think that's exactly what's happening here. And also, if his sources are so sure LM was involved and "operating" a Tic Tac, to me, it would make sense that they would also know whether it was a Tic Tac LM acquired or...a Tic Tac LM manufactured, based on reverse engineering the real thing.) Ross: "And of course I've taken that (disinformation/psyop) into consideration in asking the question. The difficulty is, I can't go into the detail, for very obvious reasons, about who these sources are and why I think so strongly that those sources are telling me the truth. And I can tell you, there are a lot of people who are assuring me that I'm flat wrong. And that's fine. But let's have a discussion about this." (Well now that "categorically" seems be to off the table, we can discuss it. BTW, back in 2019 on my blog, Dave Beaty 🇺🇦 and I discussed the possibility that the Tic Tac was human tech. I know others have discussed that, too, so it's not a new idea.) ~Ross then switches gears to the drones~ Ross: "And also, let's talk about what I think was actually another of the major points that I was trying to make in the course of that conversation I had with Bryce. Which is that there is an obvious contradiction between what the White House has said - that these were FAA-authorized drones operating [in] the continental United States in November, December, January - and what the U.S. Air Force has said. Which is two senior generals, one former, one serving commander of NORTHCOM, NORAD, responsible for the defense of the United States northern aerospace, stated categorically, on the record, that they have no idea who is responsible for those drone craft that were hovering over the continent of the United States. That's an obvious, logical contradiction." (In the March 16th episode of 60 Minutes with Bill Whitaker., we learned... Retired four-star general, Mark Kelly, went up to the roof and saw drones over Langley, from the size of a quadcopter up to the size of a small car. General Glen VanHerck (now retired) is the former commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes" that we can't track the drones over Langley or see where they originated. "It's a capability gap. Certainly, they can come and go from any direction. The FBI is looking at potential options but they don't have an answer right now." General Gregory Guillot is the current commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes," that, "the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and track the threat." Could we detect drones flying into Langley today? "At low altitude, probably not, with your standard FAA or surveillance radars. I don't think we know entirely what happened. It is alarming." And, as I've (Joe) been saying forever, a big problem was/is the rules of engagement that detail when and how you can shoot down drones. VanHerk: "It's been one year since Langley had their drone incursion and we don't have the policies and laws in place to deal with this? That's not a sense or urgency.") ~ Ross: "And if the president, think about this... If the president...it's actually a good point that actually supports the possibility that I might, in fact, be right, and that my sources are in fact telling me the truth. If the president is telling the American public they don't need to worry about these drones - drones which we know are operating anomalously, with anomalous characteristics - then what the hell is going on? It implies he's been briefed. (Okay, what Ross is saying here: If you combine the president telling us not to worry about the drones, along with these drones making anomalous maneuvers, it bolsters his claim that LM (and others) has advanced tech that can also be used in drone tech. And that the president has been briefed about this advanced tech. But the problem with that line of thinking is, when you look at what eyewitnesses have said about the drones (or whatever they were), in 99% of the cases, the only anomalous behavior was their ability avoid detection and go stealth. That's the low observability part of the UAP five observables that Lue Elizondo popularized. But no 90-degree turns or anything like that. I don't think anything the generals or Trump said bolsters the idea that Lockheed was involved with the Tic Tac in 2004.) Ross: "Just to add more smoke to the fire, earlier on today, I had a message from a guy in New Jersey who has seen one of these drones land in a New Jersey backyard. He was illegally pointing a laser beam at one of these drones, which you should not do. Naughty. Even if they are NHI or whatever they are." (I wish Ross had said, "a guy in New Jersey who CLAIMS he has seen one of these drones land." Ross was in Barcelona when recording this episode of Reality Check so there was no time for him to vet this story. It's such an outlier from everything else we have heard about the drones that I think we should remain skeptical about if it actually happened. Does this person have photos or videos? Are there any other eyewitnesses?) Ross: "This is what he told me: "I was beaming [the drones] one night around midnight, and the one flew straight over my backyard, stopped slightly above, and to my left, and seemed to sink down into the trees along the little street on the side of my house. The next thing I see is this rectangle-looking, box-like thing floating just above the street, about the size of an old Ford station wagon. It was the most incredible, starkly-lit thing I've ever seen. I've never seen colors so radiant, so intensely liquid-like in my life. Several shades of blues with oranges and yellows like intense neon lights. "'It scared the hell out of me, and I moved away from the window so it couldn't see me. I slowly poked my head around the window, and it followed every move I made. It knew I was watching it. I would pull back and it came up the street. I would move into the window and it moved back down the street. It was like we were synchronized, and I was completely freaked out to the point that I quickly ran into my kitchen and considered hiding under my sink, of all things. I found myself in some sort of stupor, like I was being drugged, confused and slowed down. So I went to my bedroom and got my point two five, and just laid back in bed. I awoke the next morning, still holding the pistol.' ~End Alleged Eyewitness Account in NJ~ Ross: "Something really anomalous that has no visible means of propulsion is landing in New Jersey, and your president is telling you he's not concerned about it. Yet, two generals responsible for the defense of the United States aerospace are telling you they're concerned about it, and they don't know what these objects are. Why is the president not concerned? And why are two U.S. Air Force generals, presumably, not briefed into what the president is briefed into? Think about that." (Allegedly landed in NJ. I don't think Trump knows more than the generals, and I don't think he was briefed into a program that they were left out in the cold on.) ~~~ @MeaganOurada reads another question: "Even if Ross seems confident that Tic Tac is U.S. tech, does he think it's a reverse engineering tech from NHI, or a tech 100% created by humans?" Ross: "As I've mentioned earlier, we're not saying all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. And it's quite clear that some Tic Tacs are indeed non-human intelligence, or suspected to be non-human intelligence. But what we're talking about are objects that are showing the five observables, doing maneuvers and operating in ways that don't conform to terrestrial craft. "I can't answer the question, definitively, whether they are constructed by Lockheed Martin, or whether it's Lockheed Martin operating a recovered, retrieved craft." (Again, if he had said that in the N2K segment, there may have been less pushback. Did his sources not explain that aspect of the claim? Pretty important detail.) Ross: "Because what I've been told, and what jakebarber told me in the interview that you've all watched, hopefully, on NewsNation, is that there have been retrievals of craft, including Tic Tacs. So, why is it a surprise to people that a contractor, that I'm alleging is directly involved in the Legacy program, is involved in operating these craft." (Because when Ross spoke about this the first time, he made no mention of LM OPERATING the Tic Tac in the 2004 incident . If he didn't mean that Lockheed had BUILT or MANUFACTURED it, he should have made that clear. He must understand this.) Ross: "And moreover, why would we necessarily expect that people, even those flying in the carrier battle group, would actually know about this or be briefed into this?" (We didn't, and don't, expect that, and have been discussing it for the last 6 or so years.) Ross: "It would have been a really good idea if they were going to test this technology against the carrier battle group, to have let the people know." (Which people? How many? Fravor said they had around 6000 people on the Nimitz and Princeton, combined. If it was SAP-level, classified technology, they would've had to read all those people into the program before the test. Not realistic, IMO.) Ross: "And I think people need to be reminded that my good friend, Kevin Day, who I know disputes the possibility that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin... In my book, Kevin Day told me - and he said this in many, many interviews - that when, I think it was the admiral in charge of the carrier battle group, was told about the Tic Tac, he didn't seem very alarmed. Why not? Why aren't people asking these questions? Why was the commander of a carrier battle fleet - that was suffering incursions by anomalous objects doing the five observables during a hugely important and sensitive naval exercise - why wasn't he concerned about those craft? Think about it." (When I met Keven in 2019, he left the door slightly open to the possibility that it was our tech. And I can't find anything about an admiral onboard the Princeton in Ross's book, "In Plain Sight." The only thing that resembles that claim is this excerpt about the captain. I also wrote about the captain in my blog in 2019.) From In Plain Sight... Kevin Day recalls asking his captain on the Princeton afterwards what he thought the object was. 'He told me, “I think the objects were spontaneously forming ice falling from space”.’ Day laughs at the absurdity of such a conclusion. His captain left him with the clear impression he knew a lot more than he was letting on about the phenomenon." From My Blog in 2019... "November 14th, they’re doing air defense exercises, also known as ADEX. Day pulls Captain Smith aside and tells him about the contacts that he and the others had been tracking and that he’s worried about 'safety of flight' because they could have a mishap with one of these craft as they conduct their exercises. Day highly recommended that they go check them out. Smith agreed and told him to take the Fast Eagle flight and 'go get ‘em.' Day said, “in the back of my mind, I was like, hell yeah! We’re going to intercept these things!” (audience laughs) It turned out to be his very last intercept in the Navy." (So, apparently, the captain WAS concerned leading up to the encounter. More from my 2019 blog...) "Voorhis shared that his captain had started a rumor that the objects were spontaneously forming ice in the atmosphere. He said he and his buddies would all sit there, smoke and say, 'Yeah, right.'" (For me, none of that is enough to suggest that the captain knew LM or some other humans/military/USG were behind the Tic Tac events. Maybe the captain thought it was something alien but didn't want the sailors to lose focus for their upcoming role in Iraqi Freedom? Or, maybe he was scared of the possibility of a non-human intelligence among us? I don't know. I'm not positive, but I think Ryan Graves mentioned one of his superiors giving a muted reaction to some of the UAP events they were facing on the East Coast.) ~ "Commander David Fravor responded to me: the Tic Tac 'was not Lockheed Martin', according to him. He seemed very confident and matter-of-fact." ~Jesse Michels Ross: "Let me first say I have nothing but admiration for David Fravor. He's given service to his country, he's a patriot, and he deserves respect and recognition for that. I'm not getting involved in a stash with a person who's done so much, honorably, for his country. It's not, though, outside the realm of possibilities. In fact, I think it would be extremely unlikely that, if there is, as I know there is, a compartmented, secret program where Lockheed Martin is one of the primary contractors operating retrieved, non-human technology and attempting to reverse engineer that technology, there is absolutely no way that David would be briefed into that, unless it was absolutely necessary for the doing of his job." (I've been saying this for several years and I agree 100%.) Ross: "As we all know, when the government wants to protect a secret, it compartmentalizes it. Even if you have a Top-Secret classification - which I'm sure David probably had - it's also compartmentalized. And that's how the U.S. keeps its secrets. And I've spoken to people, literally in institutions in the United States, one of whom knows about the program, and the other of whom is in an adjoining office and has absolutely no idea. "I've had a situation where I've spoken to the head of a government agency that ought properly to have known about the Legacy program. That head of a government agency was not informed about the fact that we are recovering non-human craft and attempting to reverse engineer that technology." (Journalistically speaking, I would say, "The head of a government agency was not informed about the CLAIM that we are recovering non-human craft." No way for Ross to know that's a fact unless he's been read in to the program to see for himself. Belief? Yes. Knowing? No. I harp on this all the time and it's a pet peeve of mine because I think it's important.) Ross: "A person two rungs down was the person that the Legacy program was using to gate keep inside that institution. It's really interesting how they compartmentalize all of this. And so, absolutely no disrespect to David Fravor or my good friend, Kevin Day, but they're good men. The simple fact is, compartmentalization works." (Again, I agree 100%. If Admiral Wilson, the vice director of intelligence, and deputy director of the DIA, was denied access, then there's a very good chance David Fravor was, too.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1944857237375344663/amplify_video_thumb/1944522778964832256/img/b83qGkeX31f9dB-V.jpg)