正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Саратовский НПЗ🔥 Корреспонденты🔥 - Стоит. - Не-не, это он, опять зенитка полетела. - Ну, я и говорю - Шилка. - Тих-тих, вон смотри, там чето... - Да-да-да. - Оёёй! - Ебать, там пизда. - Ебаааать. Да. - Ебана в рот. - Пошло! Пошло! - Ахуееть. - Попали, да, попали,... show more
23,682 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![🚨 Congress Not in Control of UFO Disclosure🚨 "Our Congress is not in control. They're ignorant and neutered when it comes to the subject matter. They were being bullied and being harassed at their homes and were scared for their life." (Yesterday, in the Mike Herrera post, I said, "Is there a valid reason Congress has failed to act aggressively on this info. (shared by Herrera and others) and Disclosure? Possibly. And I'll post about that later on today." Well, I didn't get to it yesterday but here it is now. These comments by Barber and others (including Grusch) are, IMO, the most under-discussed aspect of this topic. If this is true, it might explain why Congress has been so passive in trying to get to the bottom of everything. Have things changed since Barber went to the SSCI? I don't know. Barber says "Congress" but everybody else says Congressional "staffers." I know they're inextricably linked, but I'd like to know if it went beyond staffers and featured any actual members of Congress being intimidated or harassed. Massive H/T to my Patron, joeljewitt, for reminding me of what Barber said and staying on me to post about it.) Matt Laslo, this could explain a lot. 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼) ~ jakebarber: "I found myself reaching out to the one thing that was always my Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. Which was, I knew if anything got bad, I could go to members of Congress, particularly Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI), the monitor for the CIA, and plead my case and ask for help. So we started there. "And unfortunately, that was a very disheartening experience. Because me going there asking for their help, very quickly turned in to them asking for my help. Which was extremely disappointing, to say the least. But they were scared, they were scared, and they were running into their own problems of being in fear of...they were being harassed, and they were afraid for their own personal safety. Ross Coulthart: "So people investigating this UAP Legacy program for Congress, were feeling threatened?" Barber: "They were feeling threatened. And other people they were speaking to as sources were being threatened. And so they very quickly, after learning who I was, began asking me for personal protection and for strategies to mitigate threat." Coulthart: "But you're not getting the help you need?" Barber: "No, I'm like, I came to you. So, that pretty much was a devastating moment where I'm like, shoot, we're all alone. And it was, unfortunately, a much more grave situation, because what it indicated was that our Congress was not only ignorant to the subject, they were neutered. They were neutered by what they could do about it. Congress needs an enforcement arm so laws without enforcement don't exist." ~~~Barber Interviewed by Jesse Michels~~~ Barber: "And I was left with the one like, emergency button that I always thought I had, and I punched it. And that was to go to Congress, to go to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and go to the monitor for CIA, and spill my guts, and go, 'Help me, help me, help me. This is what's happened. Like, help.' "That was probably one of the most discouraging experiences of my life, because within minutes of being there and asking for help, they were begging for my help. They were being bullied and being harassed at their homes and were scared for their life, and wanted me to set up a personal protection detail to help protect them. And I was like, 'Fine, fuck. I guess this is where we're going with it.' "It's a problem and it's sad, but our Congress is not in control. They are completely...they're ignorant and neutered when it comes to the subject matter. For the most part, they're ignorant and neutered. And where they're not ignorant and neutered, they're corrupt and arrogant, which nets us a Congress that's in a state of paralysis by analysis. "And I can't tell you, like, for me, how sinking a feeling that was. Like, I go running and I'm nervous because I'm gonna blow the whistle. And the first place I go is the Senate Intelligence Committee and the monitor for CIA, and I start telling my story. They don't question it for one second, they know it's happening. They're edifying everything I'm saying and trying to cut me off because they're so, like, excited to actually get to talk about this. And are like, 'Oh my god, so what do I do?' They're like, 'Give me your number. Do you have Signal? I need to text you. These guys were at my house last night.' And I'm like, 'Wait a minute. This was my asking for help moment.'" ~~~ When I met Grusch in August of 2022, I asked him if members of Congress had been intimidated. He said (I'm paraphrasing), 'No, but some of their staffers have.'" My full Grusch post from October of 2023... ~ And in June of this year, Coulthart told Jesse Michels this related piece of information: Coulthart: "One of the staffers on [the Senate Select Intelligence Committee] was concerned for his own safety, and asked Jake, 'Are you able to help me get security because somebody from The Defense Department is ordering helicopters to fly across and over my home. They're harassing my home.' And that's the kind of thing that The Defense Department was doing. They were buzzing a guy with Blackhawk helicopters just hovering over his home as an act of intimidation. A staffer, working for the Congress." Jesse: "I know exactly who you're talking about and he was providing a pipeline of Legacy operators..." Coulthart: "He was." Jesse: "...to basically talk to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence." Coulthart: "So I'm not blaming the staffers because these people are intimidated, they have families, too. And I don't think the public realize, that this is how the game is being played. You've got a vast national security state - and it is, truly, a Deep State, protecting itself, its self interest. Misusing the resources of the state - your money, your taxpayer dollars - to essentially, bully and intimidate. And in some cases, murder people." (I'd like to see what evidence was presented to Ross to back up the Blackhawk claim. Pics? Videos? We have that claim and claims of people being murdered but, as of now, no evidence to back it up. At least not publicly. If intimation and harassment are still taking place, what are we going to do to combat that? If thew answer is, "There's nothing we can do right now," then I wouldn't expect any Earth-shattering information to be coming from Congress any time soon. Is all of this the reason why Rounds was so wishy washy when talking about the UAPDA? If the UAPDA passes, do you think the public will get to see more data? Rounds: "I would hope so." 🙃🙃🙃 Full transcript:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1952426785414824016/amplify_video_thumb/1952405776854867969/img/htIjCC6vb2qiLRSv.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)
!["Anyone who leaked a [UFO] report...could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act...life in prison, or death." "Maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world." 🔥 Dr. Phil Had Me at The Bolender Memo 🔥 (Dr. Phil continued to kill it yesterday and this was better than the last one! Link to full video (21:52) is in the replies.) "Our government has been lying to us for more than 80 years. Ask yourself why? Why do they not want you to know this is going on?" (He starts out by showing that Google searches for "UFO" have allegedly nearly tripled since last Friday night, along with searches for UAP being up 400%. And "Dr. Phil UFO" is one of the fastest rising searches in the country. If all of that is true, it's a very good thing. Especially since he's been putting out some really good videos. He mentions the latest release (#4) of UFO/UAP files from the Pentagon last Friday.) "My team and I were granted early access, exclusive access to those documents before they went public." "Our government has been lying to us, by omission AND by intentional misdirection, for 79 years." "Look at these documents. You go back as far as 1947 where they have had clear information that there are objects not of this Earth, both technologically, metallurgically, performance-wise. But yet, that has been hidden from us. They've denied that, they've actually threatened people from talking about this. Threatened with careers, imprisonment, and some, with death, because they would consider it treason." (He backs it up with documents. See below.) Dr. Phil: "For 80 years, every time there was a legitimate UAP sighting and the U.S. government had a chance to get in there, they essentially told us, 'Nothing to see here. Move along.' To be clear, a UAP sighting is not proof of little green men or alien life. It means something happened, something was observed, something occurred for which we have no explanation. That's it. "Now, let's talk about that for a second. Things happen, and we don't have any explanation for it. We don't have technology that explains that. There's something that is observed in the sky, going at a speed, stopping, making a sharp turn, reversing direction, accelerating, changing altitudes, and we don't have anything on this Earth that can do that. That's what's called unexplained. "Now, do we know where it's from? How it does that? Well, if we did, it would be explained. But we don't. We go look at all of our secret weapons. We go look at what we know through intelligence, other countries have. And let me tell you, a lot of these (laughs) - they're not close calls. They are not close calls. And some of the things that have been observed, we damn sure didn't have anything like that in the 40s or the 50s or the 60s, and we still don't, now in 2020s. "But at the very same time, our government was telling us, 'Nothing to see here: weather balloon, reflection off of an airplane, just a weather anomaly.' And, the government was simultaneously threatening its own people with criminal penalties if they ever disclosed UAP information. "If somebody that was credible, that had seen this, spoke about it, they were threatened with all kinds of penalties. We were gaslighted. 'No big deal here. Probably weather balloons, misidentified aircraft.' And a jumpy public that watched, 'Close Encounters' one too many times, thinking, 'Look, what's really going on here?' "Behind the curtain, the government was spending generations of time and resources protecting this information. Was it happening? Yes, it was happening! Do we have proof of it happening? Yes, we have proof of it happening. And what I mean by that is we have this on radar. We have credible, military pilots reporting it. "We have aircraft that have guns, and when you open a gun and go live on a fighter, there's a camera that activates, so you have video of what the gun is shooting at. You have gun cameras. If they see one of these things in front of them, they open their weapons, in case they need them, and so it shoots video of what they're seeing. "Now let's talk about some of the proof. JANAP 146 - Joint Army, Navy, Air Force publication 146 - made it a criminal offense for military personnel and commercial airline pilots to discuss UFO sightings outside official channels. The penalty, 'up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.' "So, you might see some guy down on a lake, drinking beer, that talks about something he saw over the lake. Yeah, they don't mind that guy talking. But credible people? Trained observers with instrumentation? No. They say something, they're going to prison. "Well, that took effect upon receipt. No hearings, no debate. The regulation says, 'All persons aware of the contents or existence...are governed by...espionage laws.' So not just the pilot who filed a report under JANAP 146, anyone who leaked a report. Radio operators, airline staff, anyone in the chain could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. "You can see this yourself. Declassified copies are online today, including on the NSA's website. Now what is the Espionage Act? That's the same law used to prosecute spies. Section 793: Up to 10 years in federal prison for every violation. Section 794: If the information reaches a foreign power, life in prison, or death. "Imagine you're a TWA captain in 1955. You see something over the Pacific you just simply can't explain. You file your report like the regulation requires. And from that moment, talk to a newspaper, tell your own wife, puts you in the same legal category as a spy. "Ask yourself why. Why are they so interested in muzzling all this conversation? Why do they not want you to know this is going on? Why are you not entitled to know what's happening in the air around you? "Now, let's fast forward 20 years, 1971. Oliver Harry Turner was an Australian nuclear scientist and intelligence officer, head of the nuclear branch of Australia's Joint Intelligence Organization. He was asked to assess the American response to the growing UAP issue. "If you're thinking, what does an Australian know about U.S. military secrets? Well, the possibility of life beyond this planet is bigger than any one country. Australia and the rest of the world has a legitimate interest in what the U.S. knows. And Australia is one of our closest intelligence allies. What we now call Five Eyes. "The Five Eyes countries are the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries have shared their most sensitive intelligence with each other since World War II. When a senior, Five Eyes nuclear intelligence officer writes a report about what the United States knows, well, that's serious. "He was outside the American classification system. He had no career to lose. He pieced this together from official CIA, Air Force, Congressional, and Project Blue Book records. Now this report was written May 27, 1971. Original classification: Secret. Title: Scientific and Intelligence Aspects of the UFO Problem. Report declassified by the National Archives of Australia in 2023. "On June 9th of 2026, whistleblower David Crusch (Yes, he said Crusch) stood on Capitol Hill and told the public to read pages seven through sixteen." ~ David Grusch: "There is a declassified 1971 Australian, formally-classified, Secret assessment that a couple years ago was put in the Australian National Archives. I encourage people to read page seven through sixteen, and that was the nuclear branch chief of the Australian government discussing the U.S. cover-up and the involvement of the CIA back in the 70s. And that's actually a little-known document that is publicly available." ~ Dr. Phil: "Now here's the kicker: foreign intelligence describing an American cover-up is now referenced in the files that our government is just now releasing. And here are six key findings in the Turner report. "Number one, what Turner called the facade of ridicule. Turner documents that early Air Force intelligence concluded, 'Some of these objects, 'had flight characteristics' that could best be explained as having 'extraterrestrial origin.' (The actual language says: "The early analysis of UFO reports by USAF intelligence indicated that real phenomena were being reported which had flight characteristics so far in advance of U.S. aircraft that only as extra-terrestrial origin could be envisaged." ) Dr. Phil: "Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. "Now let that sit with you for a minute. Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. We've got to get these people believing this isn't real. We've got to debunk this. "January 1953, Turner's own words: 'By erecting a facade of ridicule, the U.S. hoped to allay public alarm, reduce the possibility of the Soviet taking advantage of UFO mass sightings...and act as a cover-up so the U.S. can develop vehicles that emulate UFO performances.' "What's the point? Well, the point is, they were thinking, 'All right, let's keep this secret,' like we're the only ones seeing this, 'and maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world.' "That's a great goal, I guess, if you can go from flying-prop planes or early jets to this incredible speed. If these are extraterrestrial, and the nearest galaxy is Andromeda, which it takes two and a half million years to get to, flying at the speed of light, we're pretty far from being able to do that. "Today, in 2026, can we move at the speed of light? No. If we could, it would take two and a half million years to get to the next galaxy. We can't move at the speed of light, even now in 2026. But that was the goal. They'll find one of these and reverse engineer it." (I don't know whether or not any black program has tech that can move at the speed of light and I doubt Dr. Phil knows, either. Someone should show him what Lacatski said about being able to reverse engineer some of this acquired (alleged non-human) tech but "not to its full extent.") Dr. Phil: "Finding number two. He then talks about Project Sign. This was the U.S. Air Force's first official UFO investigation set up in late 1947. Its analysts reportedly concluded that extraterrestrial origin was the best explanation. Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg rejected that conclusion, and copies of the report were ordered destroyed. Destroyed! "And per Turner, in February 1949, members of Project Sign, 'either volunteered to leave or were compelled to leave,' and they were replaced by people, 'willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs.' "Think about this! We have sightings by legitimate observers with scientific instrumentation, and the people who are doing the observing are voluntarily leaving or compelled to leave, and replaced by people willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs. "Finding number three, what I spoke about earlier: JANAP 146. Up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for discussing sightings outside official channels. And per the regulation's own text, Chapter One, Section 102, it covered not just military personnel, but U.S. and Canadian civilian and commercial pilots. "That's legal force over airline pilots, arguably the most credible witnesses in the sky! What jurisdiction they had over Canadian pilots, I have no idea, but they listed 'em. "Turner documents a meeting between military intelligence and airline pilots at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood. At that meeting, pilots were, 'coerced' to keep their sightings out of public view and inside official channels. Am I overstating it to say that there's been a cover-up, that we're being lied to? "Finding number four. But they missed the retirees. JANAP 146 only covered active service. Once you retired, you could talk. And three very senior men did so between 1953 and 1960. Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA, Captain Edward Ruppelt, the man the Air Force put in charge of investigating UFOs, Major Dewey Fournet, the Pentagon's project officer on UFOs. Per Turner, all three publicly stated the U.S. government knew UFOs were extraterrestrial and was withholding the fact from the public! So when those three retired, they told the truth! "Finding five. The government then silenced retirees. Per Turner, the revised regulation JANAP 146e made UAP disclosure by retirees an offense under the Espionage Act. Then finding number six. 1969, 17 years, the Air Force ran a public-facing UFO investigation called Project Blue Book. If you wrote your congressman about a sighting, it went into the Blue Book. And in 1969, the Air Force shut down the Blue Book and told the country, 'We looked at more than 12,000 sightings. No problems. No national security threat. No need for the Blue Book.' "But a memo from General Carroll Bolender, the Air Force general, said the reason Blue Book showed no national security threats was because any national security threats were gag ordered under JANAP 146 and were quote, 'not part of the Blue Book system.' The serious reports never stopped; they just moved out of public view. "Now, I know that was a lot of information. You may need to listen back to that, but those are facts. Those are in the government's documents that have now been declassified! "If the government has known for decades that unidentified objects are flying through our skies, and therefore, we may not be alone in the Universe, then the greatest revelation in American history has also been the target of a huge cover-up. "One of the challenges of social media and TV news is taking something this complex and reducing it to sound bites. And you're getting bits and pieces from the media. That's why I invest so much time and energy giving you the real story. I don't want to tell you what you believe or don't believe, but I want to give you the information so you can make up your own mind. "This information is in the files, we just haven't had access to the files. And then when we get the files, we're given the files without any context. You see a radar screen and you see a blip, and then it moves. Well, what do you have to compare it to? Is it moving fast? Too fast? Unexplainably fast? Without any context, how are we supposed to interpret that? "Well, I'm digging in, I'm talking to experts, I'm finding out what the scale is. And what we're learning, is we don't have anything that'll move that fast. We don't have anything that'll turn that sharp. We don't have anything that will withstand those kind of G-forces."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2077448964731965459/amplify_video_thumb/2077445400177541120/img/vqZyFFYVRdk6G7tt.jpg)
!["How do you know you can trust what [a non-human intelligence is] saying?" ~Bigelow Bigelow/Knapp 2: If I Was President, I'd Tell the World We Have Non-Human Craft and Bodies "The President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation...is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something." ~Bigelow Do China and Russia also have non-human bodies and craft? "Oh yeah, freaking yes!" ~Bigelow ~ "You've opened up Pandora's box." ~Bigelow ~ 17:44 (I'm using the KLAS YT video for time stamps. As you'll see, I add a lot to these, so they take forever to put together.) George Knapp (GK): "Would you guess - based on what you know about the topic and how it's been handled over the decades - would you guess that [Trump] had been briefed, or that any other presidents have been briefed? You know that Bill Clinton was not, even though he expressed an interest in it. So at some point, the President has to be told, 'No, we can't tell ya.'" Robert Bigelow (RB): "I think Bush Sr. knew quite a bit because he was the head of the CIA." (Dr. Eric Davis says Bush. Sr. told him some interesting things, including that he (Bush) was partially briefed in 1976 about the alleged 1964 Holloman AFB landing and meeting, and more, when he first became the director of the CIA in 1976. Watch Davis explain it, here. ) ~ RB: "I think Nixon did." (We have the Jackie Gleason story, where Nixon allegedly snuck away from his Secret Service detail and took Gleason to see non-human bodies at Homestead Air Force Base. But that was a claim from his ex-wife, and Gleason, who died in 1987, never said anything about it, on the record. The controversial Larry Warren (Rendlesham) claims Gleason told him the same story, but that's it.) Bigelow: "I think Eisenhower did. So, it's kind of hit and miss over historic...over the period of history as to who has and who hasn't." 18:20 Knapp: "Can you tell us what would be in the briefing document that you left behind? Was it cases? Here's a wave of UFOs, here's a case, here was a crash. Anything like that?" Bigelow: "Yeah, I related conversations I have had with General De Brouwer, who was the chief of the Air Force for Belgium. And there was a very interesting flap that was about 18 months long (1989-1990) with triangular craft. And he was in command of all the Air Force, and he really chased the heck out of these. "And he told me, he said, Bob, 'I'm just burning fuel, and it makes no sense.' He said, 'We're gonna stop because we're not getting anywhere. All we're doing is getting closer, you know, photographs and things, but we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any information that is really valuable for us to understand anything.'" (I wonder if those were OUR triangles? If so, it's still a solid case/flap of anomalous craft. Dick D'Amato was a longtime (18 years) senior staffer for Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.) "Dick D'Amato has returned from Belgium where he met with Colonel De Brouwer, a 'very interesting fellow.' Dick’s conclusion, again, is that the triangular objects are very plain human craft. ~Jacques Vallée's Forbidden Science Volume 4 - November 1992 And then we have this... Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP, to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "[three-second pause] It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." Video... ~~~ RB: "And I gave [Trump] other examples of where large amounts of witnesses were involved, and so that he could read about these particular [incidents]. And, of course, the one with Fife Simington in '97 was so interesting. Because there you had a governor who was an actual witness, and he made a joke of it on and brought a guy in an alien suit on stage because he was scared to death." GK: "It's the Phoenix Lights case." (Great case for Bigelow to show Trump.) RB: "The Phoenix Lights, which weren't just lights, it was actually friggin' craft, and it came from northern Arizona. I think it started, actually, in southern Nevada, is where the craft began. In the Henderson area (not far from me. ~Joe), I think, somewhere in there. And, so you see this huge triangular craft, gigantic craft, going slowly, and [Symington] was scared to death. "But finally, fast forward 10 years later, and he confesses that he was an eyewitness, but he didn't know what to do. So he was there at a point in time when the dynamic of disclosure could have been forced, and actually, confirmation could have been from a governor of the state like that. He was a credible guy. "So we've had many [incidents] like that in the early 50s, flying over the White House and the Capitol building. We've had so many of those. So, in my report, I included a lot of very dramatic, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of witnesses of exhibitions." GK: "Did you share with him anything about your knowledge of a classified program?" RB: "No." GK: "You got a Top-Secret security clearance, right?" RB: "Yeah" GK: "It was for the AAWSAP program for BAASS." RB: "Right." GK: "Operated under the DIA." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You learned a lot during that program. It's the largest accumulation of UFO info. of any government-funded UFO program ever." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You didn't tell him about it." RB: "It wasn't credible enough, I felt, for him." (Someone on here watched this interview and told me that Bigelow said the AAWSAP data wasn't credible. That is NOT what he said. Not credible enough for Trump, is what he said. And if you read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" or listen any of Lacatki's interviews where he talks about UFOs being under a paranormal umbrella, I think Bigelow made the right decision for an 11-minute briefing for someone (Trump) who seems to be struggling (at least in public comments) with the reality of the basics.) RB: "[The AAWSAP data is] just something pertaining to me. And whereas, these other examples are historic, and they're in a lot of literature, they're very famous. The amount of witnesses were huge. We operated under a private situation with the Skinwalker Ranch, and he wouldn't relate to...well, we all had hitchhikers, we all took things home with us. You know, we all saw a lot of stuff. Whether it was at the ranch or where we lived, it didn't make any difference where in the United States we lived. We saw a lot of things, but that wouldn't be relevant for him to be able to relate to that, right?" GK: "Well." RB: "So, why talk about it?" GK: "Yeah, I mean, you know, you're kind of jumping into the deep end of the pool when you get into hitchhikers and skinwalkers." RB: "Yeah." GK: "Maybe for your first big conversation on this topic, that might not be the place to go." RB: "No, you know. And I couldn't even...if he said, 'Oh, I need a beer (Knapp laughs),' I couldn't even give him something to drink. You know, maybe stronger than that. So, I didn't wanna do any, you know." 22:15 GK: "You used the term non-human intelligence in the sentence you gave him. Hey, try this as you're climbing aboard Air Force One. Say that to media, and then, you know, close the door." RB: "Right." GK: "You said non-human intelligence, not ET. Are they the same, and did you share anything with him about what you think it is?" RB: "Well, there have been reports of humans on board, right? But the non-human are more interesting. I mean, if a human's on board and he or she has free reign of the craft, that's pretty damn interesting, right? And you don't know where those people are when they're not on board." (I wonder what cases he's talking about? Travis Walton reported seeing humans with non-humans and John Keel wrote about humans being seen onboard craft.) ~ Bigelow: "But the other ones are...some are scary, you know? It's not surprising, that, in the Universe, everything is [not] gonna look like us. Every intelligent organism is [not] going to look like us. But you have to have... It's also a matter of respect for any really intelligent animal or creature, whatever it is, right? And the more advanced, the more respect because you don't know what they know, and you don't know the future. And they may know. They may know more than just the now." (In interviews (which I can't find right now), Bigelow has hinted at an unstoppable, not-so-rosy future for mankind. Have people in the Legacy programs told him that the NHI have warned us about our doomed future or some cataclysmic event? Or, has Bigelow encountered these non-humans (or humans) and had them make claims about our future?) ~ 23:34 GK: "If you were to have a second conversation with him, would you explain that ET is one idea, but it's not necessarily the only option for a non-human intelligence that's out there?" RB: "You have to tell me first how much time do I have with the second conversation?" GK: "[laughs] Let's make it an hour. You have an hour with the President. What would you tell them about who they are, who they might be?" RB: "Umm... So, I would try to get into the complexity of the relationship. That once you've had confirmation, you know, you've given that text of that little sentence I wrote and quoted there, and you start to go down the path of disclosure, where it's more than than just FLIR videos, and you're seeing other things that are much more crystal clear, you know, in video. "Or, legitimate people in places that you recognize these people, and they're around something, or with some thing, or somebody that's a holy cow, that's wow, you know. That's a very dramatic kind of disclosure about something landing on the lawn somewhere, you know." (I have no idea what he's talking about. Anybody else able to decipher that? Is he saying that there's evidence (that he's seen?) of people that we know (a President or head of state?) hanging with a non-human or next to a downed or landed craft?) RB: "So I think what I would have spent time doing is talking about, how do you establish: You've been in 80 years of denial as a nation, and the world. We have countries who are very upfront, and others that are also in denial. Now you wanna pivot 180 degrees. How do you start that relationship? How do you do that? "And it's not as though that we've ever been in control. We haven't been in control of anything, ever, for this 80 years of modern history. Nothing. We have no ability to control anything." GK: "That's a tough thing to tell the President, right? I would think that would be a tough thing for a President to accept." RB: "Well, you're giving me an hour to talk to him, you said." GK: "[laughs] Yeah, okay." RB: "So I'm using my hour." GK: "All right." 25:46 RB:" So, yeah! So, that's a really intriguing thing is: How do you do that, where do you start? And into a relationship? And I would say more like, well, I would wanna start with, the biggest question I would ask, I would say, what I wanna get from them is... My first question is: What are the chances we are gonna survive ourselves? That we are not going to annihilate ourselves. "Because they already are familiar with a whole lot of other species on a lot of other worlds or other planets. So, chances are they have a pretty good idea of percentage." (That assumes a lot, since we have no idea how long they've been around, what they've seen, or where they're from. Unless...Mr. Bigelow has seen evidence that relates to those questions or heard it from folks who work in the Legacy programs?) RB: "And it's not that we're a spiritual species. You talk to people that have near-death experiences; they're changed for the rest of their life. They've become a spiritual person of a caliber that they've never been. "Well, we're a long way, as an average, from that category, from that level. There are monsters among us, as human beings, and they're angelic people among us. So we are a danger to another species, we're potentially the Klingons. We have a technological maturity that is not just going on a line, but it's vertical and it's segmented because it's jumping. "And meanwhile, our spiritual maturity just bumps along the bottom, you know? So, we look at the 20th century; 60 million people were killed. Are we ever gonna get beyond that? So, the thing of it is, we know so little about how to have a relationship. I'm not in any position to really advise, except for the few ideas I have as to where to start, and the how is really super important. 27:49 "It's not gonna be like a 'Close Encounter of the Third, Kind,' which was a really cool movie. And it's not gonna be because of SETI. You know, it's gonna be by some other kinds of means that you're embarking on. And I'm interested in that kind of research." 28:06 GK: "We go back to your meeting with the President. You walk into the Oval Office, they clear off the Resolute Desk, you spread out your seven piles of stuff, and you start making a presentation about each one, in particular about ET, non-human intelligence. You can't say what he said to you. Can you say whether he asked questions? Was he curious?" RB: "He was distracted by other things. So, he also asked me... He did ask questions, but he asked questions about other stuff that wasn't necessarily just on what I was talking about." GK: "He's getting your input on other things going on in the world." RB: "Yeah, yeah." 28:49 GK: "If you had to make a guess, would you guess that you got through to him on this issue? I mean, he hasn't stood in the doorway of Air Force One and made those remarks yet, but he has taken some pretty dramatic steps on this topic since you met with him. Do you think you made a dent?" RB: "Don't know. I advised him on something that I can measure, and he hasn't taken my advice so far on what I suggested to him, on a totally different, unrelated subject. But so far, he has not taken my advice." GK: Well, somebody seems to have got through to him, because he's been taking steps that we're seeing real results. I mean, people are either..." RB: "Well, I'm talking about an unrelated subject altogether. So, yes, there there are a couple of different task forces that are involved. So, there is an initiation of an activity in this subject, [but] it remains to be seen, though, that he gives actual presidential confirmation. I don't, I haven't... Maybe you're more aware than I am. Has that been...has he done that?" GK: "Not, not really. Nothing like what I'd call confirmation. But that's really what you're talking about. I remember us having a conversation in 2008, right after you had signed the contract with DIA for BAASS to run [AAWSAP]. And you made the case then that what we need is not Disclosure; it's confirmation." RB: "Yeah." 30:25 GK: "For somebody like the President, I'm not sure if it could be anyone less than the President that steps forward and says this, and it carries the same kind of weight." RB: "Yeah. It's a big appetizer. You know, you're looking for the entree, and where's the dessert in this whole buffet? But the confirmation is a huge appetizer to start with, and that's why I started with that in my conversation with him. Is, pushing him to try and make a confirmation. And maybe he wants to get personally more comfortable?" (I have said that I want the entire enchilada NOW, but I'm also a realist, and would take a simple confirmation that somebody else is on this planet with us. That SHOULD wake up the mainstream media and masses, but no guarantees since Trump is so controversial and people might just ignore it, IF he ever did it. I've also said that I'd surround him with people like Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and Gillibrand in order to show that it's bipartisan. And a few firsthand whistleblowers who say they worked hands on, IN one of these alleged Legacy UFO/UAP programs.) 30:57 Bigelow: "And, you know, he will go down in history for a lot of things, for better or worse, that people are on both sides of the fence about him and so forth. But he's involved in so many different things and has been, that I don't know what his legacy is gonna be, I really don't. "He has an opportunity, in this serious subject, to build a legacy using this as part of the blocks, part of the brick and the structure...the content of a structure that is very unique. So, you can have all the political programs that you want, and so forth, and nobody is gonna really remember those as time goes by, as the decades fade away. "Nobody can remember Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq, different kinds of things, and that's just recent history. You know, the world goes so fast. But the President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation, and actually built a satisfactory conclusion of a relationship between human beings and that subject is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something. And if it's handled right, it can be done successfully." (To me, it's a no brainer. His presidency would go down as one that changed the world and our species. Or course, I'm sure he has people in his ear telling him that confirmation would cause societal disruption that we're not prepared to handle, and that THAT would be his legacy.) (32:21) GK: "A lot of Presidents have made comments, often after they're out of office, on this topic. 'Yeah, gosh, I'm real interested in that.' Or, 'Wouldn't that be something?' Or, 'I think aliens could exist.' Something like that. But nothing like what you're talking about, which amounts to confirmation, saying, 'It's real. They're here. We gotta figure it out,' and stopping it there, not disclosing..." RB: "Well, the dialogue, the ability to learn something from them is huge. What can we do for you? I mean, that's where...one of the first things I would ask is, not just, are we going to survive ourselves? Yeah, that's pretty damn important. That's like, probably number one, you know? "But close behind that is: Okay, we've been aware of you for a long time, and the government's never admitted it. But us as a public, we know it, and we're really curious. Is there anything that we can do for you? Not just what can you do... I loved what John Kennedy, what he said famously: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That huge. So that's giving them a kind of a respect that they deserve." (Do they deserve respect? I'm not so sure. It all depends on if they're upfront with us and tell us their true intentions. Of course, how do we know they're telling us the truth? Why have you (or some of you) been abducting us against our will, and injuring some of us? See Jim Semivan's abduction story with his wife. "I don't think [the phenomenon] cares whether it does harm. I think it may go out of its way not to do harm, but, if it does harm... "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." ~Former CIA Officer, Jim Semivan to Engaging The Phenomenon ~ 33:33 GK: "If you were President, would you announce that yes, we've got crash retrievals, yes, we have reverse engineering programs, and yes, we've got bodies?" RB: "Yeah, because the rest of the world already knows that. The people that count in Russia and China already know." GK: "Because they've got their own." RB: "Oh yeah, freaking yes! Yeah! They've had their missiles shut down, they've had their missiles activated. You know, depending on which country you're talking about." 33:56 GK: "Have you considered the political fallout for a President? Let's say it's Trump, because he might be the guy that would do it and just cast his fate to the winds. But, he makes an announcement: 'Yeah, they're here. Yeah, we've got programs. Yeah, we've got crashes, we've got bodies. That's as far as I'm able to go right now.' What happens to him, politically? Is he able to get anything else done?" RB: "That's more than I would have said, for him to say. What you just said." GK: "That goes too far." RB: "I wouldn't advise him to say, initially, what you just said." GK: "You just say, non-human intelligence, been here a long time, and leave it at that." RB: "Yeah, that one sentence is a starter because it's a huge canon. You've opened up Pandora's box, in terms of, 'Oh my gosh, what's gonna happen?' Okay. So now, you can categorize and segment into topics. And you need time to do that, and it needs to be digestible." ~ “I have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.” ~Jim Semivan to James Iandoli ~ RB: "And it needs to be not packaged in a scary kind of way, and it can't be packaged in a way that you're divulging what you shouldn't be divulging. You know, other countries aren't, so there's reasons to have national secrets. There really are. I mean, that's kind of like common sense, right?" (Well, David Grusch claimed that some other countries aren't divulging for a specific reason." Grusch on Yes Theory: "So there are certainly friendly governments, both across the pond and say, local to where we...our landmass, that are for this. And a lot of them know that they got a raw deal with the U.S. because they were, basically, part of the secrecy, through kind of agreements like, bilateral, unilateral agreements. And they're like, you know, they kind of wanna be, 'Release me!' Like, you know, because they they do realize it was a bad deal. "With the ecosystem secrecy, some people, one of their arguments is like, 'Well how would they keep the secret?' I'm, like dude, I was cleared to some of the most nation's most sensitive programs, I used to handle the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing). You know, I had full access to most DoD activities. And most of the stuff, BROAD programs that were enduring, have NEVER leaked. "So the U.S. and its allies are very good at keeping secrecies, to include programs that are, let's say, global in nature. And really, it's been leaking like a sieve in some weird way for many decades. Now it's been mixed in with some BS in ufology and stuff, but the general gist of it's actually been out there for a long time. It has been leaking in some sense, so." ~ 35:06 GK: "We don't want the Russians and Chinese and maybe other adversaries to know how far along we are, or are not, in configuring this out." RB: "Absolutely. Especially of that. I think that the relationship (with he phenomenon) thing is a mankind relationship. It's not just for America. When you are embarking as a President on trying to initiate a solemn relationship, you're not doing for U.S. of A. only. "And so, the...and then we probably can do a show on communication (with a non-human intelligence), but it's really complex because, who are you going to have initiate it? Are you going to have politicians initiate? Are you going to have military people? Because everybody has kind of their own mindset. Are you gonna have a bunch of lawyers initiate it? Are you gonna have scientists only, initiate it? (And what if we're dealing with more than one non-human intelligence? Who do we communicate with? And what if it's one intelligence pretended to be multiple? How would we even figure that out?) "[Hynek] cited the 'poltergeist' phenomena experienced by some...after a close encounter; the fact that some witnesses develop psychic abilities after an encounter. 'Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?'" ~J. Allen Hynek ~ RB: "And how do you know to whom you're talking? You know, how do you know you can trust what they're saying?" (I'm so glad he said that. We don't, and we don't.) RB: "Because it depends on the form of communication, and what are you asking for in the way of proof or demonstrations to establish trust, both ways, in the communication process?" "Because, we haven't had that happen before. It is totally new ground, and frankly, we need The Others' help. We need the help of The Others to help, to guide us." (Firs off, it MAY have happened within these Legacy programs. And, if we don't know who we're talking to, or if we can trust them, why would we enlist the help of The Others? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2087243559091261706/amplify_video_thumb/2087241641329561600/img/dSAd4v8WLh8yq8Qw.jpg)
!["There was a willingness to communicate. [The non-human entity] wanted to establish communication with us." ~JV 💥 Has AI Figured Out the Identify of Gilbert? 👀 👽 Did an Alien Volunteer to be Studied and Communicate with Humans in a Secret USG Facility? Is it Still There? 👽 "My understanding is that there were teams there that had been working with that being and perhaps other beings for a while." ~JV This is Pt. 1 - Pt. 2 has the AI sleuthing on the possible identity of Gilbert. Excellent job by Ross Coulthart. And if you wanna see my post on Gilbert, the alleged Alien Entity, Vallée...and ALL Gilbert-related entries in FS V7 ⬇️⬇️⬇️ I'm taking with this with a major grain of salt until we hear from Gilbert. Then, I'll revaluate.) ~ Ross Coulthart: "You write in your Forbidden Science (7) diaries, in October 2021 for the first time, you mention someone called Gilbert. It's a pseudonym, but essentially, it's a long-lost friend, a discreet master remote viewer at the level of Uri Geller and Ingo Swann." Jacques Vallée: "Yes." (If your response to hearing Geller's name mentioned is, "Oh, he's been proven to be a fraud. See Johnny Carson,' then you haven't done your homework on Uri. Drs. Kit Green and Hal Puthoff on Geller. ~ Kit Green: "Anybody who has studied Geller and seen what he does and the films of what he does recognizes that there are profound differences between what Geller does and magician's tricks. There’s not even a remotely qualified individual who’s ever investigated Geller who believes this orthodoxy – that it’s all trickery. The RV [remote-viewing] experiments for me were astonishing. He was a superb remote viewer, he was a superstar." ~ Coulthart: "And Gilbert tells you that, through official channels, presumably, government channels, he was taken to participate in a controlled, personal exchange with a, supposed, alien. And you acknowledge in your diary that these revelations are explosive. "And by September 2023, you've received five closely-typed pages detailing how Gilbert says he was taken to a U.S. laboratory, sheltered inside rock, where military guides exposed him to what they explicitly told him was a living alien entity. Now, do you believe Gilbert's account, Jacques? I know at one stage you query: was this a fully veridical (truthful) account? Do you think Gilbert was telling you the truth?" Jacques Vallée: "I have....I believe it for two reasons. You know, believe is a bad word. It's a religious word, it's a commitment, and so on. And everybody is free to believe whatever we want to believe. In science, you know, belief is a contingency. You face a phenomenon. You build a theory of a phenomenon, but the theory, there is no such thing as a theory without a way of testing it. "Now I have no way of testing what Gilbert has told me. I'm not going to reveal the rest of his data because that's his data, and I know there are plans to publish it in the proper way, so that everybody has access to it. I have the data, but it's not up to me to publish it. "There have been other cases, and I've had one personal occasion of coming face-to-face with an entity that is very similar to the entity that he describes. To my shame, I was so scared because this was unprepared. I was not intending to do that." Coulthart: "Are you saying that you had your own personal encounter with an entity? Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "When did that happen?" Vallée: "I had no communication with that entity because I was simply too scared, and I mention it in the book." ~Begin excerpt from FS V6~ Hummingbird. Saturday 27 October 2018. ...something brief and terrifying happened last night, far more tangible than a nightmare. As I review it, I have to accept an experience outside my body. All I know is that in the middle of the night I found myself propelled away into the kitchen, a tall being between me and the window. I couldn’t see a face, but it was tall like me, human-like, solid. A few seconds later I woke up suddenly, back into my lying body, panting and whimpering, terrified. It had been absolutely, shockingly real. No transition, none of that slow lifting of the soul people describe. I had been translated from the bedroom, standing up, totally aware, next to the entity that hovered near me without touching, yet encompassing me in a formidable presence. This is as close to a full out-of-body experience as I have ever had. It left me whimpering and scared. (Not a fan of JV mentioning this dream-like/out-of-body experience in the same breath as Gilbert's, alleged face-to-face, physical encounter with a living entity.) ~End Excerpt from FS V6 - Back to JV with Coulthart~ Vallée: "Now in [Gilbert's] case this was very structured. He was asked to be there. And, by the way, it's not classified. I asked him if it was classified, he said, 'No.' And this was 20 years ago, this is not recent." Coulthart: "So, let's go through some of the detail of what you do reveal in [FS 7]. In December 2024, you write that you've seen Gilbert's structured results, and he says he was, apparently, instructed to put specific questions directly to the entity. And it gets fascinating. "Some of the questions generated impressions and responses he couldn't decipher. And what you conclude is that there may be two different levels of NHI, non-human intelligence. Your interpretation, or your friend's interpretation of what he got from the being, is that the higher-level controllers are genuinely alien, whereas the small beings - perhaps the Grays associated with UFO encounters - may be primitive biological hybrids, specifically engineered for terrestrial operation. Is that your conclusion, Jacques?" Vallée: "Well, again, I'm an information scientist. I try to look for patterns of things, so I don't look at one case, you know, separate from others. I look for patterns of cases. In Trinity, in Socorro, in Valensole, and now in the case in Brazil that was revealed recently. "We have a dozen entities. These entities were small; they were the size of, you know, a 10-year-old or 12-year-old kid. They had two eyes and a mouth. They were breathing air. They did not look like our astronauts with, you know, all kinds of suits and [a] support system. They were breathing air. You could understand the, you know, any sense from their eyes. Overall, their structure was human." "Over the years, there have been efforts to theorize in biology about what it would take to create a different kind of human adapted to certain things. We are going to face that problem in space. NASA has looked at that. But before NASA, you know, certainly in World War II, that question was raised already. "And there are...and I mentioned a case from an American biologist who came back from Russia with at least a rumor that the Russians were developing short humanoids for future space missions, because that would save, you know... The most expensive part in the space missions we have now, like the Moon, is the human pilot, okay? If we could do away with the human pilot, or if we could minimize that pilot, then the technology would be safer and would probably function better. "So that question had been discussed in biology. Now, the threshold was, you know, a moral threshold. Are we permitted to create? I mean, we are clearly at the position where, as you know, that the question arose in China recently. You know, was there an experiment to manipulate an egg and create them? So, those are very current questions in biology. "Could some of the beings be just operators? Because in Brazil, especially, they did not seem to be in control at all. And the same thing in Trinity. Trinity is a very important case." (Speculatively speaking: If Gilbert actually came face-to-face with a non-human entity, how would we know if it was one of the actual alien "controllers (as JV suggests)" and not a different type of lower-level, artificial-intelligence-fused being designed to trick us into thinking we've actually met the controllers? Is there any way of knowing? Maybe Gilbert can shed light on that? Maybe what he encountered was just another type of being engineered and created by the controllers for terrestrial operation in order to keep their distance from us, or for some other reason? Or, maybe JV is correct and that was one of the actual alien controllers?) ~ Coulthart: "Can I just pull you back for a moment, though, to Gilbert's story, Jacques? Because I think it's incredibly important. What it's unique for, is it's actually somebody you have spoken to, directly, giving a first-person physical account of an encounter with a non-human being in what sounds like a U.S. military government facility." (Is the entity still there now?) Coulthart: "And there's actually a moment in your diaries, 12th of March 2025, where you actually get from Gilbert, a physical description of what he saw. He was, apparently, brought in as a specialist. He didn't know whether there were other captured or, interestingly enough, volunteer beings. But he had a rough idea of approximately where he was being taken. "He couldn't see outside the vehicle, but he was inside a small mountain, some kind of, perhaps, deep underground military bunker. Inside was a large, well-lit laboratory staffed by men and women wearing uniforms without rank or unit identification. There was no medical procedures or drugs. "And then, Gilbert says to you, he was brought face-to-face with the alleged entity. And it wasn't a Gray. It was over six feet tall. It, apparently, emitted light from different parts of its body, may have been enclosed in some sort of wired suit, test article, or a containment apparatus." (Was the suit designed to protect the being from our environment or to protect the humans in that room from the being? And just to reiterate, I'll assume it was an alien being. My friend made these excellent points... "We don't know if the parts of its body emitting light were its body or some sort of harness or device it was wearing. And if it was some sort of harness/device what was its purpose and whose device was it? Was it life support? Alien shackles? Was it meant to help, or control? "Say for instance, a harness device that emits a frequency that prevents the being from doing something? Leaving? Disappearing? Communicating?") ~ Coulthart: "And it, apparently, communicated through combinations of light, and permitted questions concerning psychic functioning. And he had several hours of communication with this being. Now, you've made it clear you believe Gilbert's account, you accept Gilbert's account. This is extraordinary." Vallée: "I've known him for a long time, and I know what else he's done, which is extraordinary. So..." Coulthart: "I mean, this is very important, Jacques. Is this person willing to give evidence to a congressional inquiry, if they're not subject to classified limitations, security oaths, or NDAs?" Vallée: "I asked him that because, obviously, I did not want to get into something that would take me, you know, beyond that range. And he said, 'No,' he was not... He asked, 'You know, do I need a special clearance for this?' He has done other work, you know, for the military." Coulthart: "Right. But I was analyzing the implications of what you say in the diary about Gilbert. And to summarize it, it's more than a psychic once met an alien. What it is, is, a classified U.S. group allegedly possesses, or hosts, a living, non-human intelligent being, and they've been operating a systematic, multidisciplinary communication program with it, over time. And Gilbert was brought in as one specialist to conduct controlled communications with it. Do you accept that that's the implication of what you say in the diary?" Vallée: "This is logical in terms of what we know from a long time. What the procedure would be. The structure was...did not go into psychic functioning, you know? The questions that they had been asked were basic physiological, physical questions. They brought [Gilbert] in so that he was authorized to create his own questions and to probe...to see to what extent he could elicit a response that would be a psychic response from that entity. "The question is: At what level do they function? We know we have some ability to function on a psychic level. Some people can practice this better than others. We know from the SRI work by Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ and others that this can be trained. As you know, I was involved in that project to some extent over several years, and with Ingo. So, I went through the procedure with Ingo for an entire year. What Gilbert is describing matches that very well. In other words, there was a procedure." Coulthart: "So, you allude, Jacques, to the fact that Gilbert is, apparently, writing his own book about what he encountered. Can you clarify for me, though, is Gilbert willing to give evidence to the ongoing congressional investigations into this?" (Good on Ross to follow-up because JV didn't answer it the first time.) Coulthart: "There are very few people who are willing to give first-person evidence. And if he's not restrained by classification-security-oaths constraints, what's stopping him from coming forward, even confidentially, to a secure SCIF in the Congress, and giving this evidence?" Vallée: "I cannot answer for him. He has a long career in helping, you know, different projects in a classified setting. So, he's quite capable of answering that. What I know is...I don't know that he is writing a book. There is a project for a series of interviews, and I've participated in that. I've given a few interviews about my own work. But I know he's been part of that project. I don't know how it's going to be released or whether it's going to be released. I'm not part of the business that owns that data." (Well, whatever that is, it really needs to be released. Interviews in written form, or on camera?) Coulthart: "I'm very excited by the Gilbert character, and forgive me for harping on about him. Can I at least clarify, Gilbert is a he." (I'm just as excited. This COULD be HUGE!) Vallée: "I don't want to give away any indication. You know, I have not had communication, recently. I don't know how far that project has gone. It's their project, and there is a boundary to what I can say." Coulthart: "But who are they, Jacques? Like, when you say it's their project, you're talking about the individual known as Gilbert by pseudonym?" Vallée: "And the release of that information. His intent is to release it." Coulthart: "I've got to ask you this, and I appreciate you may not want to disclose, but is the person that you're talking about Keith Harary?" Vallée: "Umm, no. I can definitely tell you it's not Keith." (Later in this interview, JV said he met Gilbert when he (Gilbert) was 22. Out of the public names associated with gifted psychics and remote viewers, Harary comes close. But there's another possibility that I'll let ChatGPT lay out in the 2nd tweet. If you've studied remote viewing, you know the name Keith Harary. If you'd like to read an excellent article written by Keith "Blue" Harary in Psychology Today, here ya go: dot com/us/articles/200411/confessions-of-a-star-psychic ~ Coulthart: "Is it Joe McMoneagle?" Vallée: "[laughs] I shouldn't play... It's an interesting game, but, you know, there are two or three other names." Coulthart: "Joseph McMoneagle, of course, Jacques, as you and I both know, he worked with you at SRI. He was remote viewer number one in the U.S. Army intelligence program." Vallée: "I have enormous amount of respect for Mr. McMoneagle." Coulthart: "So do I. Joe is probably one of the most respected remote viewers known to the U.S. military (JV shakes his head up and down in agreement) and the U.S. intelligence community. And I noted back in Forbidden Science 3, Joe told you about UFO-related material. And Joe talked about how a photograph of a disc had inexplicably disappeared from a classified safe under his sole control. And he you quoted him saying to you, 'There must be a higher level of authority that controls UFO data.' What's going on here, Jacques?" Here's the excerpt from FS V3... "Joe [McMoneagle] once obtained a detailed photograph of a disk. He placed a copy in a locked safe with double combination, a classified safe under his sole control. Yet the photograph vanished. “'There must be a higher level of authority that controls UFO data,' he said, 'a level beyond the folks who run the satellites.'" (The Gatekeepers?) ~ Coulthart: "Clearly, someone - if it's Joe McMoneagle, let's just call them Gilbert. Someone invited Gilbert to a secure facility, presumably, a secure-government facility, yet at the same time we have the government - in the form of AARO, the Pentagon - asserting, blue and blind, that there is absolutely no evidence of extraterrestrial-non-human-intelligence engagement with this planet. We know that's not true. What's going on, sir? You, probably more than anyone, know the answer to that question." Vallée: "It's a central question, of course, and I don't want to make, you know, to treat it in a humorous way. But I recall a conversation with Dr. Hynek when I was working with him back at Northwestern. And I said, 'You know, what does the Air Force say and what does the Air Force think?' And he said, 'Jacques, you have to understand, there is no such thing as the U.S. Air Force. There are projects within the Air Force that do different things.'" (Kind of like when people say, "The GOVERNMENT does this and that." Like the Air Force, the U.S. government is not a monolith. AARO may have had no clue about the Gilbert story, until JV put out V7. Maybe they still don't know?) Vallée: "And that's legitimate. [The USAF] are looking at different parts of, you know, the whole planet, with the tools they have. And they have different opinions about things, and they have budgets to pursue different things with different projects. And many times they don't know about the other project." Coulthart: "Is it possible that Gilbert was being played?" Vallée: "[shakes his head back and forth] No. No." Coulthart: "That he was shown something that was an intention to try and see what a master remote viewer would think of what he was being shown?" Vallée: "He's one of the best psychics in the world today, and has been throughout his career." (It's impossible to know 100% that what Gilbert encountered (assuming this actually happened) was a non-human entity. And even if/when he comes forward, that won't change. We're going to need evidence besides anecdotes.) ~ Coulthart: "So you find him very credible." Vallée: "I met him when he was 22." Coulthart: "What state was the location in, where this facility that he was taken to is located? Did he give you that indication?" Vallée: "I don't know the level of if there is a security wrapper around this. I don't know at what level. So, I've purposely been vague in the book, again." Coulthart: "I got that. Was there a date for the encounter? I think you indicated to me earlier it was about 20 years ago. Is that right?" Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "Have you seen any evidence proving that Gilbert was actually at that location? Has he provided you with any substantiating...or corroboration?" Vallée: "No. No. No. And that's why I don't want to go beyond, you know, reporting about that conversation and my trust in the conversation. I have no way of checking this. My own experience would indicate that that kind of thing is happening. Probably (in many places)." (Crosstalk, so I'm not 100% sure on "in many places." And what "experience" is JV talking about?) Coulthart: "Can I ask you a few questions, though? And you don't have to answer these if you're uncomfortable. Did he physically touch the entity?" Vallée: "No." Coulthart: "Was the entity a prisoner?" Vallée: "No. I asked him that question, of course, and he said the entity was a volunteer." (We need all the details on how that happened. Via a crash retrieval? Did it knock on the door one day? Teleport into their lab? Amazon Prime delivery in a REALLY big box with holes in it? 🙂 And why should we trust the entity? My friend added this: "A death-row prisoner agreeing to cooperate with authorities on something could be considered volunteering…but is still a prisoner. Did the being say it’s a volunteer or was it the people at the facility? Do we really have to wait around for a possible book we actually might never see?") ~ Coulthart: "You, intriguingly, talk about, in your diary, captured or volunteer beings. You're clear that this being was there voluntarily?" Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "But it suggests that there are other beings that are captured." Vallée: "I don't know. I'm not, you know, fudging here. I really don't know the answer." Coulthart: "Okay. Do you know from Gilbert how long the entity had been with this facility, with the humans?" Vallée: "No, and I asked Gilbert that. He did not know that. He was there just for that one presentation and that was..." Coulthart: "Was the entity alive, in the sense that we think of something being biologically alive?" Vallée: "Yes. Now, I have no doubt, as you know, I'm not an expert about Hollywood, but I've, occasionally, seen what Hollywood could do in terms of special effects. And, of course, everything can be a special effect." (Again, according to JV, Gilbert may have seen, "a test article, a wired uniform or a safety container for the being rather than the body of an actual Alien." So, Gilbert may not know what it actually looked like. Hard to be definitive on what this entity was and we'll need to hear from Gilbert for more details.) Coulthart: "Did Gilbert explain why he, a remote viewer, was required to communicate with the being, if, as you say in the diary, it was communicating with light?" Vallée: "Yes, yes. Because the people in charge were smart enough to understand that the communication that that being was capable of was beyond the... I mean, we have the same thing with whales, you know? Whales can read the inside of your body. I mean, women who were attending to whales, the whale would know they were pregnant before they knew they were pregnant." (That hasn't been proven.) Vallée: "So, those situations are, you know...we have aliens (he smiled and I believe he used quotation marks with his hands) here on Earth in the form of some very intelligent animals that perceive things completely outside our range. So, it's not a new situation." Coulthart: "No, but I think this is the revelation - I think, one of the most important revelations in your latest book - that we are talking here about someone who you accept as telling the truth, who says they were part of what sounds like a U.S. government, U.S. military program, where they were asked to communicate with a non-human being. Can I ask you this, sir? Did conventional spoken language fail, or was it not possible with this being?" Vallée: "The answers were in the form of light configurations." Coulthart: "And so, had we learned, had humans learned how to communicate with it through light?" Vallée: "From what he told me, there was limited knowledge of what was positive and negative. He was asked to only frame questions in a way that where the answer could be yes or no, And that's why there were situations where he said he couldn't understand the answer." (Yes or no questions? I'm gonna assume the entity had no thumbs. Thumbs up? 👍🏽 Thumbs down? 👎🏼 😊) Coulthart: "One of the things you say in your diary - and I've learned to read Jacques Vallee's diaries very, very closely indeed - you say Gilbert's answers matched earlier results. Earlier results from whom, Jacques? I really think this is a very important question. What are you talking about there?" Vallée: "Well, the...you know, my understanding is that there were teams there that had been working with that being and perhaps other beings for a while. I mean, this isn't just a one-off situation. They had a base. Again, I said, 'What were the insignias?' He said, 'They were probably people from different branches of the armed forces there. You know, the people there were experts, men and women, you know, who seemed to be coming and going.' There may have been other labs. You know, he was in one lab." Coulthart: "Is it your understanding that this communication with this being is communicating today? Is it still happening?" Vallée: "I have no way of knowing." Coulthart: "So it was happening 20 years ago, but we don't know if that program is still operating today." Vallée: "What was important to me, again, in terms of what we can derive from the database and from other, you know, all the other contact cases, is that the communication was primarily light, in the form of light."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2104287905443434740/amplify_video_thumb/2104285861336739840/img/AgvdmqeGRC_Dzu5K.jpg)