ๆญฃๅจๅ ่ฝฝ่ง้ข...
่ง้ขๅ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ
๐๐ ๐: ๐๐๐ญ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฎ ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐๐จ๐ฒ, ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ญ โค๏ธโ๏ธ Kaizer Chiefs Legend Doctor Khumalo says players should NOT say things that will jeopardize them Adding, George Matlou shouldnโt have said that #KaizerChiefs โค๏ธโ๏ธ
56,855 ๆฌก่ง็ โข 6 ไธชๆๅ โขvia X (Twitter)
0 ๆก่ฏ่ฎบ
ๆๆ ่ฏ่ฎบ
ๅๅงๅธๅญ็่ฏ่ฎบๅฐๆพ็คบๅจ่ฟ้
![๐ด Emily Thornbury: Netanyahuโs Far-Right Government โJust Not Listeningโ โ Only Trump Can Make Them Stop "Well, the only person he does listen to, as far as we can tell, is is Donald Trump." And so therefore, rather than trying to speak to the Israelis, we're now, I think, in a position where we have to be speaking directly to to Donald Trump and say, "You have the strength of 10 presidents. You can get the Israelis to listen to you in a way that no other American president has done. You must get them to stop.โ โ Labour MP and Foreign Affairs Committee chair Emily Thornbury says Israelโs far-right government has flatly rejected a global push for a Gaza ceasefire โ and only Donald Trump has the influence to force a change. Key Points from Interview: โค Reacting to the ceasefire call now signed by over 30 countries, Thornbury said: โIsrael by almost return of post puts up a post on social media just rejecting it completely out of handโฆ Itโs divorced from reality. Itโs insulting.โ โItโs another example of Israel โ this far-right government in Israel โ just not listening to their friends and to their allies.โ โค โWe have to think about what it is that we can do to make sure they do listen.โ โMore than 80% of people in Israel, from what I understand, want there to be a ceasefire and want the hostages returned. So weโre talking to this far-right government. Weโre not talking about the Israeli people.โ โคโค โThe only person he does listen to, as far as we can tell, is Donald Trump.โ โDonald Trump got them to turn their planes around in the airโฆ He is somebody they listen to, and I donโt know of anybody else that they do.โ โIt does seem to me that this is one of the things that we should be using our political capital on.โ โค Backing immediate UK recognition of Palestinian statehood, Thornbury said: โThereโs going to be no Palestine left to recognize unless we recognizeโฆ What we should be doing is recognizing, showing that weโre players, showing that weโre acting in good faith, working with the French.โ โฅ On UK hesitation: โWe all want the same thing. [Starmer] just has a different idea of how to get there. And I think heโs wrong about that.โ โฅ On two states: โThe Palestinians are not going anywhere. The Israelis are not going anywhere. So whatโs the solution? The solution is what we have said for 40, 50 years โ two states. And I donโt really understand, given that itโs such a pillar of our foreign policy, why we canโt then say we agree with two states and we recognize the second state.โ โฅ On existential Israeli fears: โI have absolute sympathy for Israel in their belief that they have Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis โ all of them saying they want to eliminate Israel โ and Iran as well. Butโฆ the only way in which Israel can be safe and secure in the region and not constantly at war is by agreeing to a solution that will allow for some peace and tranquilityโฆ which means giving the Palestinians what they need โ which is a state of their own.โ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1947405733169139841/amplify_video_thumb/1947405611701829633/img/axHIFIfUskHJ0DHY.jpg)
![๐ฅ Knapp and I, "have seen high-quality everything [UAP] that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing." ~Corbell ๐ฅ (Great way to end the year. Unless you think Corbell and Knapp are lying or have been fooled by nothing but fake photos and videos, the good stuff DOES exist. Damn. Wasn't expecting this, but it's very important to hear. You'll have to decide what this means for you. Happy New Year!) ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "George and I are reporters and people send us stuff. He and I can both attest: We have seen high-fidelity, of things that like, are so egregiously bizarre, you guys (Knapp shaking his head up and down in agreement). I'll just admit it. We have been exposed to every type of footage you can imagine. Every type. Lots of it. And this has happened for a while, and I don't know what to do. I mean, as a journalist, we are able to be exposed to these things, and they're...you know, it's shocking. "There's a lot of footage from this aggregate program called IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION, and not even within that program. That program was just siphoning off. Here's the deal: Our sensor platforms - from space, to air, to sea, to undersea - pick up, all the time, highly-anomalous things that are unambiguously UAP. That's fact. I can attest to that as a human being sitting in front of you, that George and I have been exposed to it. I'm not gonna go any further today, but that is fact, we have been. "So, what happens is, you have our government saying, all of this reporting is coming in and it's going up on these classified servers, but like, what do we do with it, what do we do with it? So they've developed one of many programs that used to be called Immaculate Constellation, where they will pull the best of the best, a lot of it using AI. And they will pull these into an archive and have them assessed in secret groups. So that's what Immaculate Constellation actually was, was an aggregate program to take all of that footage, bring it, and nothing facing internally to the U.S. So if we're doing any exploitation (reverse engineering efforts. ~Joe), if it's anything with us? Nothing. But to other countries, and just passive and active picking up UAP, that's what Immaculate Constellation did. And now it's under a different name. But it does the same thing, and it's one of many programs. "So, I can attest, and so can George, that that footage of high-quality from all-domain is something that exists, it's unambiguous. Now the question is: Who do you show it to? Who gets to see it? What actions can they take? I don't know. I don't know. I'm not in charge here. Is there an adult in the room?" George Knapp: "Jeremy, DoD spokesperson says there is no record of anything called Immaculate Constellation within the Department of Defense. I guess it can't be real then, right?" Corbell: "You know, I think there will be clarity on that, because I think there's humans behind whistleblowing, and I think one day we're going to learn more about that. I hope that that helps. Like, when David Grusch came forward, and he said, 'Look, I dug into all these black projects, and I had 40 witnesses.' By the way, it's not the people that you know of and this sort of thing. This is like, deep within our intelligence agencies. David Grusch DID bring 40 people to the IC IG. He did do that. He told it like it is. Yeah, it exists. It exists. It's the most frustrating thing in the world, once you know for sure that high-quality data exists and that people that should see it haven't seen it, and you're kind of stuck. You don't know what to do about it. That's how I feel.: Knapp: "But maybe a technicality could be it exists or existed, but not within the Pentagon." Corbell: "Oh, yeah, all those games like, Immaculate Constellation was not a DoD USAP. So that's like, why you see Susan Gough like, technically, she's telling the truth. So, Immaculate Constellation was a USAP (Unacknowledged Special Access Program ~Joe) under a different heading. So imagine this: Imagine even the Department of Energy has its own USAPs. The White House has its own USAPs. So you can technically say it's not under DoD. They might have actuated some things for that operation, which was an operation, Immaculate Constellation, but they can get away with these technicalities. But there are USAPs in a lot of different departments, as you can imagine." Joe Murgia - Joe Murgia: "I am not letting you guys get away with not commenting again on what you've seen, image-wise. I mean, have you guys seen craft, structured craft, up close (Corbell and Knapp both shaking their heads up and down)?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Flying saucer-type craft?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Triangles?" Corbell: "Yeah." Murgia: "What else can you say about that?" Corbell: "The weirdest sh*t I've ever seen in my life, man. As journalists, we get a lot of weird stuff, and George and I, we'll look at it and assess it, and it's legitimate, and we've seen it. And, yeah, I don't know what else to say, George, unless you want to say something." Knapp: "We've seen stuff that we're not supposed to see. Put it that way." Murgia: "From government sensors?" Corbell: "Oh yeah." Knapp: "Yeah." Corbell: "Yeah. Look, as journalists, we don't know at first, right? Like, we'll get a bunch of information. We'll be exposed to a bunch of information. It's a very tricky place for us to be. First, are people f*cking with us? You know, is this a lie, is this real? We had that debate about the Jellyfish. Like, we had to, like, dig in and find out, which base, where was it, who's seen it? Multiple sources that have seen it at that base. It takes time. We're in that position now. We've been exposed to a lot of stuff and everything you just said, Joe, yeah. I mean, I could tell you as a friend, straight up, George could affirm this, with his own eyes, too. What that means, I don't know, and I don't know where to go from there. But we have seen high-quality everything that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1874258646508634486/ext_tw_video_thumb/1874246145226268674/pu/img/B2QPH6uyoAol1MiH.jpg)
![I added a lot to this transcript and I'm not happy right now.. A Non-Human Intelligence on this Planet? "We're not aware of anything along that line that's ever been hidden from Congress" ~Rounds "I really don't believe that that is necessarily what's happened here." ~Rounds "We haven't seen that yet. It's not something that any of us have been able to, that I've been able to identify. I'm not aware of any of it." ~Rounds ~ Ross Coulthart: "If it turns out that, for example, the United States has recovered, incredibly, non-human technology, perhaps even craft and bodies, biologics, as some people assert. If that's true, and that has not been properly disclosed to Congress, and yet, by all accounts, billions, perhaps trillions of dollars have been expended on such a program, do you see any reason why on national security grounds that ought not to be disclosed to the public? That's the key issue. I mean, are you guys gonna cave at the last minute and say, 'Well, if we do have a flying saucer in a cave, it should not be revealed to the public for national security reasons.' Can you see any reason why that wouldn't be allowed to be revealed?" (That is THE question. Like I said the other day, Ross asks good questions and this is the one I really wanted him to ask.) Rounds: "Well, there are two items here. You do have a hypothetical. We're not aware of anything along that line that's ever been hidden from Congress, directly that we're aware of." (Have any witnesses made that claim? If so, how many? Look at how different Marco Rubio responded during his interview with Joe Khalil. Rubio: "Either, what [Grusch] is saying is partially true or entirely true, or...we have some really smart, educated people with high clearances and very important positions in our government, who are crazy, and are leading us on a goose chase." ~Senator Marco Rubio Full interview transcript: (What does Rounds think about Grusch or the other folks Grusch says have gone to the IG and who allegedly have hands-on experience with these NHI craft? Has Rounds heard form them?) ~ Rounds: "Also, the second part of it is, is we don't know if there was something out there, was it actually disclosed to some members of Congress who have continued to keep it quiet based upon their concerns about the release? We don't know it." (In 2002, Admiral Wilson told Dr. Eric Davis that politicians were NOT on the list of folks who were read in, or given access, to the alleged crash retrieval program. If that has changed, and certain members of Congress HAVE been read in, that doesn't change the fact that THE WORLD DESERVES TO KNOW if we share this planet with another intelligence. Stop using the, "It might be our tech" excuse.) Rounds: "So it really is a series of hypotheticals that you're asking me." (We all know that. That's why Ross phrased the question like that.) Rounds: "But let me continue on, because I think really, if I could put it in a simpler way... Let's just say that there had been a meeting or a contact with something that we didn't believe was from this world. Whether, you know, from another country, or from our own resources. At that point, you know, I think there's gonna come a time here in which the American public and people from around the world are gonna look at it and say, 'You know, it really would be crazy for us to believe that we really were alone in the world, or in the Universe, and that there is no other intelligent life form out there." (If what we're dealing with are extraterrestrials from another planet, I agree that the masses could say, "No shit! Not a surprise!' But what if it's something that doesn't have a physical body? As George Knapp has asked : What if they can see us but we can't see them, and they can watch us when we're in the bathroom or taking a shower? How would people handle that? Or, if they're time travelers from our future, back here to save us from some sort of cataclysm? Would that cause panic? Or, even if they were "just" extraterrestrials. Would people be able to handle Reptilians who might find human meat a delicacy, or Mantid beings who look like giant bugs? As Christopher K. Mellon said in 2015: "John Podesta said publicly, the American people can handle the truth. My question would beโฆif you donโt know what the truth is, how do you know they can handle it? What if theyโre flesh-eating arachnids or something? Doesnโt seem to make sense to meโ ~Mellon ~ Rounds: "But it would be a matter of how you would disclose it correctly, and in what would be one of the greatest announcements in the history of mankind, that we are not alone." (Is it the job of politicians or governments to withhold information until they figure out the proper way to disclose it? What if the information is scary and could cause panic? Would any government have a right to withhold that information from the people? I say, hell no.) Rounds: "I really don't believe that that is necessarily what's happened here. But, we do know - and this is the part that is so sensitive to us - there are some things that we can't explain out there." (Seems like we're back to square one. Holy shit.) Rounds "And that's the reason why I really got involved in this in the first place, is, if we know that there are technologies there that appear to do things that physically, we're just not sure how it's getting done. Biggest concern I had was, is it ours? Or does it belong to somebody else on this earth, one of our adversaries? Or is it really something that is out of this world? But in any of those events, two of the three would be very serious if we disclosed it to the American public because it would mean national defense issues are being broached. And that would be, it would be one of our adversaries' capabilities, or one of our own capabilities." (In other words, it may appear to be a technology from a non-human intelligence but we have to make triple sure it's not from an adversary or our own tech!!! There's always that chance! OMG! It seems like that will always be the excuse for not disclosing.) Rounds: "The third alternative, which I wouldn't be afraid of seeing some day... (Some day? That sounds far away. When? 2040? 2050?) Rounds: "But it can't. It can't. We haven't seen that yet. It's not something that any of us have been able to, that I've been able to identify. I'm not aware of any of it. But I know that there are things that we don't know how to identify today. Does that help?" (We've known that for a long time.) Ross: "It does, sir, it does." (It doesn't really help.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1939860994362417670/amplify_video_thumb/1939849275040473088/img/qMDMdsC4F-7B-RSa.jpg)
![Oh My God!!! ๐ฑ Corbell Threatened to Release Hundreds of UFO Files, Which Were Also Given to Hundreds of Journalists! And Then He Backed Down! One Problem: It Never Happened I found the Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell clip I wanted to show you. But First: The claims... "Jeremy Corbell threatened to release hundreds of UFO files." ~Red Panda Koala And... "Jeremy Corbell says hundreds of journalists have been given the secret UFO files that will be released, if..." ~Red Panda Koala Full (inaccurate, IMO) claims, and the actual transcripts, are here: โฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธ The following interview was uploaded several days after Corbell made those early-June comments that are now going viral, and for which he's getting a lot of hate over. This is a more complete explanation of the situation. Andy, forgive me for uploading such a long clip. I know this won't answer every question but it should educate folks on what was said. Or what was meant. And I'm sure it will calm the haters. ๐ฅด ~ Andy (That UFO Podcast): In 'Sleeping Dog,' you get your laptop out towards the end of the documentary. You know, dramatic, you dig some sh*t up. You've got a pen drive, you open it, and you see these files. And I'm sure, like many folks, I'm pausing frantically, reading all these names of files. I can just see the bottom of and the top. And I'm looking around your laptop screen. "And we begin to see clips of those videos. Now, those came out within the second release from the war dot gov, UFOs. Can you, first of all, clear up for me...we heard you had 46 videos that you were going to release." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "No, who said that?" Andy: "So, generally, online, there was 46 videos were coming out. I think 52 came out. This is what I want cleared up, though. You know about those 52 videos that came out. How many came from you? Because the feeling online - and this even was for me - was, Jeremy's got his documentary, he showed what's going to come, and then within a couple of weeks we had the second drop, and bang, here's all these videos. Can you just clear up how many videos that were dropped, came from your end, and what's the story there?" Corbell: "Zero came from my end. Zero. Those are government-filmed UAP. They were provoked to release them by a variety of ways. George Knapp and I gave a multitude of lists of UAP filmed by our military, to Congress. They validated, they vetted, they found out where they were. We told them where they are, we had eyes on them, making sure they're not going to be deleted. "This is something we've acquired over decades, George and myself. You know, the newer ones are kind of the the best, I would say. You know, better hardware than, let's say, 15 years ago. But...so none of them came from us. That...it is government-filmed footage. "We identified the file names and file structures and location of holdings, gave that to Congress, and it's not just the 46. It actually surprised me when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna put out, and it was a gangster move. Rep. Luna put out a public letter to Pete Hegseth saying, 'Here are 46 files that we want.' "They didn't mention...it's actually 14 Air Force files that we've identified - even to the Department of Justice - that there's a bottleneck in UAP reporting within our own government. Remember 'Immaculate Constellation,' the idea of like, siphoning off the best footage. Well, George and I were able to identify that in Central Command, that there was a nexus point where there was a bottleneck, and the best UAP footage and evidence was being siphoned off even before it got to AARO. "Even our, you know, who were kind of enemies at a time, we informed AARO that there's this bottleneck, and if you want to find out where the good sh*t's going, we told them where. So, when you say 46 videos, 52 videos. Bro, there are probably hundreds of thousands. Very little ever get to reporters like George and myself, and it takes years for us to vet and verify. "And then, you know, anybody that leaks videos to journalists - if you consider them sources- they're at risk, you know, when journalists publish them. So, I have always been fighting. And then people yell at me, and they're like, 'It's not good enough, and the frame rates aren't right.' And all this weird sh*t. They're just baiting to try to like, dig in and try to investigate sources. It's all a charade. Everything with that online is a charade. They're just trying to entrap people. "So what we do, is we take the heat and we just keep doing the reporting. We gave Congress way more than 46 file structures, file names with locations, with evidence they exist. But we don't possess anything. We can't, legally. We can obtain and release. I'm familiar with, have access from time-to-time, too. "You know, you have to be really smart as a journalist on what your rights are. That's why I have a federal lawyer, which you learned in the movie is Chuck McCullough. Kind of one of the best federal lawyers you could have, now that I've admitted it, right?" (McCullough was the first Intelligence Community Inspector General, represented David Grusch, and is HIGHLY respected. The fact that he's representing Corbell is something that's lost on the Corbell haters.) Corbell: "So, basically, those are the protocols. Our government has hundreds of thousands, in full-motion video, which is like a layered, sensor system from satellite platforms, as an example, which you've never seen, no one's ever seen. With incredible fidelity, showing all-domain UAP coming from space-to-air-to-sea and back out, from sea-to-air-to space. That's fact. I know that for a fact. I have been witness to a lot of that information. "But I did not give anything to Congress except file names, and they verified, vetted, and put out a public letter for 46. They kept the other ones private, which I think was smart. Because sometimes even just the the file names themselves, you know, could be an issue for 100 reasons. Does that clarify what you're asking?" Andy: "100% And even in the Discord, when that drop happened, everyone's Discords and stuff were going crazy. People were asking, 'Are these the videos that Corbell and Knapp have provided?' So there has been this idea, from some, that you guys gave them the videos. But what you've given was the locations, how to get them, where they were." Corbell: "The exact file names and locations, with verifiable proof that they do exist, that they did exist upon delivery, of those titles. You know. I'm not gonna just... You know, and also, what we get, when they ask for them, from Pete Hegseth and Department of War, is when they do release them, which they were provoked to do. That's the thing. "And they're not all out. The 46, just read the file names that were in that list, and then look at what was released. They are not all out. So think about that. They give you the underhanded pitch, the bottom of the barrel. And George Knapp and I, as I have said, we're gonna continue our reporting. "But it's kind of like a warning shot. You're like, here's what is in the hands of over 100 journalists, including podcasters now. Meaning they they can get access if they need. That's a whole process. But, essentially, we're telling them what journalists have. So what you can do is get in front of it and release the full, original files. And then nobody argues about frame rates, nobody goes after sources. "That's the way it should work because the onus is on the United States government because they themselves have said that we are going to be transparent about this, we're gonna be putting out all this information. Good, good. "So you've started, and it was total happenstance that the first release was on the premiere of 'Sleeping Dog' date, In in the sense that, I had no idea they were going to do that. It's kind of hilarious. But, you know, we did inform them before about the movie and that we're gonna, you know, do our journalism. So, you do the math." Andy: "Yeah, no, that's useful. And can we just confirm, I am not one of the podcasters who has those files before I am raided, or the CIA get in touch." Corbell: "Nobody has the files. You know, George and I have been sure to back up our work and provide an ability, if anything goes sideways, that, you know, the American public gets what they need. You know, it's very simple, dude. It's not like cloak and dagger. "You have to make sure that when you're reporting on things of national-security concern, that you don't damage national security, A number one. I'm an American, I live here, I love my country. Like, straight up. But also, you put things in place so that you're not the only one who's been able to see or have access, at time. And that's what we did. "We did that to protect sources, whistleblowers, and the information itself getting out to people. I don't possess anything, Andy. Of course, you don't. You're a foreign journalist to me. I'm sorry, but that that's another aspect to it. Is that, even though we have Five-Eyes Alliance, we've never hung out and had a beer, dude." Andy: "Not yet." Corbell: "[Laughs] I hope to." Andy: "Next year's Contact [in the Desert], maybe. So those 100 journalists... Because so many folks got in touch with me to ask..." Corbell: "100-plus." Andy: "100-plus, journalists and podcasters. It's not like you've sent out a special-edition pen drive and went, 'Here's all the files, if something happens.' But there are ways and means that if something did happen to yourself and/or George (Corbell: "Oh yeah"), these folks can access this material?" Corbell: "Yeah. I said it in Episode 60 of Weaponized, right? So we have, as journalists, we have covered and made sure the American public will never be, you know, the American public will never stay in the dark about what we've reported on or what we have to report on. But, you know, we have to go slow, we have to vet everything. It's just an insurance thing that that people would have instantaneous access. "I don't want that, either. Like, I don't want...you can't tell your friends, somebody, without telling your enemies. You know, and I don't...I would rather that we just continue doing our journalism under First Amendment, in America, without any interruption, in any way, that is illegal. And that's what's been happening. You know, the influence campaigns and the threats and that kind of thing. "So, yeah, man, I don't know how far we wanna go into that, but just base-level, we have made sure to protect the information that George Knapp and I have obtained over the decades. We don't hold in possession of anything, but at the same time, we've democratized the way that information will get out if we're stopped in any way, and that's just how it is." Andy: "And you guys are in full control of that, that no one can go rogue that has the information, or, you know, 'Ah, f**k Jeremy and George. I can access this. I'm gonna go off and find.' No, you guys are in complete control of that?" Corbell: "No, because that's a national-security issue because the nature of any information that comes to us in this realm. But additionally, that's not the right way to go about... I don't wanna go too deep into this, but that's not the right way that journalists operate, right? Is, you don't just haphazardly... So, no. Is that okay? Just end with no?" Andy: "You can end with 'no' on that one. It might come back round in one of these other answers to a different question." Corbell: "Okay, yeah."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2081202383699493125/amplify_video_thumb/2081202165331509248/img/jsys9LHkgy_JDuJI.jpg)
!["I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... โฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธ โI think we may have been (visited already). We donโt know for sure.โ ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. โฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~~~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~~~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelowโs direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. UmmโฆI do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really canโt go into a lot ofโฆmore detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "Butโฆsimply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~~~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~~~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job ๐ธ Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reidโs name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and Iโm not sure where weโd be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2084538028572430772/amplify_video_thumb/2084536612109860864/img/9DvVsfAYTKl5EUNt.jpg)
![๐ฝ Did Grusch See Footage of Live Aliens? ๐ฝ "Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it." ~JF ๐ถ What Left Congress Speechless, and Staffers with Their Eyes Popping Out of Their Heads? ๐ฑ ~ "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (I'm gonna break all of this down and give you my speculation on what left Fox with his jaw on the floor, members of Congress speechless, and their senior staffers with their eyes popping out of their heads.) ~ James Fox: " Probably about two weeks ago (late May), we were having meetings on The Hill with members of Congress. We brought in a PR firm, 42 West, and we were having a meeting with staff members, bipartisan. We had Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office, Rep. Eric Burlison. We had a representative from Congressman Jared Moskowitz's office. We had a number of Chiefs of Staff (top staffer for a specific member of Congress), like, present." (Don't really know why they needed a public relations firm in attendance, but if it helps them with advice on how to handle this, so be it. Just know: it appears like members of that PR firm know what Grusch said, and we don't.) Fox: "And, I can't reveal what was said. I thought it was gonna be said at the actual event that we had yesterday (June 9th) in DC with Mr. Grusch." (Don't be mad at Fox for keeping his word to Grusch and not sharing what was said in that private meeting. But I don't blame people for being annoyed that Grusch shared this information six or so weeks ago and we still don't know what he said in that room.) Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes. Like, I can't wait for it to come out. "So I asked Mr. Grusch today, 'Can I talk about what I heard?' And he's like, 'No, but I will be addressing it very soon.'" (Like I said, it's almost been one month now (June 12) since Fox said this, so what does "very soon" mean? Was Grusch supposed to share this information on CNN with Jake Tapper last week but it didn't happen because that interview was, reportedly (Fox told us), postponed?) Fox: "So that's where we stand right now. But I can tell you, Mr. Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it. It's coming, it's coming." (We heard that Gruch's Op/Ed was coming soon and that was 2.5 years ago. It never happened. So, I don't blame people for being skeptical about this. If Grusch hasn't told us by this time next week, I propose someone (a member of Congress) who was in that room just tell us. That's fair, right? Total transparency from our elected representatives?) ~ Fox: "Mr. Grusch is legitimately concerned about his personal safety. He's coming out with it, I promise you, this is coming out. He assured me today that he will address this issue to the general public very soon, in the near future." (I'm glad Grusch told a room full of people what he saw, as that may offer him some protection from people who allegedly want him to stop talking.) Fox: "So I can't speak to what he's gonna say, but I'm just telling you from what I heard out of his mouth, sitting in an office of a member of Congress? And everybody (Fox laughs) in the room, you could have heard a pin drop." Clayton Morris: "Could you give us a hint? Is it related to craft? Can you maybe dance around it a little bit? I want to say, 'You're killing me, Smalls (laughs).'" Fox: "Yeah, so if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings. Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room. And I looked around the room, and I'm looking at these young, like, guys in their 20s, you know, the staff guys? And their eyeballs were popping out of their head. My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (There's a reason why I included that quote (living or deceased non-human intelligence) from the new Burlison/Carson/Crane legislation at the top of this tweet: At the very least, I'm confident Grusch told them that he saw photos of dead non-human beings. Bodies. But what about evidence of LIVING non-humans, aka aliens of unknown origin? More on that at the end. Fox: "My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (Would Grusch saying he saw photos of craft and dead non-humans have that type of effect on Fox? Seems like that's something he would have expected to hear.) ~ Fox: "It was an [out of] body experience when I heard that. But I can tell you...the impression I got, was that he felt a little more protected to talk about this because of President Trump's directive to release the files, and that this... Again, this is my speculation, okay? This is not what Mr. Grusch said. "I got the impression that he was much more relaxed - even though he was still not fully relaxed - because of President Trump's directive to release these files. And that it was something that he had seen during his official investigations just within the last few years." (Imagine how much more relaxed Grusch (and others) would feel if we had an actual Executive Order from Trump with strong language to protect whistleblowers?) Fox: "And that it...I think it had an extremely profound impact on his life when he saw this evidence that he described. Again I'm leaving it right there. I've been talking with Republicans, and they said if Joe Rogan tweets about this, that the President will hear it, And I can't overstate the significance of that." (Why hasn't Rogan already done that? No excuse. Fox has been on Rogan and I'm sure he has Joe's contact information. Make it happen.) Fox: "We need people. We're not asking for money, we're not asking to get on your show, we're just asking, Mr. President, please, as many people as possible, release the files that should not be associated with national security. And that's the alien or non-human sentient beings. That's it." ~~~ (I'm going to speculate on what Grusch may have said in that room.) Fox: "I think it had an extremely profound impact on [Grusch's] life when he saw this evidence that he described." (Grusch has said he started out as a skeptic when he started looking into this. If he was shown what he felt were photos of non-human bodies, I think that might be enough to have an, "extremely profound impact on his life." Depending on exactly what those photos showed, of course.) In "Moment of Contact," Eric Davis had this exchange with Fox: James Fox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Full exchange with video... ~~~ As I said in my other post, I think Davis, Semivan, Puthoff, Kelleher, Grusch, Lacatski, Stratton, aka The AAWSAP Gang (I just made that up), may have seen the same evidence of photos and reports. Has Grusch seen more than that? I don't know. In 2025, Davis said this... Burlison: "Can you comment on whatever species have been piloting these craft? Are they largish? Are they multiple species? What was their size, and how many are usually on a craft?" Davis: "They're typically the multiple species people are familiar with. The Greys, the Nordics. People have talked about Reptilians and Insectoids. It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type. A humanoid, because they have this...a hand, and four limbs, and a torso, so..." Burlison: "Large? Small?" Davis: "Human size, human scale." Burlison: "How many are in a crew?" Davis: "Well, the group, well, the Greys I'm familiar with from investigating the crash at Corona, which is misnamed the crash at Roswell. It's not the crash at Roswell, it's the crash at Corona, New Mexico. Those were Greys, those were four-foot tall. And the Nordics are typically human-sized, probably...I've heard five, six-feet tall. And same with the people who mislabel Reptilian and Insectoid. They're roughly that height, too. I haven't heard anything about anything seven or eight feet or nine-foot tall, of that nature." Full post with video... ~ And this past Sunday, Davis said this to The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford... Davis: "I can say to you guys that there are a minimum of four different alien species. The credibility of that ranges on the spectrum from no credibility to high credibility. The high credibility is the classified part." Full post: My Final Thoughts (Based on everything Davis has shared, it seems he saw classified photos of what appeared to him to be non-human craft and photos that appeared to show dead non-humans (bodies) with enough detail that he could see that some resembled reptiles and others resembled insects. Were there also photos of Greys and beings that looked human (Nordic)? I don't know. These images of non-humans would fall into what Davis deemed "high credibility" and "the classified part.") Davis: "I saw the evidence, and it's stark!" (If Davis saw close-up photos that showed details of beings that looked like Reptilians and Mantids, I'd say that qualifies as stark!) Back to what Fox said... Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes." (I think what caused that reaction was Grusch describing seeing close-up photos of different types of non-human beings. Maybe.) However, Fox also said this: "...if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings (This is the Varginha, Brazil case. ~Joe). Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room." (The biggest CLAIM in that film and from that case is that a live, non-human being was captured and that Dr. Italo saw video of it, and then stood next to it for a few minutes when it was in the hospital, in a bed, being cared for by another doctor. Did Grusch say he saw evidence (photos or videos) of a live being that appeared to be non-human? Joe Rogan asked him that in his November 2023 interview... Grusch: "Once you realize the phenomenon's real, then you realize we've recovered artifacts and, you know, biologics or, you know, dead pilots, if you will, even though it's kind of creepy to think about in your world view. You don't think they were ever, you know, alive sometimes, too, right? And I'll leave it at that, only because, you know, that is something the President and his cabinet need to disclose this in a controlled manner." (He was either hinting that he's seen them alive or that them being alive and on this planet is a huge deal and not his responsibility to announce. I think it's the latter.) Rogan: "Are there discussions of interactions with live beings?" Grusch: "Uhh, there was some water-cooler talk about that kind of thing." Rogan: "But that's it?" Grusch: "But, you know, I don't even wanna get into it because it's like, uh, there was some details provided to me but it's like, it's secondary and I don't know if that's like, the telephone game and I don't know if it was hyperbolized in any way...um, you know, in the break room, so to speak. So I just... I'm so anal about making sure what I say is accurate...I don't, you know, I don't know." (Based on what he said there, it seems like he has NOT seen any evidence of live beings. If he now comes out and says that he has, it will seem like a flip flop. So, I'm gonna go with Grusch said he saw photos of non-human bodies and they were of the different types/species that Dr. Eric Davis referenced. One more flashback to what Davis said in that public, congressional briefing in May of 2025.) Davis: "It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type." (That sounds like someone who has seen exactly what they look like, via photos.) Final point... "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (That language was in the original UAPD Disclosure Act co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Rounds, and four other senators. Why put that language in there if you haven't heard credible reports of living or deceased (bodies) non-human intelligence? Are there stories of living, non-humans on this planet? Yes, and I'll leave you with one of them.) ) (Just to make it clear: I think Grusch will say that he saw clear photos of different types of non-human bodies and some looked like reptiles and others looked like insects. It would be amazing to hear Grusch say he saw video or film of living beings, but I don't expect that. However...this still bothers me... Would Grusch describing seeing photos of craft and different kinds of dead aliens leave veteran-of-the-UFO-field, James Fox, with his jaw on the floor? I guess we're gonna see. And hopefully soon.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2075447649453691237/amplify_video_thumb/2075447438866006017/img/nXEwcYZHCI2fyrrG.jpg)
!["George Knapp and I provided that list (of 46 videos) to Congress." ~JC What's it Gonna Take to Wake the Masses? Full segment with Biden, Obama and Trump comments. Trump: "They wanna find out about the UFOs, and anything having to do with UFO or related material. And we're gonna be releasing a lot of things from...that we have. And I think some of it's gonna be very interesting to people." ~ Peter Doocy in Studio: "Many historic developments in a story that I've been working on for five years, but our next guest has been working on for much longer. So, let's start here. My interest was piqued when Barack Obama said this in 2021." Obama on The Late Show with James Corden: "When it comes to aliens, there are some things I just can't tell you, on air." ~ Doocy in Studio: "I was so curious about that, so I asked the only man I knew, at the time, who could possibly help." ~ Doocy: "President Obama says that there is footage and records of objects in the skies, these Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. And he says, we don't know exactly what they are. What do you think that it is?" Biden: "I would ask him again. Thank you." (A pathetic response that I called out at the time. Maybe I have BDS? ๐ตโ๐ซ ) ~ Doocy in Studio: "Not very helpful, Joe! I haven't had a chance to ask Barack Obama, and it had been eating at me. And then, he said something else." ~ Brian Tyler Cohen (BTC): "Are aliens real?" Obama: "Uh, they're real, but I haven't seen 'em, and they're not being kept in, uh... What is it?" BTC: "Area 51?" Obama: "Area 51." ~ Doocy in Studio: "If the last President couldn't help us with answers about aliens, maybe this one could. Spoiler alert, he did." ~ Doocy on Air Force One: "Barack Obama said that aliens are real. Have you seen any evidence of non-human visitors to Earth?" Trump: "Well he gave classified information, he's not supposed to be doing that. You know." Doocy: "So aliens are real?" Trump: "Well I don't know if they're real or not, I can tell you he gave classified information." ~ Doocy: "Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell is an investigative journalist and the co-host of the 'Weaponized' podcast. He knows more about this than anybody. And the new movie about him, 'Sleeping Dog' and UFO disclosure, is excellent, I watched it yesterday. "Jeremy, there are 46 videos that Congress wants the Pentagon to declassify. The Pentagon missed the deadline to do it. But, will these 46 videos be convincing enough to have Americans saying, 'I have no doubts aliens have visited Earth'"? Corbell: "You know, I think that these are data points. I think these 46 videos are really important. I think the American public should be able to see them, and so does Congress. They specifically identified these 46 videos because they know that these videos exist. They are designated UAP by our own military and intelligence services. I have been exposed to a number of these. In fact, George Knapp and I provided that list to Congress. We've actually released some of those videos. So, the American public is ready for this. "Now what it's gonna tell us, what the end result is gonna be? It's another data set of footage the American public can look at. But here is what I know for a fact, Peter: There are machines, there are craft of unknown origin that fly with impunity in our restricted airspace, and our government has been assessing this as a national threat for decades. The jig is up. People now know: UAP are real. "But what are UAP? Who are flying these machines. Who made these machines that can outpace, outmaneuver and outperform our greatest war fighters? That's the question." Doocy: "And so, you were just talking about this. We've got video that we can put up on the screen. One of the videos that your sources helped you guys get out of a government vault." (Important detail: Corbell and Knapp have sources. Their source, or sources, somehow acquired that video (and others), Corbell and Knapp obtained it from said source(s), and then released it.) Doocy: "It is a UAP over Syria in 2021 flying at an impossible speed, demonstrating instantaneous acceleration. This is the video. A lot of people will look at this and say, 'Well, it could be China, it could be Russia, it could be somebody else.' But when you see this and the other videos - some of the 45 other videos that you have seen - what do you think?" Corbell: "Yeah, look, we do not have the capability, unfortunately, for instantaneous motion. The idea of inertial effect and what would happen, this is baffling to the intelligence community." (Here's where I push back. This is from November of 2025 on "Weaponized," where the head of the AAWSAP UFO program (2008-2010), James Lacatski, was interviewed. 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: "It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." (How far did they get? To 80% of the full extent of what alleged NHI craft can do? 90%? Was the ability to accelerate instantaneously achieved? We don't know. Commander Will Miler (Ret.) has said that he had a friend who worked at Area 51 and that friend suggested that we have craft that can do, "Mach 9 and then suddenly make a right-angle turn.") โฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธ ~~~ Corbell: "What George and I put out, it is their analysis that this is demonstrating, this craft, which is not aerodynamic. When you look at this video, it instantaneously shoots off to the right, once the Reaper drone got a weapons-grade lock on it. So its ability to maneuver is far beyond anything that China, Russia or the U.S. has." (When I look at UAP videos, I try to see them through the eyes of an open-minded skeptic. I have several coworkers who fit that bill and I show them videos when they're released to get their take. I think the 2021 video from Syria (I'll link to a more complete version of it in the replies) is important because it appears to be demonstrating instantaneous acceleration. But when I showed that video to those coworkers of mine, they were not impressed. It's not clear or close enough. If the rest of the 46 videos are like that, I don't see it jolting the masses awake (which we really need) about the seriousness of this topic. Then again, maybe so many videos being declassified may do the trick? Also, WHO in our government has labeled those objects in the videos as UAP? That's important to know. Was it just the guys from the UAP Task Force?) Corbell: "Look, this is a known secret on the inside. It's an open secret that UAP are real and that they're able to evade, sometimes detection, but absolutely our weaponry. And it's an issue because they are oftentimes loitering over sensitive, critical infrastructure within the United States. This is not me saying this. This has been admitted by our own administration and government. I think we're closer than ever. The intent is to bring the truth forward to the American public. We are closer than ever, and it's just gotta be done now." Doocy: "And my last question, we have two minutes left in the show: You've reported that some of these UFO files, for generations. have been kept secret even from sitting presidents. Who would have the power in this country to decide, if not the President, that the American people don't have a right to know about something so important, like UFOs?" Corbell: "Right. This is game-changing, and it's nature itself. It's not something that should be held back. And presidents have admitted that they have been held out from that information. Very famously, President Clinton talked about that. Not the first time, he said, a president has been lied to." Related Bill Clinton Clip: "If the U.S. Air Force did recover alien bodies, they didn't tell me about it, either, and I wanna know." ~Clinton ~ Corbell: "Well now the pressure is on. Congress is asking for these 46 videos, and if we've ever had an administration and a president that sees the public interest and would enact upon that for the people, it would be this sitting president. So I'm very encouraged at this moment, we have an opportunity." (I'll be encouraged if Trump actually signs an Executive Order calling for the declassification of UFO videos and records.) Corbell: "None of these have really been announcements. It's an opportunity now for the American public to understand the UFO presence is real and that it's been going on a long time, and it has been of national security concern." Doocy: "And we have less than a minute left in the show, but we asked our audience if they had questions for you, and Lena sent one in. She wants to know, 'Are they" - presumably aliens - "walking around right now and we don't know it?" Corbell: "Yeah, so, if we don't get past the first question, we don't get past the first acknowledgement, we're never gonna know the interaction that whoever these pilots are of these craft of unknown origin, that they believe do not originate here on Earth. If we don't get past that first question, we're never gonna be able to answer that question (laughs)." Doocy: "Well, we've been trying to make this happen for a long time. Jeremy, thank you so much for being here. This is a story that we will keep asking about at the highest levels of government. So thank you." Corbell: "Yeah, I encourage people to watch the film, 'Sleeping Dog' that's coming out, because it does dive into investigative journalism on this, [and] how much progress we've made." Doocy: "And we will watch. That's all we got. I'm Peter Doocy in Washington. See you next time."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2051380417404797223/amplify_video_thumb/2051340710348251136/img/ffup3gz-lX67c35b.jpg)
![James Busby's Letter to Maori Elders in 1860 On June 22, 1860, James Busby wrote a letter to Maori Elders explaining his concerns to recent Maori uprisings, wanting to break the Treaty and make their own sovereignty - such as the Kingi movement. Busby was one of the authors of the Treaty, and 20 years after its signing, this letter shows the true intention of the Treaty and it's influence on early New Zealand. The Treaty wasn't about co-governance; it was about working together as one people. Below is my summarised version of the letter making it easier for modern audiences to understand. Old Men and fathers of the Maori nation, listen to the words of an old man and a father, whose children and grandchildren are natives of the same land as your children and grandchildren... When King William sent me to this country, be did not send me to govern either my own countrymen; or the Maoris, but to live with them and give them good advice. There was no law. I bad no power to [prosecute]. I could only write to the King who, from time to time, sent a ship-of-war to inquire whether the King's people and the Maori people were living and trading together in peace and friendship. By-and-bye, the King's people increased in this land, where there was no law and no governor. The people required to be governed by law. King William died and [was replaced by Queen Victoria]... [who was] a friend to the Maori people. She sent Captain Hobson to tell them that if they would become one people with her own children she would become a mother to them, and would extend to them the protection of her law. When Captain Hobson arrived... [chiefs] came in great numbers and considered the matter. Their old missionaries, who had given them the word of God, advised them to listen to the words of the Queen. They were good words, and would keep alive the Maori race. For two days they assembled, and discussed the [Treaty]. Captain Hobson said, take a week to consider. The chiefs would not wait till the end of the week, but said to Captain Hobson, Come from your ship... and finish the matter. Then was signed the Treaty of Waitangi, the covenant between the Queen and her Maori people, by which the Natives of New Zealand became subjects of the Queen, and the Queen became the protector of the Maori race. The Queen promised to protect each man โ and every man; so that every man's land should be his own. And the Maoris agreed that when they wished to sell the land, they should sell it only to the Queen, because when Queen Victoria became Queen of New Zealand, it was not lawful for any of her people to buy land, but only for those whom she appointed. The treaty was carried over the Islands, and all the principal chiefs entered inio the covenant. But someone will perhaps say to me, I did not sign the treaty; I am not bound by it. Friend, tell me this: - Can one stone stop the flow of a river? - Can one man stand against a thousand? - If he does not turn and go with the rest of the army, will he not be trodden under foot by it? Tell me now, has this river, which began to flow in your land when Victoria became Queen, - Brought you evils or has it brought you blessings? - Has it overflowed its banks and swept any of you from your homes? Or has it not, rather, covered its banks; with all kind of riches? - Where were your cattle? - Where were your horses and and ploughs? - Where were your mills and the wheat to grind in them? - Where were your fruit trees, your apples and peaches, your vines and figs? - Where were your warm blankets, and all manner of clothes? - Your jaws ached with eating the fern root - Your women's backs were broken under their burdens - Your children perished for want of milk - You shivered in the cold. .... Listen, Friends! "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. When God created man upon the earth, he said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." The people of England have not been disobedient to this command. Their own island is full of inhabitants. Have the Maori race fulfilled the command of God? Have they replenished New Zealand? Have they not rather, destroyed and devoured each other, until they became few and small in numbers? The Ngapuhi invaded Waikato, Waikato rose upon Taranaki, Taranaki destroyed the South. Who can court the numbers whose blood watered the earth! It was not the Pakeha who rose against them. It was Maori who rose upon Maori; every man's hand was against his brother. When man's wickedness is great upon the earth, God suffers them to destroy each other until there are none left. But He will not allow His earth to remain for ever in waste. He "formed it to be inhabited." He calls another nation to fill its waste places, and to make its deserts blossom and bring forth fruit. Take heed, friends, that you are not rebelling against God as well as against the Queen. Be not forgetful of what you were before the Queen cast her mantle over you. Then you were naked and destitute of all things; now you are rich and increased in goods. Dwell in peace and oppose not the law of the Queen. The Maori nation is incorporated into the body of which the Queen is the head. The power of the Maori people is like that of the little finder of the left hand. If an ulcer breaks outยฐin the point of the little finger it gives disturbance to the whole body. If the surgeon cannot heal the ulcer he will say, Cut off the first joint of the little finger, lest the corruption spread over the whole finger. If the whole finger is diseased, he will say, Cut off the whole finger; it is not fit that the whole body should suffer for so small a member Two ulcers have broken out - one at Taranaki - one at Waikato. Teira has sold his land to the Queen. Wiremu Kingi says "the land shall not go to the Queen. The land is Teira's; let Teira keep his land; I will not suffer it to be sold; because, though the land is Teira's, the power is mine. I am Waitara; let Teira live under my shadow/[sovereignty]." Friends, this is a great mistake of Wiremu Kingi's. In former times, before the Queen's shadow/[sovereignty] covered the land, when a strong man armed kept his place, his goods were in peace; but when a stronger [man] came, he was overcome, and his goods taken from him. This was Maori custom. In those days Wiremu Kingi, being stronger, could overcome Teira. But when the Queen promised to every Maori that he should be as one of her own people, the law came - the law is the strength of the weak man โ and tbe law says every man's land is his own to sell to the Queen or to keep; no one shall lake it from him because be is weak; no one shall prevent him selling it if he wishes to sell it. If the Governor allowed Wiremu Kingi to overcome Teira, he would make the Queen false to the promise she made to every Maori man when she entered into the treaty. Friends, one word more. It is a new thing on the earth for a strong nation [like Britain] to come upon a weak one [the Maori], and say to it, You are weak and we are strong; nevertheless we will not take your land, but buy it from you when you wish to sell it... [The Queen] has secured you in possession of your lands, but she has done more than that; to some of you she has lent money to build mills, that you might eat bread instead of fern-root; to some she has lent money to buy vessels to carry their wheat to market. She did not do this because you were weak and ignorant. She has cherished you as a nurse cherishes her children. Now, I who write these things to you, do not belong to the Governor nor to the Queen. I am a private man, dwelling on my own land, as each of you dwells on his own land... I am as one of you. The Governor does not know that I am writing this letter to you. Perhaps he will see it in the newspaper, perhaps not. I write it because these are troubled times, and I foresee that evil will come upon you if you do not turn from your folly. I have read all your speeches at Waikato. The flagstaff is a challenge to the Queen. Think, if the King of France had set up [sovereignty, would he have let these revolts persist?] No! 500 ships-of-war would have been upon the seas and numerous soldiers upon [You. The Queen has not dealt with You because You are new to the knowledge nationhood and have much to learn]. But friends, these ulcers must be healed. Therefore I remind you, as an old friend, to cast away your folly, and let the land be in peace. From your old Friend, From Te Puhipi [James Busby] Listen to more podcasts like this at: Source Title: Correspondence Publisher: The Maori Messenger: Te Karere Maori Author: James Busby Date: June 30th, 1860 Copyright: None](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1923967595704950925/amplify_video_thumb/1923967260009336832/img/4itLzgvV3pqw5DMj.jpg)
![Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change โ I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Readโs guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldnโt have to bring peopleโs family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself โ because of how smart you are โ that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John OโKeefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on โ who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] โ hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope โ you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time โ I would say it was in the winter of 2024 โ in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred โ four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing โ I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's deathโ we don't have to get into it โ but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying โ dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here โ a shit ton of people in this chat right now โ that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me โ maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is โ like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well โ before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message โ a family member of the person who paid her that cash โ and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Somethingโs up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out โ through what โ that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member โ I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says โ quoting the person โ "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth โ I've said that before โ and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them โ specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say โ I think โ that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetaniโs phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole โ that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen โ why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's โ like โ he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is โ like MicroDots is saying โ that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof โ we've seen proof โ that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't โ how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy โ that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude โ you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking โ like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her โ you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it โ pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way โ I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if โ I don't know if she will ever do this โ but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile โ Olivia Nile and her mom โ being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Oliviaโs good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What โ how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either โ what the fuckโs her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But thatโs not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself โ because of how smart you are โ that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. Itโs just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say โ every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" โ you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on โ you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like โ that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like โ it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother โ my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result โ has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So โ but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Oliviaโs saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point โ if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there โ the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts โ that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change โ I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybodyโs entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, Iโm glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And youโre welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here โ no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1916273688736940311/amplify_video_thumb/1916261346590515200/img/hUvZMgeSmwtcpp9Y.jpg)