August 1, 2025 • 46 mins
After years of rumors, recent releases have confirmed the US government knew much more about UFOs than they'd originally let on. And, despite the recent waves of revelations and classifications, Uncle Sam is still refusing to release everything. When pressed on the issue, the government stated that disclosing certain files would pose "an extraordinarily grave threat to national security" -- so what exactly is on these files? Tune in to learn more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Friends in neighbors.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Fellow conspiracy realist, shout out to our friends who are
currently or formerly in the US Navy. Back in twenty twenty,
we had a question for that organization.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Did the US government know more about UFOs than they
let on?
Speaker 4 (00:20):
Ha ha ha yeah yeah, yeah, of course they did.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Okay, clean, no, dude, listen, listen.
Speaker 5 (00:30):
Well, this is a really cool time back in twenty
twenty oh years ago, in the simple time twenty when
it was just Jeremy Corbel out there asking questions and
the Navy was going, well, we don't know, maybe someone's
out there, move along, young man.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
But now we're in twenty twenty five and it's just
kind of a accepted thing now.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah, it's it's so weird because for five years now,
disclosure has always been a jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, never
ever jam today's situation. And we were I think collectively
surprised that the US government did respond to many journalists
(01:17):
just like George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell, people asking serious
and valid questions. Uncle Sam said they could not disclose
certain UFO related files because they would pose quote an
extraordinarily grave threat to national security.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Oh, we need more let's jump into the episode. Let's
do it.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of Iheartrading.
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Nolan.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
They called me Ben.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
We were joined as always with our super producer Paul
Mission control deck and most importantly, you are you. You
are here and that makes this stuff they don't want
you to know, as we have been doing.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
At the top of the show.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
We're gonna we're gonna do a little bit of a
of a Twitter roll call. That's where we find some
tweets from you and your fellow listeners. Just give them,
give them some time on air to see what you
all think about them. Who would like to do the
honors today?
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Let's go to n DAG fifteen. In DAG fifteen, INDAG
fifteen says yo. So Harvey Weinstein got twenty three years
and everyone's talking about coronavirus. Was this planned or something?
This is the same thing as Wendy Williams fainting during
the wildfires?
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Interest Wait, wait, is he saying that coronavirus is the
Wendy Williams fan in the way, Yes.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
The coronavirus is the hey, look over your smoke screen,
and the real thing is Harvey Wine the cover story.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
Yeah, that seems wrong. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
I feel like generally that would go the other way.
Speaker 6 (03:12):
That's what I'm thinking.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
And that is not to you know, a smirch. Well,
it's it's not to say the the victims of Harvey
Weinstein are not important. That is just to say that's
it's going to affect a lot more.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
People, the coronavirus, Weinstein went to jail, you know what
I mean? It would it would feel like more of
a one to one cover story comparison if Weinstein somehow
did not go to jail and got, you know, put
in mental institution or rehab, like when he went to
that when he tried to go to that sex addiction
(03:49):
rehab and then dropped out early. That also happened, you.
Speaker 6 (03:53):
Know, probably so he could go have some sex.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
Who knows.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
And the reports of we may have talked about this
off air, I may have talked about one of you guys.
But the reports of his uh, the reports of his
surgery it's no unmentionables.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Oh oh yes, really like like the like the descriptions,
descriptives and had the pleasure so painful for survivors to
have to mention that.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
But his his bits, his Australia as a train wreck
in a medically bizarre way. But yeah, it could it
be a cover story. We know that those, We know
that those do occur. We've had a lot of people
actually right in to say that. People said the coronavirus
is a cover story for something different. Many political partisans
(04:38):
are saying coronavirus is a alarmist story meant to distract
from what they see as the d n C conspiring
to push an establishment candidate over the one that they
feel is closer to their values. But the thing about
those cover stories is you never really know until it's
too late to do anything right.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
So here's another one. There's another Twitter shout out from
tech now Music. Tech now Music says, guys, big fan,
I got some stuff they don't want you to know
and would love to share it with you.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
It involves black hat SEO, search engine optimization, bots, elections
and what we expect in the upcoming elections. I know
how all that stuff works intimately because I used to
do it.
Speaker 4 (05:24):
Yeah, big shout out to technoledge, Dash Internet God. I
do not know who you are, genuinely, Technoledge. You seem
to have a lot.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Of followers Technology Internet God.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
We should say that Technology Internet God. I apologize, man,
but that's you know, you've intrigued us. We would love
to know if you want to send things, detailed things.
Our email is conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. And you
know we've got that phone number that you'll hear at
the end.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
And if you would be more comfortable using and encrypted
info drops, then I can set one of those up
and we can communicate that way, or proton mail or
proton mail as well. This is not a commercial for
proton mail, but they do good work.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
Wait, it's proton mail where you like molecularly deconstruct it
and then reassemble it on the other side, or.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Something almost exactly that, just with encryption.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Okay, Yeah, it's pretty secure. A lot of journalists, especially
in dangerous authoritarian countries, use proton mail. And this concludes
our Twitter roll call. On with the show today, we
return fellow conspiracy realist once again to the controversial and
fast moving get it world of UFO revelations in recent years.
(06:37):
In recent months, Western governments have done something kind of hilarious.
They've revealed internal documentation that flatly contradicts their earlier stated policies.
Remember in the days after Blue Book, the famous Project
blue Book, where where the government collected all these reports
(06:58):
of unidentified flying objects. In the years since then, Uncle
Sam's main official line had always been we did this,
we didn't find anything. We don't waste money on it
anymore because your taxpayer, that's your money. We spend it
on good stuff like bombs, maybe weaponized diseases.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
But recent leaks later.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Confirmed that the US Navy, at the very least as
well as the Pentagon were in fact closely monitoring what
they called UAP unexplained aerial phenomena, while simultaneously claiming they
were doing no such thing.
Speaker 6 (07:33):
Isn't that just like a synonym for UFO? How is that?
Is there anything that sets it apart?
Speaker 1 (07:37):
It doesn't have the stigma, so it's just sort.
Speaker 6 (07:40):
Of like a stand in.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Then it's sort of like a less charged version of
the same exact thing.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Well, it's it's more broad too, because it doesn't have
the implication that there's a physical.
Speaker 6 (07:48):
Object, it's a craft of some kind.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
It could just be weather.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Which is often the explanation for UFOs as well. So
it's interesting that there's a separate term. I wonder who
pitched that in a meeting.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Yeah, this this is interesting though, because this is still
a developing story, we want to give you a real
quick walk through on some stuff. For deep dive into
some of this information, please check out our earlier episode
not sponsored by Blink one two. But when we talk
about revelations, what do we mean?
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Here are the facts.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
In twenty seventeen, The New York Times exposed the Pentagon's
previously secret, mysterious UFO program that was known as Advanced
Aerospace Threat Identification Program or AADP at TIP A TIP,
M gonna go with at TIP. This program catapulted an
individual who was previously quite unknown by the name of
(08:48):
Luis Alessando right into the public eye. Alexondo as a
former employee of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Intelligence or OUSTI, and a former US Army counterintelligence
special agent.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
Yes, and Luis Elizondo, as we will refer to as Elizondo. Henceforth,
he was the head of this AATIP or a TIP
as we have named it. Now, this was a really
interesting thing. It was a program, a type of program
that we've discussed before on this show called a Special
(09:24):
Access program. It was allotted somewhere between twenty two and
twenty nine million dollars and it was it got its
starters initiated by the Defense Intelligence Agency. And here's what
it was going to do. It was going to study
unidentified aerial phenomena, these things we call now UAPs also UFOs.
(09:47):
And this guy, like we said, he just got thrust
out there. He had to start immediately answering questions about
this thing that nobody knew about.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Really interesting too, because when he started answering this it
was after the fact he was an ex government employee.
And Louis made a lot of claims Colin Louis, because
that's what the History Channel refers to him.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
As we'll get to.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
It, he claimed that not only was Uncle Sam cognizant
of these various instances of UAP, but he claimed that
they retrieved the holy grail of ufology, which would be
physical evidence. He said there were metal alloys and other
materials the government had recovered. According to the DoD, this
(10:32):
program was ended in twenty twelve after five years. However,
that's what they said about the kind of investigations it
took place during Blue Book, and that was true for
some of the time, but not true for several years.
So of course you cannot blame people for saying they
don't believe the official line. And we said Elizano was
(10:54):
an ex government employee. He resigned from that program in
October of twenty seventeen, and he said he resigned in
protest of government secrecy. What he saw is opposition to
the mission of the program and his personal belief that
in both the DoD, the Pentagon, and the Halls of Congress,
this mission was not being taken seriously. He felt kind
(11:17):
of like maybe with someone's pet project, if that makes sense.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Uh huh. And then you know, he left the government.
He said, I don't like your mission. I'm going to
a place where I can find a real home, where
I'm gonna really gel with what this company and this
service is all about.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
Slab City City.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
No. He started working with to the Stars Academy that
if you're a listener of this show, you may be familiar.
If you're a listener of the Joe Rogan experience, you're
probably familiar. If you're a listener of really important I
might say early two thousands music, you may be familiar.
To the Stars Academy is the private UFO investigation group created.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
By created by Tom DeLong, who is currently also famous
for being a founding member of the band Blink one
eighty two. He is retired from Blink one eighty two. However,
To the Stars Academy still is involved in the music business.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
We talked about this before.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
We did, and you may think, oh wait, a UFO
slash UAP focused company created by a former musician. I
don't need to worry about that. They're never gonna do
anything groundbreaking. They've definitely done some stuff, That's what I'm saying. Yeah,
because in twenty eighteen they kind of shocked the world.
(12:40):
They shocked us.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
In twenty eighteen, To the Stars Academy released a thirty
second video of US Navy pilots encountering a UFO. This
was different from many similar instances of alleged UFO footage. Well,
I say alleged of UFO footage because the some of
the people who were involved directly on the Navy side
(13:04):
confirmed that this was legit, and you.
Speaker 6 (13:07):
May remember the one. I mean it was.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
It was remarkable as well, because it was very clear
that the pilots were seeing something that was very unusual,
and the way they were commenting on it really rang true.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Yeah, and they had none of the usual disadvantages that
you'll see in a lot of UFO reports. They were
not on they were not on the ground, they were
not inexperienced, you know, they were familiar with all the
things it could be, and they couldn't answer the question.
This was one of those very small percentages of UFO
reports that did not have, even on the very skeptical end,
(13:42):
a satisfying answer.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
They're commenting about the way it's moving. It's like a
little blip on their radar, like a bogie, right, and
they're well, look at it, go, look at it, flip.
You know, they're saying all these things and these like
very firsthand observations from people that are experts and such things.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Well, they had visual context right exculy they did as well.
Speaker 6 (14:03):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
The footage was recorded on the East coast of the
United States in twenty fifteen, so that's what happened. All
of that is real. Those are factual events. There's another
factual thing we have to mention here about Alexondo and
about To the Stars. That is, despite the fact that
this footage is real, it's been confirmed that thirty seconds
actually happened. Despite all that, there was still an enormous
(14:28):
problem of credibility for both Alexondo and for To the
Stars Academy itself. First, Alexondo's post government career has led
to some criticism, both from skeptics and from people who
are more true believers in the UFO community. And that's
because you know, his life didn't stop when his government
(14:50):
paycheck stopped, if it ever did, which is another theory
about it. Alexondo joined the cast of a show on
the History Channel called Unexplained. And you know how those
kinds of shows go on the History Channel, which is
not a ding on them. It's just very much on
the entertainment side of the spectrum, I think at George Suklos, right,
(15:14):
So this has prompted some critics to imply or insinuate
that his goal is to turn a profit rather than
to pursue the truth. But to be fair, those two
are not mutually exclusive.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Yeah, and there's the other point here that's been made before,
which is possibly this story kind of like as our
Twitter friend identified earlier, this concept of putting forth a
bit of disinformation to be a smoke screen or to
throw people off a track that we hopefully we will talk
(15:54):
about a little bit later in the episode. It could
be that his motivations are not just profit, they are
too purposefully put out bogus information.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Ah yes, yeah, but.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Again that is complete speculation. Who knows his intentions.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
What's tricky about that, though, is that even if he
comes out later and says, I was working as a disinfoagent,
you know, shout out to dispo dot net, I was
working as an agent, a miss or disinformation and I
am going to confess at all. What if he said
that in a tell all documentary, you know that people
(16:32):
had to buy, then you wouldn't trust him again, right
because you would still unless it unless there is a
harsh air gap, a clear separation between profit and UH
prescience or a prophetic figure, then people are always going
to ask that question. And it's a valid question to
ask us asking it is just us describing the lay
(16:53):
of the land.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
He's like I we interviewed that like sold like UFO
Tours or something, or like UFO Vision Qui Doctor Stephen
Greer right, that you know, again not throwing shade directly,
but it does call into question when your whole purpose
for espousing a certain belief is to sell quite expensive
seminar packages.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Yes, but in the case of Elizondo, who knows how
that opportunity to be on the History Channel came about. True,
it could have been a tremendous opportunity for him money wise, while,
like we said, kind of while still pursuing the truth
and seeking the truth. We just have to keep all
of that stuff in mind as we as we continue
(17:34):
along here.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
One last point, and it's something that some of our
fellow listeners will know, but many of us may not
be aware of this. A lot of times when people
end up being pundit or subject matter experts on entertainment
shows like that, they they get in that old they're
in that old frog and slowly boiling water kind of thing.
(17:58):
They meet some producers who are maybe out one hundred
percent ethical, who say, we believe in your mission, we
want to help you, and then along the way they
just slowly nudge them further and further away from something
that's more documentary or fact finding into something that's more entertainment.
There's also absolutely nothing preventing a lot of those companies
(18:19):
from taking someone's statement out of context or even what's
called frank and biting. And you, guys, can you describe
frank and biting for everyone?
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Yeah, it's sort of like taking little syllables and snippets
of things people say. It's typically done in reality television
where you cut away from the person's visual and then
you hear the sound of their voice saying a thing
that sounds believable, but it's really just a snipped up
mishmash of different things they've said to give it a
certain meaning.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
Right, And this is something you have to do in
true crime podcasts a lot where maybe a fact is
slightly wrong and you don't have your host in to
do a fix or something.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
You know, that's a much more magnanimous version of reason
to do this.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
Well, I guess what I'm saying is that concept of
frank inbiting. It's something you can do with editing tools,
whether in video or audio, that if you have control
or writes over the materials you have. As Ben said,
there's very little anyone can do about that.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
And it's not inherently nefarious, is what you're saying as well.
I mean, yeah, you can do it to help the
person sound like they said the correct thing, and you
could argue still, maybe there's some ethical gray area there
if they didn't really say it, maybe you should just
find a different.
Speaker 6 (19:34):
Way to say it.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
But what's done a lot of times in reality television
where it is more nefarious is to actually have someone
say something that they didn't really say.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Right.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
So, a hopefully fictitious example would be on a reality show.
Let's say we have someone who says, so and so
is my best friend. I would never sleep with his wife,
but I love having this conversation because when I get
(20:04):
to air this out, we can dispel any rumors. And
so the producers could take that and just pull the
words out and they would say I love having sex
with his wife, and it would be smooth enough that
if you didn't know the situation, you would think, Wow,
what a dirt bag to say that, and you would
(20:25):
never know that they made one sentence out of like
two or three. We're just saying that can happen that
can happen, So maybe maybe Alessando was in a situation
like that. Maybe we're being too hard on this. We
just have to admit those things can happen in the
world of television. And there's no denying that Alexondo did
(20:46):
incredibly important work. It may still be doing it right.
But the problem with credibility, or we should say, the
criticisms of credibility, don't stop with this individual. We're going
to pause for a word from our sponsors and then
will turn our eyes briefly to the Stars Academy. To
the Stars Academy, not literally to the stars.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
Welcome back, everybody. Let's continue with to the Stars. It
was originally launched as a record label, which is, you know,
that's a cool thing. Record labels are cool. They're not
quite as profitable as they once were, but you can
still do some great works within one of those.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
Oh and that was twenty fourteen, Yes, that was twenty fourteen.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Then you know, over time it evolved into kind of
a mixed media, a more general entertainment company. And you know,
as of the time that we're discussing here, twenty seventeen,
they existed as a public benefit corporation now that is
a fun status to have.
Speaker 6 (21:54):
Yeah, like a.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
Nonprofit, they can still make money.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
So they're kind of a corporation that in their charter
and their mission statement and their goals, they can list
public benefit as one of their goals in addition to
stuff like making the most money possible for shareholders. It's
like a legal way of saying we're the good guys.
(22:19):
So they did that, and now they've published graphic novels,
They've published books. They've also of course done a number
of TV shows, films, and still as a record label
doing albums. Right, the company is responsible at least partially
for reinvigorating public interest in UFOs, as well as serious
(22:41):
serious research on the subject. I mean, even if someone's
critical of them, they can't take that away from them.
They are driving force to that conversation. Alizondo is, as
we record, still with to the Stars Academy.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
What's his official title According to the current website, he
is the director of Government Programs and Services.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
And in Government Programs and Services, so he's kind of
like their government expert, their subject matter expert, or government liaison.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Yeah, and underneath that just it's really interesting. They have
the team a little tab you can click on under
that it lists all of his background there, just to
let you know, like he really has had a lot
of experience.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
He does.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
He has a wealth of experience. It's also weird because
I've seen it in different places on the website where
he's described as the director of Global Security and Special Programs.
So maybe that title has changed over time. But as
of March of twenty twenty, the latest news from to
the Stars is that they have announced a partnership with
an equity firm Trypoint Global Equities to sell shares in
(23:48):
their organization. And talking about investments in that way makes
people a little skittish, you know what I mean. Now
you're messing with the money. More than one person has
learned the hard way that that's not the best idea.
So it's weird. When you go to the I want
to see what you guys think about this. When you
go to the website to the Stars Academy dot com,
(24:10):
the first thing that comes up is invest now. You
have you have a menu button. You have a two
buttons on the landing page at same invest now, and
you have one that says play video.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
Minimum investment three hundred and fifty.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Dollars price per share five dollars.
Speaker 4 (24:28):
Huh. Interesting. You know, I don't like it to the stars.
I don't like.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
It seventy share minimum buy in.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
But but that being said, Ben, if you go through
that team, the team that they've got down there, there's
a dude named Steve Justice, which, first of all, incredible name,
Cheve Justice. Come on, he's the Chief Operations Officer, Aerospace
Division director. This dude he's retired, and he retired skunk
(25:01):
works at Lockheed. He worked there for thirty one years.
Come on, if you're gonna have somebody on your team
that knows this kind of stuff, that's the guy Steve Justice.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
And you know, I don't want to sound too credulous
or something, but if you look at especially the board members,
I get the sense that they're not in it for
the money, which I like, you know what I mean,
I think they're they're I can't say definitively, but it
feels like they're in it because they believe in it.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
Dude.
Speaker 6 (25:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Jim Simmeivan he spent twenty five years as an operations
officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Directorate of Operations.
I mean, come on, that's yeah. I don't think that
Dud's in it throw the money. That guy's espionage city
and he's just like, what's going on over here? Or
did they infiltrate right immediately? And Jim is the inside guy.
(25:55):
I just don't.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
That's the thing. I just don't.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
This is just my opinion. There's just one person's opinion.
I try to keep opinions out out of the show,
but I feel like people never really leave the CIA. Yeah,
I feel like you're always maybe you're officially retired, but
you're always kind of on call, you know what I mean.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
I feel that way.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
I feel like that's absolutely the way, especially if you're
at the top. But you know, I never officially been
in the CIA. Add to the problem of credibility for
the organization is that they have ah They have a
reported multimillion dollar operating deficits, something like thirty seven point
four million dollars in the hole, and this leads people,
(26:42):
especially again people we are already more on the skeptical side,
to say like this is a money grab instead of
an actual legitimate enterprise. But again for the skeptics, they
did get a hold of a thirty second thirty six
second video that is legitimate that no one can explain, including.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
The US government, and the US government admitted it. So
they did that. That happened, right.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
It is weird to have a piece of evidence like
that that you know it's real. You're sitting here, you're
looking at You're like, Okay, there's something here. But I
can't I can't prove that this is real. I just
it feels real, it looks real, it sounds real, but
is it real?
Speaker 2 (27:23):
So that's where we're at, folks. Alesondo confirmed a secret program.
The Navy admitted it, and while it was the most
significant disclosure since the declassification of Project Blue Book, at
least in this country, nothing much seems to have come
from the claims. Yet that mysterious footage remains unexplained. The
pilots went on record confirming stuff they couldn't explain. They
(27:45):
made their own guesses. But then the story just sort of.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
Stopped. So that's the end, right, We're done with this
episode all finished?
Speaker 6 (27:56):
Or are we?
Speaker 2 (27:58):
You see this January the Navy had something else to say.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
And we'll tell you what it was. After a word
from our sponsor, infuriating.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
So in January of twenty twenty, not too long ago
at all. Independent researcher Christopher Lambright got a response to
his FOI requests Freedom of Information Act request seeking more
information on the strange sighting by Navy pilots that we
discussed earlier episode that it took place on November fourteenth
(28:37):
of two thousand and four. What he was looking for, specifically,
was more information on the video footage and some presentation
slides from the Office of Naval Intelligence.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Yeah, the Navy shut him down. People know, who are
familiar with the FOYO request, They can take forever. You know,
often don't get the results you want, right and the Navy.
The Navy came back with a line that.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
We really like the way VICE reported this. We have
a quote. So here's what the Navy said.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
So the Navy said it had quote discovered certain debriefing
slides that are classified top secret. A review of these
materials indicates that they are currently inappropriately marked and classified
top secret under Executive Order one three five two six,
and the original classification authority has determined that the release
of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the
(29:42):
national security of the United States.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Let's stop right there.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Think about that exceptionally grave damage to national security? What
the hell is on these slides? What's in that footage?
Speaker 4 (29:55):
Right?
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Why is it exceptionally grave? Does that imply that regular
the grave was fine?
Speaker 1 (30:02):
You know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (30:03):
So Vice followed up and asked about this denial, and
that's when Pentagon spokesperson Susan go elaborated a little and
she said, the Department of Defense, specifically the US Navy
has the video. Quote like the full video, yes, because
there's more than that thirty six seconds. Apparently, as Navy
and my office have stated previously, as the investigation of
(30:26):
UAP Unidentified Aerial Phenomena sightings is ongoing, we will not
publicly discuss individuals citing reports observations. However, I can tell
you that the date of the two thousand and four
USS Nimitz video is November fourteenth, two thousand and.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Four, so I could tell you the date.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
I can also tell you the length of the video
that's been circulating since two thousand and seven is the
same as the length of the source video. We don't
expect to release this video, but huh, everybody else involved
directly has said that there's an eight to nine minute
or even longer video. And then additionally, some of the
(31:08):
I don't know, it gets sticky, like what are they hiding?
That's the question, because they didn't really say, they just
said it's secret. It could be exceptionally dangerous to national security.
A favorite boogeyman. But I mean, what do we think
a lot of people are. There's a lot of conjecture
(31:30):
about this, and it feels like a lot of it
is pretty solid or at least valid understandable.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
Yeah, it feels very solid. I was reading another link
a Politico article that we had used for the research
of this show, just kind of going back over it
right now. It was from September of twenty nineteen, and
in this case it's a Republican House Homeland Security Committee member.
(31:56):
He's actually the ranking member of the Intelligence and or
Terrorism Subcommittee, and he was asking specifically about some of
these sightings, about some of these things. And the quote
that comes at the end of this article from Walker
from Representative Walker says, quote, if the Navy believes that
China or Russia possesses advanced aerospace technologies that represent a
(32:18):
national security vulnerability, the American people have the right to
know what their government is doing about it.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
So then they're saying that if there is a if
this is a mundane thing and there's some kind of
let's say defense or war warcraft gap, then the public
needs to know about it.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Yeah. If they're really saying, you know, as they've stated there,
this could have this grave damage to national security, it's
it either means that somebody else has some kind of
technology that's dangerous to us, or means we have some
kind of insane technology that it would be dangerous if
other countries knew we had it, right right, I mean.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
They would like preemptively strike or something, or they would
there be retaliation.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Or it would just be less useful.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
Yes, so there would be less of the element of surprise,
I got.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
Any well, And the third option there is that there's
some kind of outside exterior force that is a danger
to all of humanity, which is the most exciting one,
though the least likely.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
All, Right, questions are exciting when you do what we do.
If you are on the front lines of trying to
keep people from dying, then questions rightly should terrify you.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Yeah, So worst.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
Case scenarios, they don't know what it is at all,
So you know, people of Plenty of people have speculated
that there is more footage, right, and that's what was
being denied. Popular Mechanics had multiple witnesses from the Knimtz
incident who said that they definitely saw something that was
much longer and a lot more clear, higher resolution, which
(34:03):
you guys as editors, taught me a long time ago
is one of the trickiest things about a lot of
at least the video stuff. You know, that resolution once
you get past, once you get to a certain degradation,
it doesn't matter what it is because the answer is moot.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
But we are talking about two thousand and four technology
on an aircraft.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
True, there's something else that I want to put in
that's been reported in a couple of different places. Witnesses
said that after the incident, shortly after the incident, unidentified
people who had some kind of credentials showed up in
a helicopter and took the footage, just.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Swooped it up.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
And still those people have not been tied to any
official government agency. But not everyone agrees, you know, there
are also people who witnessed it who said, clearly what
I saw was not of this world, you know, and they,
you know, they're Again, they're educated in observation, they've seen
the physics, and they're saying, you just can't do a
forty five degree move like that. But there are other
(35:09):
people who are more skeptical, like Commander David Fraber said,
you know, longer videos of this incident don't exist. I
would have heard them. People are being alarmist. But no
matter how you slice it, no matter where you fall
on the spectrum, the answer is simply this. There is
more to the story. The Navy's not letting it out.
(35:31):
They say it's dangerous. There's literally stuff they don't want
you to know.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
Yes, yes, yeah, Why would there not be longer video?
Speaker 6 (35:41):
Right?
Speaker 4 (35:41):
In what version of this would there not be longer video?
The only way is if somebody hit record on a
device and then hit record again after thirty seconds where
it's stopped recording.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
Do we have a story as to how they got
hold of the video in.
Speaker 6 (35:58):
The first place.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
I think that is that is probably classified within the
halls of To the Stars Academy.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
Well, from what I remember, and this comes back from
some of our conversations with other people in the environment,
From what I remember, Tom Delong's account was that he
had met with people surreptitiously in like hotel rooms and stuff,
and that someone slid him the tape through unofficial channels.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
So it's definitely a leak.
Speaker 6 (36:27):
I mean, maybe it's just the best, the good part,
you know.
Speaker 4 (36:31):
Yeah, but see this is why it screams disinfo to me.
It screams disinfo to me because it is this tiny,
little tantalizing snippet that was given to Tom DeLong in
a hotel somewhere by someone I don't know. And after all, I.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
Mean it, because of the nature of the resolution of
the footage, you could certainly fake a video like that
pretty easily.
Speaker 6 (36:58):
Yeah, with plug ins and you know.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Just downgrading the video quality or doing any number of things.
Speaker 4 (37:04):
I'm pretty terrible at it, and I'm confident that I
could make.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
It because the voice you just hear the voices. You
don't even see their faces. You just see like a
static shot from within the cockpit, right.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
Yeah, it's it's the observational camera. I guess that they're using.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
The equivalent of a like a dash cam and like
a uber or.
Speaker 4 (37:24):
Something kind of. But they've got a hood and it
is a really our heads up display and it is
a really sophisticated system. It's just you know, with with
an Adobe suite, you could could recreate.
Speaker 2 (37:35):
All Another interesting thing about that, why is there just
the video? Because those they don't just have a camera
slapped in front of the jet fighters.
Speaker 1 (37:44):
They have multiple monitoring systems. There's a suite, So I.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
Would be interested in seeing any other onboard sensor reports.
Oh yeah, I mean, it's way less sexy than a video,
but it would go a long way toward helping explain
what this was.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
It'd be better data at least, I mean, because surely there,
if it's locking in on this bogie or whatever, there
would be a record of its trajectory and the way
it moved and stuff, and you should be able to
generate a report on that, I would imagine.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Right, yeah, absolutely. And here's another thing that's a little
screwy about this. The Pentagon repeatedly changed its story since
the original exposure past the point of fog of war
or miscommunication internally, right, which can totally happen. That could
totally happen. Sometimes agencies can just be wrong about what
their message is. But as recently as last month, the
(38:37):
Pentagon said that a tip had nothing to do with
UFOs what we would call UFOs. Elizondo has said that
he is quote not able to comment further on the
existence of a longer video due to my obligations involving
my NDA non disclosure agreement with the government and the
fact that I am no longer employed with the US government. However,
(38:58):
he follows, as I stayed before, people should not be
surprised by the revelation that other videos exist and at
a greater length. So to unpack that, he said, I can't.
I guess what he's trying to do is skirt the
line of NDA and say, well, I can't say if
there's a longer version of this video that we're talking about,
(39:19):
but I can say you shouldn't be surprised if other
longer videos exist, which is, you know, that can make
a pretty good meal for lawyers, you know what I mean.
If ever, that would be interesting in a courtroom.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
You know.
Speaker 6 (39:36):
So there we go.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
I mean, what what do you all think? I don't
know about you guys.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
I would I would say one of two things are
most likely. One, like you said, Matt, maybe there's a
rival military that has some kind of maybe like a
sub launched nuke or missile that has some previously unknown abilities,
or maybe there's something that the US did observing this
(40:08):
stuff and they don't want, like to your point about
the element of surprise, Noal, maybe they don't want rival
militaries to know just how they how good they are
at monitoring things like That's the reason a lot of
intelligence was classified in the years before Five Eyes was
public knowledge.
Speaker 4 (40:24):
Yeah, it's true. Yeah, hiding the surveillance technology.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
So are they hiding THEIRS technology? Are they hiding someone
else's what's going on? Something else's, some thing else's.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Yeah, we want to hear from you.
Speaker 4 (40:40):
Tell us if you think it's some kind of new
sophisticated UAV technology, because it looks like like it was
probably a smaller craft, but it did look odd in
that video. I don't know. I for a while there
I was convinced it was some kind of drone.
Speaker 6 (40:56):
Right.
Speaker 3 (40:57):
The shape of it is almost like got that triangular
kind of vibe.
Speaker 4 (41:00):
To it, right, Yeah, but odd, very odd, very odd.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
Quick question you guys to derail and take us into
the realm of speculative fiction. Have you guys seen the
trailer for the new season of Westworld yet?
Speaker 4 (41:14):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (41:14):
I think it looks awesome.
Speaker 4 (41:17):
Okay, you don't think so, you seem yeah, no, I
think so.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
I'm why'd you say that with a big question mark
at the end.
Speaker 4 (41:25):
I am looking forward to it, and it's coming out.
It will be out by the time this episode released.
Speaker 3 (41:30):
The show will yeah, okay, but I just like that
it's in the real world and it's like you know,
and it's got all these crazy mechs and drones and stuff,
and we haven't really seen much of that in the
show up until now.
Speaker 6 (41:40):
I'm excited.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
And it's got Jesse Pinkman from Breaking.
Speaker 3 (41:43):
Bad, which I whatever his name is, the real actor,
guy Aaron Paul.
Speaker 6 (41:47):
That's it. He's fantastic.
Speaker 4 (41:49):
Look, this show is not brought to you by Westworld
or HBO or any of the other things that we
mentioned today Tom DeLong at least, Angels and Air, at
least at the time that we're recording it. However, maybe
one day in the future you will hear a Westworld
ad on this episode and your mind will be blown.
Speaker 1 (42:09):
Wouldn't it be nice if we're still around? I mean,
who knows?
Speaker 2 (42:13):
Are we going to become a quote grave threat to
national security? I hope not extraordinarily grave threat?
Speaker 3 (42:19):
I gotta ask you guys, you know how Tom DeLong
had a very distinct vocal style as one of the
singers of Blink twenty two.
Speaker 6 (42:25):
Let's six call it a little nasally, I guess you know.
Speaker 3 (42:27):
So the guy that replaced him in the band, who
was in the band Alkalan Trio, he does like a
perfect copy of that, And how do you do that
and live with yourself?
Speaker 4 (42:37):
A right?
Speaker 3 (42:37):
Like he's just totally doing his best Tom DeLong impression.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
He's probably I mean, it's cool to be a work
in musician.
Speaker 6 (42:43):
He's probably living with himself all the way to the bank.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
Maybe yeah, Or maybe he already got picked because he
naturally sings like that.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
Maybe, So it's sort of like Peter Gabriel versus Phil Collins.
You know, Phil Collins was the drummer for Genesis and
sang all the backups, and then when he took Peter's place.
At least he sounds just like Peter. But it's because
they kind of came up singing together. So maybe it's
not as ripoffy as I think.
Speaker 6 (43:07):
I quite enjoyed seeing them live.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
The drummer Travis Barker is a monster.
Speaker 4 (43:10):
Oh yeah, Travis Barker has that invisible touch too, and
you know, I'm excited that you're excited. NOL.
Speaker 6 (43:18):
Well, thanks man.
Speaker 4 (43:19):
So everyone, if you can hear this, please reach out
to us on Twitter or Facebook where we're conspiracy stuff,
or let's say Instagram where we're conspiracy stuff show. Tell
us what you think about this serious UFO slash UAP
program that was occurring there, about this specific case of
(43:40):
some kind of unidentified aerial phenomena, and what you think
about this whole possibility that there's a longer video out
there somewhere. Have you seen it?
Speaker 1 (43:50):
Can send?
Speaker 4 (43:51):
Yeah, that's exactly what's gonna ask. Send it our way.
Have you any of those channels if you'd like, or hey,
you can give us a phone call and tell us
all about it. Our number is one eight three three
S T T W y t K. Leave a message.
We will hear you. And oh hey, guess what, it's
that special time we are going to hear the latest
(44:14):
message that has come in. I'm just pulling it up
right here. All right, Hey, guys.
Speaker 5 (44:21):
I just wanted to say I'm a huge fan of
the show.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
Love what you guys do.
Speaker 5 (44:25):
Keep up the good work and uh and here's.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
My Ben Bowling impression. Right mm hmmmm. Thanks guys, whoa
that one?
Speaker 4 (44:37):
That one was unexpected?
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Ben, You're fine, nailed it. Thanks so much, Ben spot On.
Speaker 2 (44:43):
We found out some somewhere on the Internet that people
do a drinking game based on our various idiosyncrasies.
Speaker 4 (44:51):
What's what's uh? So, what's yours?
Speaker 6 (44:53):
Do you know?
Speaker 4 (44:53):
Is it?
Speaker 6 (44:53):
Is it that?
Speaker 4 (44:54):
Yeah? Wait? What's knowles?
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Uh knowles is funny question and yours is?
Speaker 1 (45:01):
But what if?
Speaker 3 (45:02):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (45:02):
Okay, I thought.
Speaker 3 (45:03):
Mine would have been using the word situation, I say
that a lot, or I say, like, you know, it's
a UFO type situation or a paper cup type situation.
Speaker 4 (45:11):
You know, I could see that maybe randomly bringing up
an HBO show.
Speaker 6 (45:16):
That was not random, that was drone based. Okay, that
was very aprid drone get it?
Speaker 1 (45:22):
Oh? I thought it was there?
Speaker 4 (45:24):
Awesome? Yeah.
Speaker 2 (45:25):
And if you have if you have thoughts, if you
have full video, if you have more insight into the stars,
you ap or UFO Let us know. If you hate
social media, that's fine, we totally get it. And if
you hate phones, that's fine, I get it as well.
We have one last way to contact us other than
midnight at a crossroad. Send us an email directly.
Speaker 3 (45:49):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 4 (46:10):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Friends in neighbors.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Fellow conspiracy realist, shout out to our friends who are
currently or formerly in the US Navy. Back in twenty twenty,
we had a question for that organization.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Did the US government know more about UFOs than they
let on?
Speaker 4 (00:20):
Ha ha ha yeah yeah, yeah, of course they did.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Okay, clean, no, dude, listen, listen.
Speaker 5 (00:30):
Well, this is a really cool time back in twenty
twenty oh years ago, in the simple time twenty when
it was just Jeremy Corbel out there asking questions and
the Navy was going, well, we don't know, maybe someone's
out there, move along, young man.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
But now we're in twenty twenty five and it's just
kind of a accepted thing now.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah, it's it's so weird because for five years now,
disclosure has always been a jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, never
ever jam today's situation. And we were I think collectively
surprised that the US government did respond to many journalists
(01:17):
just like George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell, people asking serious
and valid questions. Uncle Sam said they could not disclose
certain UFO related files because they would pose quote an
extraordinarily grave threat to national security.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Oh, we need more let's jump into the episode. Let's
do it.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of Iheartrading.
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Nolan.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
They called me Ben.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
We were joined as always with our super producer Paul
Mission control deck and most importantly, you are you. You
are here and that makes this stuff they don't want
you to know, as we have been doing.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
At the top of the show.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
We're gonna we're gonna do a little bit of a
of a Twitter roll call. That's where we find some
tweets from you and your fellow listeners. Just give them,
give them some time on air to see what you
all think about them. Who would like to do the
honors today?
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Let's go to n DAG fifteen. In DAG fifteen, INDAG
fifteen says yo. So Harvey Weinstein got twenty three years
and everyone's talking about coronavirus. Was this planned or something?
This is the same thing as Wendy Williams fainting during
the wildfires?
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Interest Wait, wait, is he saying that coronavirus is the
Wendy Williams fan in the way, Yes.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
The coronavirus is the hey, look over your smoke screen,
and the real thing is Harvey Wine the cover story.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
Yeah, that seems wrong. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
I feel like generally that would go the other way.
Speaker 6 (03:12):
That's what I'm thinking.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
And that is not to you know, a smirch. Well,
it's it's not to say the the victims of Harvey
Weinstein are not important. That is just to say that's
it's going to affect a lot more.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
People, the coronavirus, Weinstein went to jail, you know what
I mean? It would it would feel like more of
a one to one cover story comparison if Weinstein somehow
did not go to jail and got, you know, put
in mental institution or rehab, like when he went to
that when he tried to go to that sex addiction
(03:49):
rehab and then dropped out early. That also happened, you.
Speaker 6 (03:53):
Know, probably so he could go have some sex.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
Who knows.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
And the reports of we may have talked about this
off air, I may have talked about one of you guys.
But the reports of his uh, the reports of his
surgery it's no unmentionables.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Oh oh yes, really like like the like the descriptions,
descriptives and had the pleasure so painful for survivors to
have to mention that.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
But his his bits, his Australia as a train wreck
in a medically bizarre way. But yeah, it could it
be a cover story. We know that those, We know
that those do occur. We've had a lot of people
actually right in to say that. People said the coronavirus
is a cover story for something different. Many political partisans
(04:38):
are saying coronavirus is a alarmist story meant to distract
from what they see as the d n C conspiring
to push an establishment candidate over the one that they
feel is closer to their values. But the thing about
those cover stories is you never really know until it's
too late to do anything right.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
So here's another one. There's another Twitter shout out from
tech now Music. Tech now Music says, guys, big fan,
I got some stuff they don't want you to know
and would love to share it with you.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
It involves black hat SEO, search engine optimization, bots, elections
and what we expect in the upcoming elections. I know
how all that stuff works intimately because I used to
do it.
Speaker 4 (05:24):
Yeah, big shout out to technoledge, Dash Internet God. I
do not know who you are, genuinely, Technoledge. You seem
to have a lot.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Of followers Technology Internet God.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
We should say that Technology Internet God. I apologize, man,
but that's you know, you've intrigued us. We would love
to know if you want to send things, detailed things.
Our email is conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. And you
know we've got that phone number that you'll hear at
the end.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
And if you would be more comfortable using and encrypted
info drops, then I can set one of those up
and we can communicate that way, or proton mail or
proton mail as well. This is not a commercial for
proton mail, but they do good work.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
Wait, it's proton mail where you like molecularly deconstruct it
and then reassemble it on the other side, or.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Something almost exactly that, just with encryption.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Okay, Yeah, it's pretty secure. A lot of journalists, especially
in dangerous authoritarian countries, use proton mail. And this concludes
our Twitter roll call. On with the show today, we
return fellow conspiracy realist once again to the controversial and
fast moving get it world of UFO revelations in recent years.
(06:37):
In recent months, Western governments have done something kind of hilarious.
They've revealed internal documentation that flatly contradicts their earlier stated policies.
Remember in the days after Blue Book, the famous Project
blue Book, where where the government collected all these reports
(06:58):
of unidentified flying objects. In the years since then, Uncle
Sam's main official line had always been we did this,
we didn't find anything. We don't waste money on it
anymore because your taxpayer, that's your money. We spend it
on good stuff like bombs, maybe weaponized diseases.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
But recent leaks later.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Confirmed that the US Navy, at the very least as
well as the Pentagon were in fact closely monitoring what
they called UAP unexplained aerial phenomena, while simultaneously claiming they
were doing no such thing.
Speaker 6 (07:33):
Isn't that just like a synonym for UFO? How is that?
Is there anything that sets it apart?
Speaker 1 (07:37):
It doesn't have the stigma, so it's just sort.
Speaker 6 (07:40):
Of like a stand in.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Then it's sort of like a less charged version of
the same exact thing.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Well, it's it's more broad too, because it doesn't have
the implication that there's a physical.
Speaker 6 (07:48):
Object, it's a craft of some kind.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
It could just be weather.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Which is often the explanation for UFOs as well. So
it's interesting that there's a separate term. I wonder who
pitched that in a meeting.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Yeah, this this is interesting though, because this is still
a developing story, we want to give you a real
quick walk through on some stuff. For deep dive into
some of this information, please check out our earlier episode
not sponsored by Blink one two. But when we talk
about revelations, what do we mean?
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Here are the facts.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
In twenty seventeen, The New York Times exposed the Pentagon's
previously secret, mysterious UFO program that was known as Advanced
Aerospace Threat Identification Program or AADP at TIP A TIP,
M gonna go with at TIP. This program catapulted an
individual who was previously quite unknown by the name of
(08:48):
Luis Alessando right into the public eye. Alexondo as a
former employee of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Intelligence or OUSTI, and a former US Army counterintelligence
special agent.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
Yes, and Luis Elizondo, as we will refer to as Elizondo. Henceforth,
he was the head of this AATIP or a TIP
as we have named it. Now, this was a really
interesting thing. It was a program, a type of program
that we've discussed before on this show called a Special
(09:24):
Access program. It was allotted somewhere between twenty two and
twenty nine million dollars and it was it got its
starters initiated by the Defense Intelligence Agency. And here's what
it was going to do. It was going to study
unidentified aerial phenomena, these things we call now UAPs also UFOs.
(09:47):
And this guy, like we said, he just got thrust
out there. He had to start immediately answering questions about
this thing that nobody knew about.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Really interesting too, because when he started answering this it
was after the fact he was an ex government employee.
And Louis made a lot of claims Colin Louis, because
that's what the History Channel refers to him.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
As we'll get to.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
It, he claimed that not only was Uncle Sam cognizant
of these various instances of UAP, but he claimed that
they retrieved the holy grail of ufology, which would be
physical evidence. He said there were metal alloys and other
materials the government had recovered. According to the DoD, this
(10:32):
program was ended in twenty twelve after five years. However,
that's what they said about the kind of investigations it
took place during Blue Book, and that was true for
some of the time, but not true for several years.
So of course you cannot blame people for saying they
don't believe the official line. And we said Elizano was
(10:54):
an ex government employee. He resigned from that program in
October of twenty seventeen, and he said he resigned in
protest of government secrecy. What he saw is opposition to
the mission of the program and his personal belief that
in both the DoD, the Pentagon, and the Halls of Congress,
this mission was not being taken seriously. He felt kind
(11:17):
of like maybe with someone's pet project, if that makes sense.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Uh huh. And then you know, he left the government.
He said, I don't like your mission. I'm going to
a place where I can find a real home, where
I'm gonna really gel with what this company and this
service is all about.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
Slab City City.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
No. He started working with to the Stars Academy that
if you're a listener of this show, you may be familiar.
If you're a listener of the Joe Rogan experience, you're
probably familiar. If you're a listener of really important I
might say early two thousands music, you may be familiar.
To the Stars Academy is the private UFO investigation group created.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
By created by Tom DeLong, who is currently also famous
for being a founding member of the band Blink one
eighty two. He is retired from Blink one eighty two. However,
To the Stars Academy still is involved in the music business.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
We talked about this before.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
We did, and you may think, oh wait, a UFO
slash UAP focused company created by a former musician. I
don't need to worry about that. They're never gonna do
anything groundbreaking. They've definitely done some stuff, That's what I'm saying. Yeah,
because in twenty eighteen they kind of shocked the world.
(12:40):
They shocked us.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
In twenty eighteen, To the Stars Academy released a thirty
second video of US Navy pilots encountering a UFO. This
was different from many similar instances of alleged UFO footage. Well,
I say alleged of UFO footage because the some of
the people who were involved directly on the Navy side
(13:04):
confirmed that this was legit, and you.
Speaker 6 (13:07):
May remember the one. I mean it was.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
It was remarkable as well, because it was very clear
that the pilots were seeing something that was very unusual,
and the way they were commenting on it really rang true.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Yeah, and they had none of the usual disadvantages that
you'll see in a lot of UFO reports. They were
not on they were not on the ground, they were
not inexperienced, you know, they were familiar with all the
things it could be, and they couldn't answer the question.
This was one of those very small percentages of UFO
reports that did not have, even on the very skeptical end,
(13:42):
a satisfying answer.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
They're commenting about the way it's moving. It's like a
little blip on their radar, like a bogie, right, and
they're well, look at it, go, look at it, flip.
You know, they're saying all these things and these like
very firsthand observations from people that are experts and such things.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Well, they had visual context right exculy they did as well.
Speaker 6 (14:03):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
The footage was recorded on the East coast of the
United States in twenty fifteen, so that's what happened. All
of that is real. Those are factual events. There's another
factual thing we have to mention here about Alexondo and
about To the Stars. That is, despite the fact that
this footage is real, it's been confirmed that thirty seconds
actually happened. Despite all that, there was still an enormous
(14:28):
problem of credibility for both Alexondo and for To the
Stars Academy itself. First, Alexondo's post government career has led
to some criticism, both from skeptics and from people who
are more true believers in the UFO community. And that's
because you know, his life didn't stop when his government
(14:50):
paycheck stopped, if it ever did, which is another theory
about it. Alexondo joined the cast of a show on
the History Channel called Unexplained. And you know how those
kinds of shows go on the History Channel, which is
not a ding on them. It's just very much on
the entertainment side of the spectrum, I think at George Suklos, right,
(15:14):
So this has prompted some critics to imply or insinuate
that his goal is to turn a profit rather than
to pursue the truth. But to be fair, those two
are not mutually exclusive.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Yeah, and there's the other point here that's been made before,
which is possibly this story kind of like as our
Twitter friend identified earlier, this concept of putting forth a
bit of disinformation to be a smoke screen or to
throw people off a track that we hopefully we will talk
(15:54):
about a little bit later in the episode. It could
be that his motivations are not just profit, they are
too purposefully put out bogus information.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Ah yes, yeah, but.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Again that is complete speculation. Who knows his intentions.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
What's tricky about that, though, is that even if he
comes out later and says, I was working as a disinfoagent,
you know, shout out to dispo dot net, I was
working as an agent, a miss or disinformation and I
am going to confess at all. What if he said
that in a tell all documentary, you know that people
(16:32):
had to buy, then you wouldn't trust him again, right
because you would still unless it unless there is a
harsh air gap, a clear separation between profit and UH
prescience or a prophetic figure, then people are always going
to ask that question. And it's a valid question to
ask us asking it is just us describing the lay
(16:53):
of the land.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
He's like I we interviewed that like sold like UFO
Tours or something, or like UFO Vision Qui Doctor Stephen
Greer right, that you know, again not throwing shade directly,
but it does call into question when your whole purpose
for espousing a certain belief is to sell quite expensive
seminar packages.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Yes, but in the case of Elizondo, who knows how
that opportunity to be on the History Channel came about. True,
it could have been a tremendous opportunity for him money wise, while,
like we said, kind of while still pursuing the truth
and seeking the truth. We just have to keep all
of that stuff in mind as we as we continue
(17:34):
along here.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
One last point, and it's something that some of our
fellow listeners will know, but many of us may not
be aware of this. A lot of times when people
end up being pundit or subject matter experts on entertainment
shows like that, they they get in that old they're
in that old frog and slowly boiling water kind of thing.
(17:58):
They meet some producers who are maybe out one hundred
percent ethical, who say, we believe in your mission, we
want to help you, and then along the way they
just slowly nudge them further and further away from something
that's more documentary or fact finding into something that's more entertainment.
There's also absolutely nothing preventing a lot of those companies
(18:19):
from taking someone's statement out of context or even what's
called frank and biting. And you, guys, can you describe
frank and biting for everyone?
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Yeah, it's sort of like taking little syllables and snippets
of things people say. It's typically done in reality television
where you cut away from the person's visual and then
you hear the sound of their voice saying a thing
that sounds believable, but it's really just a snipped up
mishmash of different things they've said to give it a
certain meaning.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
Right, And this is something you have to do in
true crime podcasts a lot where maybe a fact is
slightly wrong and you don't have your host in to
do a fix or something.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
You know, that's a much more magnanimous version of reason
to do this.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
Well, I guess what I'm saying is that concept of
frank inbiting. It's something you can do with editing tools,
whether in video or audio, that if you have control
or writes over the materials you have. As Ben said,
there's very little anyone can do about that.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
And it's not inherently nefarious, is what you're saying as well.
I mean, yeah, you can do it to help the
person sound like they said the correct thing, and you
could argue still, maybe there's some ethical gray area there
if they didn't really say it, maybe you should just
find a different.
Speaker 6 (19:34):
Way to say it.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
But what's done a lot of times in reality television
where it is more nefarious is to actually have someone
say something that they didn't really say.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Right.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
So, a hopefully fictitious example would be on a reality show.
Let's say we have someone who says, so and so
is my best friend. I would never sleep with his wife,
but I love having this conversation because when I get
(20:04):
to air this out, we can dispel any rumors. And
so the producers could take that and just pull the
words out and they would say I love having sex
with his wife, and it would be smooth enough that
if you didn't know the situation, you would think, Wow,
what a dirt bag to say that, and you would
(20:25):
never know that they made one sentence out of like
two or three. We're just saying that can happen that
can happen, So maybe maybe Alessando was in a situation
like that. Maybe we're being too hard on this. We
just have to admit those things can happen in the
world of television. And there's no denying that Alexondo did
(20:46):
incredibly important work. It may still be doing it right.
But the problem with credibility, or we should say, the
criticisms of credibility, don't stop with this individual. We're going
to pause for a word from our sponsors and then
will turn our eyes briefly to the Stars Academy. To
the Stars Academy, not literally to the stars.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
Welcome back, everybody. Let's continue with to the Stars. It
was originally launched as a record label, which is, you know,
that's a cool thing. Record labels are cool. They're not
quite as profitable as they once were, but you can
still do some great works within one of those.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
Oh and that was twenty fourteen, Yes, that was twenty fourteen.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Then you know, over time it evolved into kind of
a mixed media, a more general entertainment company. And you know,
as of the time that we're discussing here, twenty seventeen,
they existed as a public benefit corporation now that is
a fun status to have.
Speaker 6 (21:54):
Yeah, like a.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
Nonprofit, they can still make money.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
So they're kind of a corporation that in their charter
and their mission statement and their goals, they can list
public benefit as one of their goals in addition to
stuff like making the most money possible for shareholders. It's
like a legal way of saying we're the good guys.
(22:19):
So they did that, and now they've published graphic novels,
They've published books. They've also of course done a number
of TV shows, films, and still as a record label
doing albums. Right, the company is responsible at least partially
for reinvigorating public interest in UFOs, as well as serious
(22:41):
serious research on the subject. I mean, even if someone's
critical of them, they can't take that away from them.
They are driving force to that conversation. Alizondo is, as
we record, still with to the Stars Academy.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
What's his official title According to the current website, he
is the director of Government Programs and Services.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
And in Government Programs and Services, so he's kind of
like their government expert, their subject matter expert, or government liaison.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Yeah, and underneath that just it's really interesting. They have
the team a little tab you can click on under
that it lists all of his background there, just to
let you know, like he really has had a lot
of experience.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
He does.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
He has a wealth of experience. It's also weird because
I've seen it in different places on the website where
he's described as the director of Global Security and Special Programs.
So maybe that title has changed over time. But as
of March of twenty twenty, the latest news from to
the Stars is that they have announced a partnership with
an equity firm Trypoint Global Equities to sell shares in
(23:48):
their organization. And talking about investments in that way makes
people a little skittish, you know what I mean. Now
you're messing with the money. More than one person has
learned the hard way that that's not the best idea.
So it's weird. When you go to the I want
to see what you guys think about this. When you
go to the website to the Stars Academy dot com,
(24:10):
the first thing that comes up is invest now. You
have you have a menu button. You have a two
buttons on the landing page at same invest now, and
you have one that says play video.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
Minimum investment three hundred and fifty.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Dollars price per share five dollars.
Speaker 4 (24:28):
Huh. Interesting. You know, I don't like it to the stars.
I don't like.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
It seventy share minimum buy in.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
But but that being said, Ben, if you go through
that team, the team that they've got down there, there's
a dude named Steve Justice, which, first of all, incredible name,
Cheve Justice. Come on, he's the Chief Operations Officer, Aerospace
Division director. This dude he's retired, and he retired skunk
(25:01):
works at Lockheed. He worked there for thirty one years.
Come on, if you're gonna have somebody on your team
that knows this kind of stuff, that's the guy Steve Justice.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
And you know, I don't want to sound too credulous
or something, but if you look at especially the board members,
I get the sense that they're not in it for
the money, which I like, you know what I mean,
I think they're they're I can't say definitively, but it
feels like they're in it because they believe in it.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
Dude.
Speaker 6 (25:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Jim Simmeivan he spent twenty five years as an operations
officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Directorate of Operations.
I mean, come on, that's yeah. I don't think that
Dud's in it throw the money. That guy's espionage city
and he's just like, what's going on over here? Or
did they infiltrate right immediately? And Jim is the inside guy.
(25:55):
I just don't.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
That's the thing. I just don't.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
This is just my opinion. There's just one person's opinion.
I try to keep opinions out out of the show,
but I feel like people never really leave the CIA. Yeah,
I feel like you're always maybe you're officially retired, but
you're always kind of on call, you know what I mean.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
I feel that way.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
I feel like that's absolutely the way, especially if you're
at the top. But you know, I never officially been
in the CIA. Add to the problem of credibility for
the organization is that they have ah They have a
reported multimillion dollar operating deficits, something like thirty seven point
four million dollars in the hole, and this leads people,
(26:42):
especially again people we are already more on the skeptical side,
to say like this is a money grab instead of
an actual legitimate enterprise. But again for the skeptics, they
did get a hold of a thirty second thirty six
second video that is legitimate that no one can explain, including.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
The US government, and the US government admitted it. So
they did that. That happened, right.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
It is weird to have a piece of evidence like
that that you know it's real. You're sitting here, you're
looking at You're like, Okay, there's something here. But I
can't I can't prove that this is real. I just
it feels real, it looks real, it sounds real, but
is it real?
Speaker 2 (27:23):
So that's where we're at, folks. Alesondo confirmed a secret program.
The Navy admitted it, and while it was the most
significant disclosure since the declassification of Project Blue Book, at
least in this country, nothing much seems to have come
from the claims. Yet that mysterious footage remains unexplained. The
pilots went on record confirming stuff they couldn't explain. They
(27:45):
made their own guesses. But then the story just sort of.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
Stopped. So that's the end, right, We're done with this
episode all finished?
Speaker 6 (27:56):
Or are we?
Speaker 2 (27:58):
You see this January the Navy had something else to say.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
And we'll tell you what it was. After a word
from our sponsor, infuriating.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
So in January of twenty twenty, not too long ago
at all. Independent researcher Christopher Lambright got a response to
his FOI requests Freedom of Information Act request seeking more
information on the strange sighting by Navy pilots that we
discussed earlier episode that it took place on November fourteenth
(28:37):
of two thousand and four. What he was looking for, specifically,
was more information on the video footage and some presentation
slides from the Office of Naval Intelligence.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Yeah, the Navy shut him down. People know, who are
familiar with the FOYO request, They can take forever. You know,
often don't get the results you want, right and the Navy.
The Navy came back with a line that.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
We really like the way VICE reported this. We have
a quote. So here's what the Navy said.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
So the Navy said it had quote discovered certain debriefing
slides that are classified top secret. A review of these
materials indicates that they are currently inappropriately marked and classified
top secret under Executive Order one three five two six,
and the original classification authority has determined that the release
of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the
(29:42):
national security of the United States.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Let's stop right there.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Think about that exceptionally grave damage to national security? What
the hell is on these slides? What's in that footage?
Speaker 4 (29:55):
Right?
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Why is it exceptionally grave? Does that imply that regular
the grave was fine?
Speaker 1 (30:02):
You know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (30:03):
So Vice followed up and asked about this denial, and
that's when Pentagon spokesperson Susan go elaborated a little and
she said, the Department of Defense, specifically the US Navy
has the video. Quote like the full video, yes, because
there's more than that thirty six seconds. Apparently, as Navy
and my office have stated previously, as the investigation of
(30:26):
UAP Unidentified Aerial Phenomena sightings is ongoing, we will not
publicly discuss individuals citing reports observations. However, I can tell
you that the date of the two thousand and four
USS Nimitz video is November fourteenth, two thousand and.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Four, so I could tell you the date.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
I can also tell you the length of the video
that's been circulating since two thousand and seven is the
same as the length of the source video. We don't
expect to release this video, but huh, everybody else involved
directly has said that there's an eight to nine minute
or even longer video. And then additionally, some of the
(31:08):
I don't know, it gets sticky, like what are they hiding?
That's the question, because they didn't really say, they just
said it's secret. It could be exceptionally dangerous to national security.
A favorite boogeyman. But I mean, what do we think
a lot of people are. There's a lot of conjecture
(31:30):
about this, and it feels like a lot of it
is pretty solid or at least valid understandable.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
Yeah, it feels very solid. I was reading another link
a Politico article that we had used for the research
of this show, just kind of going back over it
right now. It was from September of twenty nineteen, and
in this case it's a Republican House Homeland Security Committee member.
(31:56):
He's actually the ranking member of the Intelligence and or
Terrorism Subcommittee, and he was asking specifically about some of
these sightings, about some of these things. And the quote
that comes at the end of this article from Walker
from Representative Walker says, quote, if the Navy believes that
China or Russia possesses advanced aerospace technologies that represent a
(32:18):
national security vulnerability, the American people have the right to
know what their government is doing about it.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
So then they're saying that if there is a if
this is a mundane thing and there's some kind of
let's say defense or war warcraft gap, then the public
needs to know about it.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Yeah. If they're really saying, you know, as they've stated there,
this could have this grave damage to national security, it's
it either means that somebody else has some kind of
technology that's dangerous to us, or means we have some
kind of insane technology that it would be dangerous if
other countries knew we had it, right right, I mean.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
They would like preemptively strike or something, or they would
there be retaliation.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Or it would just be less useful.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
Yes, so there would be less of the element of surprise,
I got.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
Any well, And the third option there is that there's
some kind of outside exterior force that is a danger
to all of humanity, which is the most exciting one,
though the least likely.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
All, Right, questions are exciting when you do what we do.
If you are on the front lines of trying to
keep people from dying, then questions rightly should terrify you.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Yeah, So worst.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
Case scenarios, they don't know what it is at all,
So you know, people of Plenty of people have speculated
that there is more footage, right, and that's what was
being denied. Popular Mechanics had multiple witnesses from the Knimtz
incident who said that they definitely saw something that was
much longer and a lot more clear, higher resolution, which
(34:03):
you guys as editors, taught me a long time ago
is one of the trickiest things about a lot of
at least the video stuff. You know, that resolution once
you get past, once you get to a certain degradation,
it doesn't matter what it is because the answer is moot.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
But we are talking about two thousand and four technology
on an aircraft.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
True, there's something else that I want to put in
that's been reported in a couple of different places. Witnesses
said that after the incident, shortly after the incident, unidentified
people who had some kind of credentials showed up in
a helicopter and took the footage, just.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Swooped it up.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
And still those people have not been tied to any
official government agency. But not everyone agrees, you know, there
are also people who witnessed it who said, clearly what
I saw was not of this world, you know, and they,
you know, they're Again, they're educated in observation, they've seen
the physics, and they're saying, you just can't do a
forty five degree move like that. But there are other
(35:09):
people who are more skeptical, like Commander David Fraber said,
you know, longer videos of this incident don't exist. I
would have heard them. People are being alarmist. But no
matter how you slice it, no matter where you fall
on the spectrum, the answer is simply this. There is
more to the story. The Navy's not letting it out.
(35:31):
They say it's dangerous. There's literally stuff they don't want
you to know.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
Yes, yes, yeah, Why would there not be longer video?
Speaker 6 (35:41):
Right?
Speaker 4 (35:41):
In what version of this would there not be longer video?
The only way is if somebody hit record on a
device and then hit record again after thirty seconds where
it's stopped recording.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
Do we have a story as to how they got
hold of the video in.
Speaker 6 (35:58):
The first place.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
I think that is that is probably classified within the
halls of To the Stars Academy.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
Well, from what I remember, and this comes back from
some of our conversations with other people in the environment,
From what I remember, Tom Delong's account was that he
had met with people surreptitiously in like hotel rooms and stuff,
and that someone slid him the tape through unofficial channels.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
So it's definitely a leak.
Speaker 6 (36:27):
I mean, maybe it's just the best, the good part,
you know.
Speaker 4 (36:31):
Yeah, but see this is why it screams disinfo to me.
It screams disinfo to me because it is this tiny,
little tantalizing snippet that was given to Tom DeLong in
a hotel somewhere by someone I don't know. And after all, I.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
Mean it, because of the nature of the resolution of
the footage, you could certainly fake a video like that
pretty easily.
Speaker 6 (36:58):
Yeah, with plug ins and you know.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Just downgrading the video quality or doing any number of things.
Speaker 4 (37:04):
I'm pretty terrible at it, and I'm confident that I
could make.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
It because the voice you just hear the voices. You
don't even see their faces. You just see like a
static shot from within the cockpit, right.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
Yeah, it's it's the observational camera. I guess that they're using.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
The equivalent of a like a dash cam and like
a uber or.
Speaker 4 (37:24):
Something kind of. But they've got a hood and it
is a really our heads up display and it is
a really sophisticated system. It's just you know, with with
an Adobe suite, you could could recreate.
Speaker 2 (37:35):
All Another interesting thing about that, why is there just
the video? Because those they don't just have a camera
slapped in front of the jet fighters.
Speaker 1 (37:44):
They have multiple monitoring systems. There's a suite, So I.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
Would be interested in seeing any other onboard sensor reports.
Oh yeah, I mean, it's way less sexy than a video,
but it would go a long way toward helping explain
what this was.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
It'd be better data at least, I mean, because surely there,
if it's locking in on this bogie or whatever, there
would be a record of its trajectory and the way
it moved and stuff, and you should be able to
generate a report on that, I would imagine.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Right, yeah, absolutely. And here's another thing that's a little
screwy about this. The Pentagon repeatedly changed its story since
the original exposure past the point of fog of war
or miscommunication internally, right, which can totally happen. That could
totally happen. Sometimes agencies can just be wrong about what
their message is. But as recently as last month, the
(38:37):
Pentagon said that a tip had nothing to do with
UFOs what we would call UFOs. Elizondo has said that
he is quote not able to comment further on the
existence of a longer video due to my obligations involving
my NDA non disclosure agreement with the government and the
fact that I am no longer employed with the US government. However,
(38:58):
he follows, as I stayed before, people should not be
surprised by the revelation that other videos exist and at
a greater length. So to unpack that, he said, I can't.
I guess what he's trying to do is skirt the
line of NDA and say, well, I can't say if
there's a longer version of this video that we're talking about,
(39:19):
but I can say you shouldn't be surprised if other
longer videos exist, which is, you know, that can make
a pretty good meal for lawyers, you know what I mean.
If ever, that would be interesting in a courtroom.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
You know.
Speaker 6 (39:36):
So there we go.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
I mean, what what do you all think? I don't
know about you guys.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
I would I would say one of two things are
most likely. One, like you said, Matt, maybe there's a
rival military that has some kind of maybe like a
sub launched nuke or missile that has some previously unknown abilities,
or maybe there's something that the US did observing this
(40:08):
stuff and they don't want, like to your point about
the element of surprise, Noal, maybe they don't want rival
militaries to know just how they how good they are
at monitoring things like That's the reason a lot of
intelligence was classified in the years before Five Eyes was
public knowledge.
Speaker 4 (40:24):
Yeah, it's true. Yeah, hiding the surveillance technology.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
So are they hiding THEIRS technology? Are they hiding someone
else's what's going on? Something else's, some thing else's.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Yeah, we want to hear from you.
Speaker 4 (40:40):
Tell us if you think it's some kind of new
sophisticated UAV technology, because it looks like like it was
probably a smaller craft, but it did look odd in
that video. I don't know. I for a while there
I was convinced it was some kind of drone.
Speaker 6 (40:56):
Right.
Speaker 3 (40:57):
The shape of it is almost like got that triangular
kind of vibe.
Speaker 4 (41:00):
To it, right, Yeah, but odd, very odd, very odd.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
Quick question you guys to derail and take us into
the realm of speculative fiction. Have you guys seen the
trailer for the new season of Westworld yet?
Speaker 4 (41:14):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (41:14):
I think it looks awesome.
Speaker 4 (41:17):
Okay, you don't think so, you seem yeah, no, I
think so.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
I'm why'd you say that with a big question mark
at the end.
Speaker 4 (41:25):
I am looking forward to it, and it's coming out.
It will be out by the time this episode released.
Speaker 3 (41:30):
The show will yeah, okay, but I just like that
it's in the real world and it's like you know,
and it's got all these crazy mechs and drones and stuff,
and we haven't really seen much of that in the
show up until now.
Speaker 6 (41:40):
I'm excited.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
And it's got Jesse Pinkman from Breaking.
Speaker 3 (41:43):
Bad, which I whatever his name is, the real actor,
guy Aaron Paul.
Speaker 6 (41:47):
That's it. He's fantastic.
Speaker 4 (41:49):
Look, this show is not brought to you by Westworld
or HBO or any of the other things that we
mentioned today Tom DeLong at least, Angels and Air, at
least at the time that we're recording it. However, maybe
one day in the future you will hear a Westworld
ad on this episode and your mind will be blown.
Speaker 1 (42:09):
Wouldn't it be nice if we're still around? I mean,
who knows?
Speaker 2 (42:13):
Are we going to become a quote grave threat to
national security? I hope not extraordinarily grave threat?
Speaker 3 (42:19):
I gotta ask you guys, you know how Tom DeLong
had a very distinct vocal style as one of the
singers of Blink twenty two.
Speaker 6 (42:25):
Let's six call it a little nasally, I guess you know.
Speaker 3 (42:27):
So the guy that replaced him in the band, who
was in the band Alkalan Trio, he does like a
perfect copy of that, And how do you do that
and live with yourself?
Speaker 4 (42:37):
A right?
Speaker 3 (42:37):
Like he's just totally doing his best Tom DeLong impression.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
He's probably I mean, it's cool to be a work
in musician.
Speaker 6 (42:43):
He's probably living with himself all the way to the bank.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
Maybe yeah, Or maybe he already got picked because he
naturally sings like that.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
Maybe, So it's sort of like Peter Gabriel versus Phil Collins.
You know, Phil Collins was the drummer for Genesis and
sang all the backups, and then when he took Peter's place.
At least he sounds just like Peter. But it's because
they kind of came up singing together. So maybe it's
not as ripoffy as I think.
Speaker 6 (43:07):
I quite enjoyed seeing them live.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
The drummer Travis Barker is a monster.
Speaker 4 (43:10):
Oh yeah, Travis Barker has that invisible touch too, and
you know, I'm excited that you're excited. NOL.
Speaker 6 (43:18):
Well, thanks man.
Speaker 4 (43:19):
So everyone, if you can hear this, please reach out
to us on Twitter or Facebook where we're conspiracy stuff,
or let's say Instagram where we're conspiracy stuff show. Tell
us what you think about this serious UFO slash UAP
program that was occurring there, about this specific case of
(43:40):
some kind of unidentified aerial phenomena, and what you think
about this whole possibility that there's a longer video out
there somewhere. Have you seen it?
Speaker 1 (43:50):
Can send?
Speaker 4 (43:51):
Yeah, that's exactly what's gonna ask. Send it our way.
Have you any of those channels if you'd like, or hey,
you can give us a phone call and tell us
all about it. Our number is one eight three three
S T T W y t K. Leave a message.
We will hear you. And oh hey, guess what, it's
that special time we are going to hear the latest
(44:14):
message that has come in. I'm just pulling it up
right here. All right, Hey, guys.
Speaker 5 (44:21):
I just wanted to say I'm a huge fan of
the show.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
Love what you guys do.
Speaker 5 (44:25):
Keep up the good work and uh and here's.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
My Ben Bowling impression. Right mm hmmmm. Thanks guys, whoa
that one?
Speaker 4 (44:37):
That one was unexpected?
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Ben, You're fine, nailed it. Thanks so much, Ben spot On.
Speaker 2 (44:43):
We found out some somewhere on the Internet that people
do a drinking game based on our various idiosyncrasies.
Speaker 4 (44:51):
What's what's uh? So, what's yours?
Speaker 6 (44:53):
Do you know?
Speaker 4 (44:53):
Is it?
Speaker 6 (44:53):
Is it that?
Speaker 4 (44:54):
Yeah? Wait? What's knowles?
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Uh knowles is funny question and yours is?
Speaker 1 (45:01):
But what if?
Speaker 3 (45:02):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (45:02):
Okay, I thought.
Speaker 3 (45:03):
Mine would have been using the word situation, I say
that a lot, or I say, like, you know, it's
a UFO type situation or a paper cup type situation.
Speaker 4 (45:11):
You know, I could see that maybe randomly bringing up
an HBO show.
Speaker 6 (45:16):
That was not random, that was drone based. Okay, that
was very aprid drone get it?
Speaker 1 (45:22):
Oh? I thought it was there?
Speaker 4 (45:24):
Awesome? Yeah.
Speaker 2 (45:25):
And if you have if you have thoughts, if you
have full video, if you have more insight into the stars,
you ap or UFO Let us know. If you hate
social media, that's fine, we totally get it. And if
you hate phones, that's fine, I get it as well.
We have one last way to contact us other than
midnight at a crossroad. Send us an email directly.
Speaker 3 (45:49):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 4 (46:10):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.