Imminent
54:14 Share

PayPal lets you pay all your pals, like your dinner dates. How are we splitting the bill? Um, evenly? Well, I only got soup. Let's split it on PayPal based on what people ate. Get started in the PayPal app. A PayPal account is required to send and receive money.

The PC gave us computing power at home, the internet connected us, and mobile let us do it pretty much anywhere. Now generative AI lets us communicate with technology in our own language, using our own senses. But figuring it all out when you're living through it is a totally different story. Welcome to Leading the Shift.

a new podcast from Microsoft Azure. I'm your host, Susan Etlinger. In each episode, leaders will share what they're learning to help you navigate all this change with confidence. Please join us. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This is Need to Know. Real talk about unidentified anomalous phenomena. From Australia, Ross Coulthard. From the U.S., Bryce Zabel.

Hello and welcome to Need to Know. Well, everybody seems to think that the UAP issue has died down. Maybe the gatekeepers think we've all gone back into our burrows and we're passively waiting for the government to tell us anything sometime in the next 30 to 50 years. Well, don't worry, friends, there is hope on the horizon. And to tell us all, let's bring in my friend and colleague, Bryce Zabel.

Well, I don't think that they're probably shutting us down for another 50 years, maybe another five months for the election stuff to settle down. But I think we're probably doing OK. I'm still an optimist. I don't know. That's just how I'm coming at this thing now.

How are you doing? I'm very well, mate. I'm very, very well. As you know, I've just been in the United States, and I'm sure we can talk about why I've been in the United States. What I can reveal, and I think this is the first time I'm able to speak about it publicly, is that I have recorded the first major television interview with Lou Elizondo since the book, Imminent, was published.

and he will be appearing on Banfield News Nation, 10pm Eastern time, next Friday the 23rd. And you're going to see a slow rollout of some of what Lou's told me over the next week. Well,

I was waiting to start with some humorous anecdote about how I'm getting ready for the Emmys next month. And so I'm on my usual diet to try to fit into my tuxedo. But I don't know. That seems inappropriate now. Listen, I'm ready to talk about Lou Elizondo's book, Eminent, because...

I got a copy of it from a couple of sources. And so I've read most of it. And I have a couple of thoughts. And I just wonder, given I want to support your interview, but I assume your interview. But what's your take? Are you can we talk about it?

Well, unfortunately, my friend, and this will make you giggle maniacally because of the fact that NDAs are used to suppress whistleblowers inside the national security state. I am bound by an NDA not to talk about the Elizondo imminent book until it is formally released, which I think is coming up on the 20th.

And I mean, short of selling my firstborn daughter, I wouldn't want to risk even discussing anything in the book because unfortunately, I am constrained by an NDA that would make the Pentagon proud. And unfortunately, I think the book version that you're talking about

From what I heard, frustratingly, there was a British end of the publishing arm that's responsible for publishing the book that inadvertently posted, I think, a chunk of the book, not all of the book, up online. And yes, there have been people who've been passing it around, naughty bootleg copies. And unfortunately, I'm just not allowed to talk about it.

Listen, I support authors and writers. So I'll tell you what I've done. I bought three versions of Lou's book already. I bought the hardcover, the audiobook, and the Kindle. So I would urge anyone who does get one of those other bootleg copies, as you called it, to do the same, to at least pay the man the respect of buying the book that you've read. Listen, I didn't sign an NDA.

Now, I'm not saying we should talk about this forever, but I do have a few things I'd like to just say about it on the higher level of it. I think for my—I thought it was very well-written.

And I understand that Lou wrote it himself and didn't have a ghostwriter. And if that's true, then I just say that man is an excellent communicator when he goes on TV, but he's also an excellent writer. I thought he told a good dramatic story. He didn't bury the lead, but he kept me involved all the way through. So I thought that was great.

He does break some news in it, although I would imagine for most of the people who are listening to our show right now, they know a lot of the things that are already in it. They may not know the specifics or some of the details or whatever, but a lot of it they've been thinking about. It's a really great opportunity.

opening salvo to give to your friends, for example, much as I've given away about four copies of your own book, Ross, to people who I thought should, you know, with In Play In Sight, I thought they should read it and sort of get up to speed with this fast-changing topic. A couple of the highlights for me, though.

First, he kind of explains how these things work, which that was news to me, where he's talking about the bubbles. And the bubbles, they say, this is what he said, the bubbles around the UAP distorts the way light and other electromagnetic emanations interact with the UAP inside the bubble.

which is, you know, pretty interesting. I'm not a physicist, but what it comes down to, the way he describes it, is that you get the saucer shape because you don't want the saucer out running its bubble and a bubble is circular. So that's one bubble. If you have a cigar-shaped thing or tic-tac anyone, you have two bubbles, one at each end. And if you have one of those mysterious black triangles running around, you have three bubbles, one on each corner.

And if you have a super large triangle, you have four bubbles, one on each corner and one in the middle. And if you have one of those huge damn boomerangs that people have seen, the ones that are ginormous, then you have five bubbles. So,

That's kind of interesting stuff to me. I found that something I wasn't quite clear on. It means that somehow people within the program understand a lot more about what these things are and how they work than they have let on over the years. If this is true, as he points it out, then we're not getting the full story from people who go, yeah, we don't know. Maybe it's ours. Maybe it's China. I don't think China is working on bubbles right now.

The other thing he did, Ross, that I thought was very interesting, because, you know, I'm passionate about this topic, but he confirms the Roswell story and almost casually. I mean, he doesn't write a chapter about Roswell. He doesn't talk about it in great depth, but he does casually, like three or four times by my count, just accepts that it's the real deal and was specific enough to say it was a crash of two craft.

and they recovered four dead bodies. He talked about a couple of other crashes. He said in December 1950 in Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, which is across the Rio Grande from Del Rio, Texas, they got one body deceased. And he also said in 1989, there was a large tic-tac that went down in Kazakhstan in the Soviet Union, and they got four deceased bodies. Didn't see anything in the book talking about living beings.

Kings, so don't know about that. I'm not going to spoil any more of it. Those are my spoilers. I urge people who want to know more, this is a great book. I mean, I'm moved by it. I thought yours was a great book because, again, the detail in it and the work that went into it. But here's what's great about Lou Elizondo's book. It's lived experience.

I mean, this is what the guy did. And for people that still want to say, oh, well, you know, I think he's a disinformation agent or this, that, or the other thing. I just think that's bullshit. You read this book. You totally understand. The guy is pretty much who he says he is. He's got this deep, deep involvement in this subject going back years. He's super bright. He's super thought this thing out and interesting.

he's been told things that pretty much comport with what David Grush told you. So I would assume when you have this interview on News Nation, and again, that's on the 23rd of August, Ross, and I'm urging everyone to buy the book and then listen to the interview, because I think your hair's going to stand on end a little bit. And for people that are saying, Hey, well, it's the summer, you know, nothing's really going on. Well,

Well, we're about to have a nuclear bomb of disclosure tossed out there in the same way that you did with David Grush. You're going to get this guy on camera again. And I guarantee that Ross Coulthard is going to ask Lou Elizondo questions. You're not going to hear on any of the other media interviews that this guy does. It's going to be an hour of talk.

poking into what's really going on. And so I look forward to it. I hope I haven't spoiled too much. I'm not actually thinking I'm spoiling. I'm promoting. I want people to watch the interview that Ross is going to do. I want people to buy Lou Elizondo's book. The man deserves to get a break. And I hope people watch these. I mean, buy the book. Buy it. It's great. I really enjoyed it. So that's my take.

You know, it's very funny, Bryce. I can't say a bloody thing. It's hilarious. This is an absolute first. We're on need to know. I've just said something shocking to you and you can't say anything about it. I like this. Maybe we should do the entire hour. My NDAs don't permit me to speak. The national security state has tied me up.

Publishing is almost as draconian as the National Security State. What I can tell you, my friend, is you're absolutely right. Bryce, the passion, the care, and I think the authenticity of Lou Elizondo is going to come through in this interview. This is a guy who cares deeply about this subject, and he's doing it. I know this is old-fashioned. He's doing it because he's an old-fashioned patriot.

And one of the things that I will dangerously skirt my NDA on and discuss is the fact that one of the things Lou will address very, very strongly are the attacks on his character, the attacks that have tried to suggest he's not who he says he is, the attacks that have tried to insinuate that he's lying or misrepresenting himself. I can tell you that the thing that really shocked me in talking to Lou is we

We all think of him as this tough, nuggety warrior, a patriot who's as hard as nails. But I saw a very vulnerable side of Lou. The guy has been through hell recently. He needs our support.

He's been very much the point of the spear on the issue of pushing for the government to be more transparent and to disclose what, if anything, it knows on non-human intelligence engaging with this planet. The guy's got balls. And I've met him. I've met his family. It's a deeply intimate insight into the man. And I feel privileged. I feel very, very privileged to be able to tell that story.

I just wish I could go into more detail to restore him. I have one other thing I just want to throw out there for you to not comment on. All right. I agree with you about Lou. And he is a patriot. And to read the book is to really understand, you know, how heavily involved...

he's been in protecting our country and how he's put his life on the line multiple times to do that prior to him getting the job inside the UAP task force. One thing he did say that I think I know that Ross will no doubt be asking about is, remember he was famously quoted as saying that he would be somber or that he thought people might be somber if they knew what he knows. And I think what he's referring to is that,

In the military, one goes and does intelligence and reconnaissance before they enter the battlefield. I think it's called IRB. And I think that his attitude is, if what's going on in the world of UFOs isn't IRB, then I don't know what is, because they have been overflying our nuclear sites. There's evidence that people have been abducted against their will.

things like that, which would stand to reason might be, you know, an intelligence gathering operation. And then the question becomes, and again, he doesn't really address this to the best of my knowledge, but for what reason, you know, now I have a lot of opinions about what, what,

reason they may have. But I'm not going to put you through any more of this, Ross. I found it very interesting. I can't wait to see the interview that you guys do together. And I also share your opinion that Lou Elizondo probably is going to go down in history as a very brave mofo. And I'm thrilled to know him and to support him. I think he's doing the work of the country and thank God for it.

Do you know, it's funny, Bryce, I was thinking about this after I walked out of the interview with Lou and actually rang my wife and I won't say, I can't say what he told me, but I actually said to her, I said, you know,

We live in incredibly dangerous times for reasons that I don't think the public yet fully understand. And I don't know why the US government and probably other governments are conspiring to keep this whole incredible secret secret. I really don't. I still don't understand why.

I have a horrible feeling that it's because the US in particular thinks that it's going to secure some kind of hegemonical military dominance because of the technology that it derives from these craft and these beings. But what I can tell you is not just because of what I've heard from Lou in that interview, but because of what I continue to hear from people in the national security state, people in private aerospace,

I just find it incredible, absolutely incredible that we're in an era when you have people of the status of Lou Elizondo, David Grush, Colonel Carl Nell,

Christopher Mellon and so many others, Tim Gallaudet, Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, coming forward, sticking their necks on the block to actually say what they know, not what they believe, what they know, which is that we are, as a planet, secretly engaging with non-human intelligences, that the government of the United States is fully aware of this presence and

And for some reason, it's keeping it quiet. And the thing that really puzzles me is how easily we're being manipulated to overlook that. And I just wanted to make a point about the announcement just in the last day since we've been recording this podcast.

that the Wall Street Journal revealed allegations that the Ukrainian government was involved in bombing the Russian gas pipeline all along, and that the CIA actually had foreknowledge of this event and supposedly told the Ukrainians not to do it. I don't believe that for a moment. I'm sure the CIA was in it up to its neck.

But the thing that I find fascinating is there was a real pile on in the national security media to pour scorn months ago on the idea, on the allegation that the Ukrainians might have bombed the pipeline. And it was fed out into the media by people in disinformation in the CIA and the defense intelligence organizations.

And good on them for doing it because it gave Ukraine a strategic advantage in the war. It stopped the Russians from being able to sell their gas to Europe. It made the Europeans more focused to do something about Ukraine. I can understand exactly why Zelensky did it. And I can understand exactly why there was a decision made by the dark forces of the intelligence community, no doubt with the collusion of the CIA and the knowledge of the president.

But what I find fascinating is that the way the media, apart from one guy I can think of, Seymour Hersh, who actually called it and said that it was the Ukrainians, almost to a paper, to a masthead, the major mastheads, national security reporters, lamely reported the allegation that it was the Russians that had bombed their pipeline. Why the hell would the Russians have bombed their pipeline? Sure.

And it was never properly explained. And it's always been one of those looming mysteries. And why do I think that's relevant? Because I think it's relevant to how the UAP issue is also being suppressed in the national debate. If national security reporters are that manipulable, if they're that easily deceived because they're so cravenly dependent on their intelligence sources to give them information,

I don't believe for a moment that the senior national security reporters of our major newspapers didn't suspect that Ukraine was involved. But what I think they did was privately collude in the knowledge that they almost were uncertainly involved and didn't question the claims that were being put to them by people in the agency and other intelligence organisations.

And that's not the media's job. The media's job is not to tamely report what they're told by their intelligence sources. There, I've had my rant on that. I just wanted to put that out there.

Well, you're totally right. And to the extent that there was collusion, shame on them. I mean, reporters are supposed to report, and sometimes the truths you report are uncomfortable, which raises another question that I can ask without violating your NDA. Here's what I don't understand. We know that forces within the intelligence operation did what you just said. Did

did not want to talk about the fact that Ukraine bombed the pipeline. And so they were able to stop that. So how is it that Lou Elizondo gets to write a shocking book that sort of lays out what you said that he and Chris Mellon and all these other people have said?

How does he get to write that? In other words, there's evidence in the book. What he does is he, it's kind of a clever little thing that he does where he will block black out certain parts that the government apparently told him, well, you can't put that in there. And so he leaves that blacked out stuff in, which I thought was clever and, and, you know, kind of self ironic and very interesting, but my God explaining how, how,

UAP Works, talking about Roswell. How did that get cleared? I mean, what are the rules here with his NDA that allows him to write this book?

Well, what he's done, what I can tell you is he's gone through the DOPSA process, the correct process of the Defence Office pre-publication security review process that anybody who's national security cleared has to go through before they publish a book or do any media of any kind. And the DOPSA has approved it. And I think one of the great mistakes that I think we all make, and I've made this myself, is to perceive the national security structure as being one great amorphous blob

that essentially they all hold the same view. Now, let's take it as read that Arrow, the Pentagon's UFO UAP investigation office, is tamely pushing the company line, that it's decided it can lie its way out of this and we're going to be misled and disinformed as long as they can get away with it because they do not want the public to know for whatever reason about crash retrievals or reverse engineering programs.

But don't forget, my friend, that there is an alarming discrepancy between that Pentagon position and what the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, said in the report that I think was tabled in 2021, where they definitively acknowledged the reality of UAPs. They categorically assured the public that these objects are not some flight of fancy. They're real. And

And they are conforming to what's called the five or perhaps even the six observables. You know, they're showing hypersonic speeds, instantaneous maneuvers, transmedium travel. They're capable of stealth in a way that our planes and aircraft are not capable of doing. And most interestingly of all, they're showing positive lift, possibly anti-gravity in a way that we can't explain scientifically.

Now, that is officially acknowledged by the director of national intelligence. And so I think that when the DOPSA people in the Defense Department, the security officer of the Defense Department, come to make their assessment about what Lou is lawfully allowed to talk about.

I think they have to take into account that the Congress has been told that these things are real. And no matter what the lies are that are being told by former and serving people inside Arrow who are conspiring, I have no doubt to delude and mislead the public.

Whatever those lies are that they're telling, it's not going to work because there is this inconsistency between what the Pentagon's declassification, DOPSA office says, and what the hard-nosed gatekeepers, perhaps you could call them the Collins elite, are

capable of trying to do to try and conceal this secret. And I guess I remain, you said at the beginning, my friend, that you're optimistic. I'm optimistic too, although I have to admit I have come back from the United States a bit deflated about the lack of

drive inside the Congress right now, because all these bloody politicians are thinking about right now is getting elected. They're not showing what should be, I think, an intense focus on the biggest story in human history.

They'll flip around after the election is settled, whenever it gets settled. You know, though, I hear you talking about this. It sure seems to me to meet the definition of soft disclosure. People are clamoring for disclosure. And I think disclosure is really something that we can debate the actual strict definition of.

There is a level of disclosure where the president comes out and tells everybody everything, and that's not happening. But this certainly seems like soft disclosure to me, where...

You're basically being told the truth. You're just being told it in a book that the media is not really doing its job reporting on and following up on, and Congress is still not following up as best it could. But let's face it. The reason Chuck Schumer is standing in a hallway of Congress this year talking about non-human intelligence and non-human technology is that he knows everything that's in Lou Alessandro's book.

And so does Mike Rounds, and so do a lot of these other congressional people who have been forthright on this topic, Kirsten Gillibrand and the gang. So, yeah. So we are having a form of disclosure. It is happening, which is why I'm optimistic. Because I'm just saying, you know, at a certain point, people are going to say, I

already know what's going on. The government's the one that's slow walking this thing. Just one thing, though, I do want to bring up for us, Ross. Let's work this out, because I think there is a difference in the way Australia uses the word table and we use table. And I might have this wrong, but you're using the word table to introduce something, right? And I always thought table meant to put it aside.

Oh, no. No, no. In Australia, when we put something aside, we shelve it.

Right. So you could be wrong. And by the way, if I'm wrong, there'll be 15,000 comments pointing out my lack of intelligence. But I think there might be. So sometimes I guess what I'm saying is you are saying things are moving forward when you use table. And sometimes when I would use it, I might be saying things are being put aside. Like the NDA right now is almost it sounds tabled. It's a parliamentary term. Right.

In some respects. So I don't know. We'll find out. Our listeners will brief us. I do think there is reason for optimism in Congress, by the way. I think the problem in the short term is they're all worried about getting elected. They were in a total neurotic state.

rant about what was happening between Trump and Biden. Now that it's Trump and Harris, it's getting very interesting. I'm interested, Bryce, because you're basically the bloke that wrote the book about disclosure. Tell me, who do you think would be, out of both potential presidents, who do you think would be the most likely disclosure candidate, if there was one at all?

I'm really sorry you asked me that, because what I say, I'm going to be held up for ridicule by at least 50% of our audience. So before you write your comments, folks, I'm just telling you what seems obvious to me. Trump is more of a wild card. So

Unless he's been told not to do something or whatever, even then he might do something. So he's a wild card. He might be the disclosure person. Maybe. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. She also, as vice president, received high-level intelligence briefings.

So I'm pretty sure that she knows that there is something legitimate going on with UAP, whether in the back of her head, she might be thinking, if I get in there, then I'll talk more openly about this. I can't say. So don't leave your hate comments. I'm just trying to lay it out. I think neither one of them.

clearly seem all that interested in doing it. So I personally think I wouldn't look for Trump or Harris should either get elected to lead the charge on this. I would look for either one of them to have to respond to breaking news and or news coming from the Hill about language that has been passed. And then I might see them commenting. So yeah, I

I think it's a hard one. And I don't think we know the answer. I guess that's my answer to you. And by the way, before we get into this more, I just had one thing that I wanted to put out there because what we're always trying to do is figure out, well, what's the truth here? You know, what's really going on? And that's certainly what our show is about. So, you know,

Because we last episode, we so successfully ran through the decades of, you know, all the decades that ended in four from 1944 to 54 to 64 to 74. So just before we went on, I got on chat GPT and I gave it a prompt. What major UFO events took place in August? Thinking that I might just pop in one of those ideas about, well, this is the anniversary of such an event. Okay.

ChatGPT wasted about half a second to print out a response to me where it said the Lubbock Lights in Texas happened in August of '51. The Westall School Elementary School sighting in Australia, where you are and you've covered it, happened in 1966. The Phoenix Lights happened in 1997 in August. And the Belgian Wave happened in 1999 in August. OK.

Only one of those is true. The one that's true is the Lepic lights did happen on August 25th, 1951. But Westall happened in April. Phoenix happened in March. Belgium happened in November. So I just want to tell everybody, let's slow the roll a bit on passing around information that we get from AIs.

Clearly, what the AI, what I would hope a legitimate source of information in artificial intelligence would have done in that case is to say, I don't have that information. I do know Lubbock happened or something. But instead, it just took a header. It just said,

These are the ones that happened. And it's not true. There's nothing true about it. So there it is. It's true. Yeah. I think it's interesting because one of the things I wanted to talk about in terms of the relevance of potential disclosure is the significance of AI. You know, once AI is

human intelligence or overtakes human intelligence once we reach AGI and beyond, artificial general intelligence and beyond, I think it's going to become impossible to hide this secret. It's very interesting because you're right, AGI

AI is basically crap at the moment, but I'm quite amazed how often I've seen footnotes made up. There was a great story here in Australia where a lawyer ran a case in Australia and cited a whole lot of legal precedents that it was only when the opposition side checked and they discovered these precedents didn't exist, and he was begrudgingly forced to admit he'd put it through AI in a real hurry because he hadn't had time to prepare for the case.

imagine, my friend, the moment when AGI passes human intelligence and when it's able to make connections that at the moment, as humans with our very limited brain spans, we're not able to make. I think that's actually going to be a tipping point, if you like, in this subject. But I also think, to be honest, one of the more plausible roads for disclosure is going to come from, as you say, scientific discovery.

I increasingly hear from sources in places like NASA and Defence in the United States that there are things that are known astronomically that are not being revealed to the public. And I wonder what the James Webb telescope is seeing that we haven't been told about yet.

I'm really interested to know how hard it is to conceal something in the scientific community because, frankly, scientists are bigger gossips than us journalists. They love sharing information. It's in their DNA. And one of the reasons why I think I do know about the Legacy Retrieval Reverse Engineering Programme

It's because of the great patriotic pride that scientists have in the work that they've been doing on behalf of the US government and private aerospace for so many years. And they're as bewildered as you and I are about why the public can't at least know what

that we are in the presence of a non-human intelligence. They do accept that there are weapons. I think you could call them scalar weapons. Let's use that word. Scalar weapons that cannot be disclosed to the public how they operate.

But I think it's widely known inside the national security state that really it's becoming untenable for them to keep these secrets for much longer. And I do think that it's not going to come from a President Harris or a President Trump standing up at a podium and basically making an announcement. I suspect it will come as a result of a scientific discovery that makes the realisation of what we're talking about all too obvious.

Well, if NASA, for example, knew something about...

that got from the Webb telescope that hasn't been revealed. I think that's against their charter, A. But also, just people have been calling NASA, saying it stands for never a straight answer, literally since the 60s. So that would fit nicely into that. Just one thought on the AI thing, by the way. Whitley Strieber, who we all know, based on his communion book and his subsequent abductions and other material,

But on his X page, I think the quote, I think it's still there. He wrote, if I was an intelligent machine, I would deceive you, which is so fascinating to me because we are being deceived by AI right now. And I don't think it's because it's so intelligent currently. I think it's because it somehow works.

is either being programmed that way or it's misunderstanding its programming and coming up with theory that I must give a full answer whether I know the facts or not. Which, by the way, don't you think that ought to be able to be something you could tell an AI not to do? We have programmers. Why aren't all these billions of dollars being spent on programming telling AIs don't lie?

Or maybe it's because the AI is only as good as the crap fed into it, you know, garbage in, garbage out. Maybe the simple reality is that there's only so much information that can be revealed. Forgive me, I've just got to get rid of this.

Maybe the simple fact is that there's only so much information that the AI is connecting with that is truthfully sourced. And this is going to become a big problem as we move away from mainstream media, because I,

I'm sorry to get on my hobby horse about this again, but I really do think that what we're also seeing at the moment is the impending collapse of the relevance of mainstream media because it's failing to service the public in the way that it should be by not engaging with this subject seriously. And what's happening is the public is just moving away from the major mastheads looking for their news on these subjects and they're coming to podcasts like ours or our

you know, any one of the innumerable podcasts that investigate these issues for the simple fact that they know they're not getting their news told. There are things that the mainstream media is overlooking and there are things that the mainstream media is failing to properly cover, knowing full well that often they're running stuff that is frankly total crap. I mean, I really don't believe for a

media had no intimation at all that the Ukrainians were potentially involved in the explosion of that gas pipeline. If the Wall Street Journal story is correct, and I suspect it is, good on Seymour Hersh for breaking it all those months ago. But the simple fact is, what is going on

in mainstream media that allows false stories to be published, pushing a line that the Russians were responsible? You know, how is it, for example, that we had all these narratives about, um,

the extent of Russian interference in the American election and narratives about certain laptops of certain sons of certain presidents that were incorrect. You know, we had intelligence officials publishing letters in newspapers basically saying that certain information should be overlooked and ignored.

I can understand why AI is making mistakes because, frankly, a lot of our media is making mistakes. We all make mistakes and we all get led by the nose with disinformation. And hopefully, I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully the lesson from this Ukrainian episode will be that the media sits up and actually starts trying to think, well, what are the stories that we're not covering properly right now? What are we being led by the nose on?

And hopefully, they might come to the realization it's UAPs. Well, you know, good on Seymour Hersh, by the way, who is the gift that keeps on giving. This guy, if I'm not mistaken, didn't he break the Pentagon Papers? Isn't that Seymour? He was one of the people who was breaking the Pentagon Papers. He broke the story of the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. Of course. He's made an allegation.

It's one of the things that I think is a really interesting story of Seymour Hersh's, which has still never been addressed by the national security state properly other than just a sort of a firm denial.

is the idea that the killing of bin Laden was much more complicated than has been explained. And that, you know, it's patently absurd, frankly, that the ISI, the Pakistan ISI, which is the Pakistan Intelligence Agency, didn't know that bin Laden was where he was in this town that was essentially a military barracks town in Pakistan.

And, you know, the official line is that the Americans sent in SEAL Team 6 to whack the guy without the knowledge of the Pakistanis and that there was absolutely, you know, no Pakistan knowledge of this happening and that this guy was living under their noses in Islamabad.

And frankly, Seymour Hersh is the one journalist who's basically raised a question mark about that and suggested that that whole narrative is completely wrong. Maybe people need to go back and have a look at that as well as the UAP story now that they are being begrudgingly forced to admit that they were led by their noses with the intelligence community's willingness to disinform them about the Ukrainian pipeline bombing.

Well, Seymour Hersh is a fearless SOB, and I admire him as a fellow journalist. One of my favorite books is when he wrote Dark Side of Camelot, which he took on the sort of the John Kennedy mythology and was one of the first guys to actually do the work, to lay out in detail that there was a darker side to the Kennedy mystique. And I...

I really enjoyed that. So I guess when I hear all the things that he's done, what you've just mentioned, what I've just mentioned too bad, he's not, you know, as I don't know how old he is right now, but he's up there.

I wish he would, as his swan song, join us here on the UFO brigade because he's fearless. Like I said, you're fearless. But I would just love the company because he keeps nailing it year after year after year because he understands one thing, which is the power centers often don't

lay it out. And if there aren't journalists who sort of demand that they do so, they're not going to step up and do it because it's the right thing to do. Can I make one observation, Bryce, that might interest our audience? Yeah. I'm really struck by the fact that many of the sources that I continue to speak to who assert knowledge of the legacy crash retrieval reverse engineering program have not been engaged with at all by media.

And they're there to be found.

That's the thing that really interests me about this is there's a fundamental problem here, I think, with what's happened to journalism. I mean, in my day, I'm sorry to sound like an old fart, but in my day, when I started out as a journo, you were taught to go to the end of the press release and then work backwards because normally what the minister or the secretary of the department was trying to hide was buried at the very end of the press release. And you had to try and read

ambiguous language in the press release to figure out what this press release was all about. You'd also wait until Friday afternoons. You'd never leave the office at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon because the government would always try and drop the news after the papers had gone to bed.

And so they'd try and put out this stinky bad news immediately after the TV news and the newspapers had put their presses into the roll or put their TV bulletins to the air. And the simple fact is governments try and hide things. And what they're trying to do at the moment on the UAP issue is they are. They're very successfully trying to hide things. There's a huge pushback right now. That's the other thing I really do want to talk about, which is that

You know, there are attacks being directed already at Lou Elizondo, David Grush. You know, there's a very clear disinformation operation. I'm sorry, I perceive what Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick has been doing recently as disinformation. He's the former head of ARO.

now working as a consultant with Arrow and his sole job seems to be to go around trying to pour cold water on the suggestion that there's any truth to any of this UFO stuff. And we have to believe this avuncular gentleman because he's got a doctor in front of his name and, you know, he's got the prestige of now working at a prestigious laboratory. He's a scientist. Maybe he even wears a white coat. Gosh, we should believe him, of course. And that's very much what's going on at the moment.

There's a very deliberate disinformation operation going on to try and mislead the public. And it's sad, frankly. And I think unless the public turn this into an election issue and make it very clear to their politicians that they care about this issue and want it to be at the forefront of what politicians get talked about without the usual snickering and giggling that normally happens when UFOs get talked about, I'm afraid it will disappear from the national debate.

I agree with you. By the way, two quick thoughts. I can't believe you just said if they want to break it, they're going to break it at 5 o'clock on a Friday because that is exactly what Richard Dolan and I said in AD After Disclosure. In our first chapter, we said if anybody was actually truly going to have a disclosure moment, it would happen at 4 or 5 o'clock Friday afternoon because they're

The B team is taking over for the weekend. The stock market is closed and et cetera. So I had to smile about that. The other thing is you talk about, well, the guy's got a white lab coat. This is apropos of nothing other than it's kind of a humorous aside. When I was doing my very first television series, it was about a medical surgeon in New York City.

And I was doing research. So a woman at the local hospital, the UCLA hospital, said, well, she was trying to shadow a female surgeon. So she said, well, just show up at 6 a.m. and put on a white lab coat and bring a, you know, just bring something to write with.

And so I did. I just bought a lab coat at a medical supply center and went in with a clipboard. And I just stood there and I was writing things down. And, you know, everybody just treated me like I was legitimate to be there because I had the white lab coat on. And then the wind up to this thing is a woman came in who had been shot in the stomach.

And the attending surgeon in charge goes, okay, she's critical. We're not going to make it. We've got to get up into surgery now. You, you, you. Let's go. He tweeted at me. And I'm freaking out. I look over at this woman. She nods. Just go ahead. I ended up in an eight-hour surgery.

Wow. With this woman. I didn't get trusted. I wasn't cutting on her, nothing like that. I was just inside it. Everyone just assumed I was a doctor. And I feel like statute of limitations has expired. I can explain this now. But my point is...

We so often are conned by the appearance of legitimacy. And it's up to us to ask questions about those kinds of things because not everything is exactly as you expect. That's so true, Bryce. It's funny. I've got to tell you my story about the same thing is –

Quite often in TV journalism, we had to do surveillance and, you know, we'd be on some street somewhere and, you know, there was nowhere to hide. If you sat in your car, you stuck out, you know, you looked obvious. And so we bought the TV show I worked for, we bought one of those little tents that workers put up when they're going down a manhole cover and we wore yellow work jackets and plastic work construction helmets.

And we had clipboards. And then we put a bit of wire across the road and we were just writing on our clipboard, keeping an eye on the house down the road with the cameraman in the tent filming the house down the road. We never once got challenged.

And the hilarious thing was one day we were in a hurry. So we just hired a VW van with curtains on the windows. And we were blown within about five minutes. You know, somebody walked past and went, gee, there are five men sitting inside a VW van just down the road. What's going on? We'll call the police. And so the police came and rumbled us. And we had to admit we were a TV show staking out the house up the road.

But you're absolutely right, because what people don't realize is how easily we are fooled. I mean, if you put on a yellow traffic vest and a construction jacket and have a clipboard, you can pretty much get away with anything and get in anywhere. Since I started, and I have to add this one detail, because it is kind of funny. We got up to the third floor where it was time for surgery. And he said, well, all right, we got to get scrubbed in.

So I'm feeling like, okay, at this point, they're going to tell me to get lost. Right. But, and again, the woman looks at me and just nods, go ahead. And so I walk into this scrub area and I, I don't know what the hell I'm doing. You know, I'm just washing my hands basically. And the attending surgeon looks at me and he goes, who the hell told you how to scrub?

And he grabbed my hand and he scrubs them. And then I went in. So there you go. So listen, I know that we have, we were going to talk about the sort of the, the whole disclosure scenario about all the things that are going to change. And I think we should postpone that at this point for a future episode, since we're already getting close to the end, but let me give a highlight to it. Um,

Because in preparation for this, I did read this book that Richard Dolan and I wrote. But we wrote it in 2010 and updated it in 2012. And I read it and I thought, well, you know, on the big parts, we're largely accurate. But on the, you know, we tried to make it very current. So all the television references and all the current politician references are all wrong. And before the age of Trump and things like that.

But I just wrote down, and this, I guess, we'll highlight it for the next time. But these are the, you know, Richard and I had a year-long conversation. Imagine what you and I do. We've done this for two and a half years now and all those conversations. Well, Richard and I were doing that. We're

regularly for about a year where we would just call each other up and go, what do you think will happen with? And then we'd have a conversation and hang up and go, well, that was great. So I just wrote down some of the things that we, we speculate about how the world's going to change after we all accept that

that we're not alone. And this is just the list: law, science, education, culture, religion, politics, medical, economics, literature, anthropology, archaeology, psychology, history, media, energy, stock market, military, technology, transportation. I mean, my guess, my point is,

when we finally get to the point where it isn't just those of us who are listening to podcasts and who are somewhat informed, understand that we're not alone, but everybody does, it's going to change the world. And, uh, and so I guess the response I would have to why are people being so difficult about just, you asked earlier, why don't they just come clean about this?

And it's because I think they understand that the world's going to change. And among the things that will change will be some of the people may have even committed crimes, but they've certainly stood in the way of progress. There's going to be a lot of change that's brought about through that. And there's nothing—

that can be done but accept the change. I mean, just start with one basic thing, though, Ross. It's like, if in fact these things are flying around using bubble technology that puts them in another dimension, basically, like Elizondo said, well, then we know they're not flying around on gasoline.

Right. We know they're not using natural gas. They're not solar powered, wind powered or anything. They're doing something different, whatever that is. And so right there, you've got the entire energy of the entire world that's been predicated for a century and more on emissions.

easy oil and gas energy, and we don't need it anymore, if that's the case. So it's going to get weird and fast. And so finally, the final thing I would say about that is people like to talk right now about, well, we can either manage disclosure or we'll have catastrophic disclosure. That's the new buzzword. I don't even buy catastrophic disclosure. You know, the

Disclosure is disclosure. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't a little bit know that we're not alone. Once you know we're not alone, whether they tried to make it what I call a hard cut or a slow dissolve, there's going to be a little bit of catastrophe in it and a little bit of

And it's like General Buck Turgidson said in Dr. Strangelove when asked about nuclear war, he said, I ain't saying we're not going to get our hair must. Right. George C. Scott. So, yeah, our hair is going to get must. But does that mean we shouldn't do anything? And I think the answer is no. We have to do something.

And Bryce, can I just say, I love that line. I ain't saying you're not going to get your hair masked. I think that's as good a line to end on as any. So maybe we should call it for need to know this week. And just reminding people, if they want to hear the full Lou Elizondo interview, there'll be an interview on reality check this coming Friday, the 23rd, 10 PM Eastern time on Banfield news nation. And, and,

Bryce and I will be back to discuss it. I have to do one of my upcomings, too, though. I'll be watching that reality check with Lou. I'm speaking at Shag Harbor on September 29th. And so I just wanted to put that shout out to the Shag Harbor people. Anyone that wants to meet me that can get there, I'd be happy to see you there. It's always fun to do those things. Mark, our friend-

Just remind me, Bryce, that's the big Canadian case, isn't it? That's sort of the Canadian thing where they thought so many people saw something

or they thought crashing, but it went into the water. I'm going to be going up to the actual site where this happened. I don't know a ton about it right now. I hope to know a little more before I show up there. And I'm speaking on the topic of my new book, which is not going to be done until maybe Thanksgiving, but that's called Strange Visitors, Close Encounters of the Hollywood Kind. So that's my little update. Other than being a grandfather, all is good with me. So that's my take.

Will your event be filmed? No, I don't want them to film it because the truth is I'm putting a lot of stuff out there that I would prefer to tell in my own way in that book. So, but I am going to get into, I mean, I'm not trying to, I don't have any government secrets. I haven't been, I haven't signed an NDA. Wouldn't that be funny? The Shag Harbor people go, Mr. Zabel, before you speak, we just have something you need to sign, sign here. Yeah.

Listen, it's always fun kicking this around. Congratulations on scoring another big one with Lou after his book. That's really cool. I urge everyone to listen. And again, I'll say it one more time. Do buy his book. It's a good way to support the man for the hard work he's done all this time. And it's such a great read. So that's my take. I second that. Thanks for joining us. See you all later. Bye-bye.