Ross Coulthart: Recovered UAPs, Whistleblower Grusch [Part 2]

Ross Coulthart: Recovered UAPs, Whistleblower Grusch [Part 2]

Show Video

This is real. There is an intelligence source by the name of David Grusch who has come forward saying that he is aware of a crash retrieval program that has been illegally kept secret from the American public. He's also alleged by the way, bodies. Ross Coulthart is a world renowned investigative journalist who's built a career reporting on issues ranging from war to corporate malfeasance to what brings us here today, namely the UAP topic. His work includes award-winning documentaries, for instance, many of them from the 60 Minutes Australia, as well as the UFO phenomenon. Ross has a notable book titled In Plain Sight, which serves as a fantastic, sober, no-fluff introduction to the subject and links as usual to everything is in the description. Recently, Ross has made headlines for his interview with UFO whistleblower David Grusch, a former member of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, also known as AARO, and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, where Grusch made claims about the existence of non-human origin vehicles, as well as even bodies.

That interview gained worldwide attention. The last interview with Ross on the Theories of Everything podcast is one of the most viewed of all of the podcasts on TOW. Needless to say, this episode, a second part with Ross, is one of the most requested. My name is Curt Jaimungal, and I have a podcast here called Theories of Everything, where I use my background in mathematical physics to analyze theories of everything, predominantly from a theoretical physics perspective, though I'm interested in other approaches as to what's fundamental. Is presentism correct? What about holism over reductionism? What about consciousness? Where does experience come into play? What ontological status does mathematics have? You can think of it as explorations of the largest mysteries of the universe without already having some defined position that I'm advocating for and trying to force the conversation in a contrived way toward it. At approximately the 20 to 30 minute mark, there will be a couple of ads. Those drastically help TOW, as well as the patrons. You'll also get audio episodes like this,

ad-free and early. For instance, this episode was released a couple days ago, prior to it premiering on YouTube as a thank you to the patrons. So thank you to the sponsors, and thank you to the patrons. If you'd like to support Theories of Everything, this podcast, then visit slash CURTJAIMUNGAL, that's c-u-r-t-j-a-i-m-u-n-g-a-l, with a donation of whatever you like. It genuinely helps. It helps both financially, as well as emotionally, that is, motivationally. To know that there are other people like yourself who are willing to support a project like this, to bring it to other people, to thousands, to even millions of people, at zero cost. That's super fantastic. So thank you, thank you to all the patrons, and thank you to you who are watching.

Enjoy this podcast with Ross Coulthart. Good morning, Curt. Well, Ross, how's your morning going? My morning is terrific, Curt. I'm having my first cup of coffee, and it's bitterly cold here in Australia, where I live. Probably a bit warmer where you are, but I'm very, very happy because I've just seen the Douglas Dean Johnson report on some legislation that I've known is coming for a while, which is the Gillibrand Amendment, which essentially requires holders of non-Earth origin or exotic UAP materials. They give them six months to make it available to ARO, the Pentagon's UAP Investigation Office. And whilst it's dry and dusty legislation, it's extraordinarily significant

to see the Pentagon putting in black and white text, references to non-human origin technology. Essentially, it's an explicit admission of what people like myself and David Grusch, the UAP witness have known for some considerable time, that there are witnesses that have come forward to the Congress, oversight committees, notably the House Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence, and also the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence, and multiple witnesses, whether the debunkers, denialists want to know it or not, have given evidence about their knowledge of a legacy crash retrieval and reverse engineering program that is in operation right now, right now, that your country, Canada, is involved in. And I think slowly but surely, we are incrementally getting closer to an acknowledgement that there is a truth behind all of this.

You said that you and David Grusch know about. You feel as if you know this. I've been in the difficult position, even the first time that I spoke to you, of having confidential sources who are not yet prepared to go public. And in recent times, David Grusch, of course, has been one of them. People who support his contention that there is

a crash retrieval program that has been in existence for some considerable time, involving the retrieval of non-human technology, and that there has been secret agreements within the Five Eyes Alliance for the retrieval of that technology. And more importantly, that the United States, in collaboration with other countries, has been involved in the attempted reverse engineering of that technology. And yes, I have multiple witnesses who purport to be bought to be knowledgeable about the legacy UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program, including David Grusch, who are at the right time prepared to come forward with their evidence. Evidence other than testimonial coming? Yeah, there probably will be. I mean, I think a lot depends, frankly, on how the Congress handles

it from here. I'll be honest with you, my friend, I'm very skeptical, quite glim, glum at the moment about the possibilities that the Congress is going to run with this. I do see and hear from individual representatives and senators who are dedicated and determined to get to the truth of this matter. But I think that there are competing interests here. You have to, I don't want to sound like some wacky conspiracy theorist,

but the reality is that the military and the intelligence community in the United States are an extremely formidable and powerful lobby in the Congress. Many congressmen and senators are reliant on support from that industry for the continued reelection, including people who sit on the respective committees in the Congress. And really, I think at the moment, where we're at, at the moment is you have, since David Grusch went public a few weeks ago, you have people in the skeptic debunker camp, and quite rightly, I think, saying, well, where's the evidence? And debunkers quite rightly say, well, he hasn't provided any yet. But I think there's a bit of

willful blindness going on there. People are ignoring the fact that Mr. Grusch legally faces criminal prosecution if he reveals the full extent of what he knows, and about which he has testified, not only to the two congressional intelligence committees, but also to the Inspector General of Defense and the Inspector General of the intelligence community. And I don't want to sound like a long winded lawyer. And I really think I have to keep on saying this until the sun goes down. But the simple fact is, his evidence has been provided under oath to the relevant

government agencies and committees that are entitled to hear it. And I respect and understand why there are officials in our intelligence and community and defense community who want to keep certain aspects highly confidential. I can actually understand why they're doing that. Knowing what I know, not from David Grusch, but from other sources, I can understand why certain things, certain technologies, certain potential weaponries, certain capabilities are being kept confidential. What I do find increasingly bewildering is the reluctance of mainstream media

to acknowledge a growing reality. I've just this morning read a stupid piece written by a columnist in my national newspaper in Australia, the Australian newspaper. And it's a column entitled space aliens are everywhere. Oh, wait. And essentially, it's a pisstake. It's an attack on so called conspiracists, who've said that the Pentagon knows all about UFOs, but have withheld it from the President and the Congress, preferring to exploit the non human technology. And essentially, it's a pisstake. It's a laugh, the whole idea, the whole concept that there might be some veracity to

this. And the thing that really shocks me is, I guess, I'm lucky, because I've been talking to people now for several years, who have a knowledge of this program. I mean, no data exists. And people can call me a tinfoil hat crazy as much as they like. But the simple fact is, it's real. And it's slowly but surely dribbling out. I've spoken to senators and representatives in the Congress, and staffers, who've told me that they have been in the room when credible witnesses have given evidence, multiple witnesses have given evidence about retrieved non human technology. So my friend,

the only question in my mind, I'm very, very skeptical in light of the ridiculous blowback from even people in the UFO UAP community, who should know better skills for the Pentagon, people who are conspiring in the cover up. There is a real problem at the moment in getting mainstream media engagement on this issue. And it's not that there's some dark conspiracy, there's not some intelligence service, black men in black, telling editors not to run the story. What this is, is a residual stigma, a taboo that's been attached to this subject so well.

And the hilarious thing is, I'm actually talking to people in the military who want this story out from within the high levels at the Pentagon, who are frustrated that the national mainstream media is not engaging with this issue. They are incredulous that the disinformation campaign has been so effective, that you've now got newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post, either dismissing or passing, or taking their time dragging their feet on deciding whether or not they want to investigate the allegations of a man like David Grusch. Frankly, mate, I don't know what's going on in the national newspapers in the US, Canada, and Australia, and the UK, and most of the world's major newspapers anymore. When an intelligence insider of the caliber of David Grusch comes forward, somebody who has indubitable, credible credentials, who the Pentagon in the three or four weeks since he went public, has not laid a glove on his credibility. Don't you think, if there was anything that they could

pull out of the cupboard to attack David Grusch with, the Pentagon would have done by now. They are desperately trying to plug the leaks and stop this from coming out. They're terrified that they are involved, and indeed, according to Mr. Grusch, involved in a potentially criminal

conspiracy. There are people at the highest levels of the Pentagon who have knowingly covered up and concealed from the Congress knowledge of a non-human intelligence. They've done this for 80 plus years. The thing that is fascinating to me is, we now have legislation that my colleague and friend, Douglas Dean Johnson, has written about today, which specifically states that there's now a bill written by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, which gives holders of non-Earth origin or exotic UAP material, essentially an amnesty to come forward with what they know. Why would Congress demand the necessity for such legislation if they didn't know something? What is going wrong with the curiosity of the world's greatest newspapers? This is not, as some charge, a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Don't buy into the line that this is some spurious allegation made by some

wacky, ill-informed intelligence operative. This is somebody, David Grusch is somebody who at the very highest levels of the US intelligence community was cleared to top secret compartmented intelligence, more than 2000 special access programs. This is a guy with one of the highest clearances in the US intelligence community, who was tasked by a congressional mandate to go out as part of the UAP task force to investigate the phenomenon, to find out the truth of what America really knows. And you know what he found? He found a hidden crash retrieval, legacy UFO reverse engineering program that's been going on since the 1940s and 50s.

And frankly, I'm at the stage at the moment where if America's mainstream media and political leadership doesn't want to engage with this issue, then let them deny it. And if the American public don't care about it, let them get on with their lives. Because inherently at the heart of all of this, and I know you have a lot of scientists in your community of watches, Curt, I'm talking to people inside the legacy program, who tell me frustratedly, with great emotion, how much as scientists, they care about the fact that this knowledge is being kept from a huge chunk of the human race, that only a select cadre of people inside the intelligence and military establishment are privy to this information. And they think, they tell me it's unwarranted, it's unlawful.

justifiable. They acknowledge that we should not let our potential adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, gain access to such dangerous technologies. But they see no reason why the human race can't be told what they tell me is the truth, which is there are NHIs, non-human intelligences, that have been engaging with this planet for many, many thousands of years.

thousands, not tens of thousands? Oh, well, I can't specify tens of thousands. I've just, you know, it would be more than tens of thousands. I mean, they've been with us for time immemorial, I'm told. Now... Millions.

That's your words, my friend. I don't know. I don't know for sure. But the simple fact is, I'm kind of, I'm bored with this debate at the moment. You know, I don't care anymore. I just think, you know, people, there's a fundamental failure here of oversight. I know a lot of people are going to get excited with what this new legislation says. And I want to deal with that, because I think it's important that we talk about it. But I have a gut feeling that Congress's heart

is not in this. And that the lobby, the powerful military lobby that wants this suppressed is winning. And sure enough, they've got their shills out there in social media, they've got their friends in the media. You know, every national security correspondent is being told on the QT, stay away from this one.

On the QT? On the quiet. Can you explain how this works? Yeah, sure. I mean, I've reported on national security issues. The thing I find hilarious is, let's use an analogy. Let's talk about what happened at the time of the last Gulf War,

shortly after the Al Qaeda attacks, 2002, 2003. For some reason that has never been even now fully properly explained. Al Qaeda became Iraq and Afghanistan. And we ended up launching totally disastrous wars into both of those countries, based on intelligence from sources. Okay? Now, ask yourself, credulous national security reporters, who have since been hung out to drive for their failure to do their job properly, accepted assurances from the CIA, from Cole Powell and his testimony to the UN. This was an important moment where the world was essentially tricked into going to war against Saddam Hussein on the false claim that he had weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi desert. That was all sourced back, largely in part to one guy called

Curveball. That was his codename, Curveball. A guy based, I think, somewhere in Germany, who was a refugee. And it turned out he was a put up by the Iraqi National Congress, who were essentially a group that were largely aligned with Iran. And because of

credulous national security reporters not doing their job, a source led the world to war in the Middle East. Trillions of dollars have been expended in an unnecessary war. Hundreds of thousands of lives of good people have been lost in an unnecessary war. Now, the problem with that was you had largely American journalists, but also British and Australian journalists. And I

count myself in this as well. I was involved in doing some of these stories. You know, we credulously accepted the assurances that the Americans were giving that there were weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi desert, and that there had to be an engagement with Saddam Hussein to bring this to a resolution to stop this evil man from doing these terrible things. The reality was that it soon emerged within a few weeks of the invasion that there weren't these WMDs. The whole pretext for the war was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. So you have a double

standard here. You have the media back in 2003. What's that 18 years ago, credulously accepting assurances from the National Security Establishment? Oh, yeah, we should believe our sources. Yeah, we should go to war in the Middle East. Absolutely. Now we've got a situation where a highly reputable, credible intelligence source, somebody who personally hand delivered the presidential daily briefings from the National Geospatial Agency directly to the West Wing of the White House, entrusted with 2000 special access programs, goes public and makes very dramatic and, yeah, I'm sure quite ontologically shocking claims about an NHI presence, an alien presence on this planet. And how many stories have you seen in the news sections of the New York Times,

the Washington Post, or any of the TV networks, ABC, CBS, NBC? Not one. The only stories that have run in the New York Times or the Washington Post are doubting op-ed pieces run by opinion writers that are very easily marginalized. Ross Coulthart wants to make this information and technology public so that we can use it for humanity's benefit. Think of how it could

transform entire industries, even providing an instant and desperate needed boost for the global economy, especially after people lost over $36 trillion last year, more than the GDP of the US, China, and Japan combined. Still, every day, people have seen exceptional results in the mists of that turmoil, thanks to Masterwork's ART investing platform, who have had every single exit to date deliver a positive return to investors. We're talking an awe-inspiring 740,000-plus users, over 750 million invested in more than 225 SEC-qualified offerings. They've sold 13 paintings so far, with five of those sales happening just since we talked about them last, in December. Now I hear you, Curt, I'm no art aficionado. Is it truly that simple? Well, Masterworks breaks these paintings into shares through a well-architected process with the SEC, and if they're selling a painting you're invested in, you get a share of the profits. Feel the brushstrokes

of fortune, as three of their recent sales have painted the canvas with 10, 13, and 35% net returns. Now here's the thing, Masterworks has a waitlist. However, because you're a Theories of Everything listener, you get to quantum leap over the waitlist. Just click the link in the description. If you'd like to learn about the topics in this video, then a great place to start would be Brilliant. Brilliant has courses on gravitational physics, electricity and magnetism, quantum objects, even quantum mechanics with Sabine Hossenfelder. It's a place where even if you're

entirely new to a subject, you can come to understand via bite-sized interactive learning experiences these esoteric topics that underlie modern physics. On the Theories of Everything channel, there's plenty of technical talk on extended supersymmetry and symplectic geometry, which underlie some attempts to unify gravity with other interactions. Also soon to come, spacetime metric engineering, symmetric teleparallel gravity, Tern-Simon modifications to general relativity, changing the coupling of the stress-energy tensor from a constant to a variable. And a great place to ascertain the fundamentals of what was just said is Brilliant.

They even have courses on neural nets and statistics and sampling. Often, when I want to learn about a subject, I'll take courses even on those I feel like I've mastered, only for Brilliant to show me new ways of thinking about it. This happened with their course on knowledge and uncertainty, where information theory is taught and intuitive ways of thinking about the definition of entropy are shown to you. It's fruitful for me to know where certain unification attempts with

gravity work and don't work, and Brilliant is a great place for me to patch up gaps in my knowledge, helping me conduct better podcasts and make more informed assessments. Visit slash TOE, that's T-O-E, for 20% off your annual premium subscription. As usual, I recommend you don't stop before four lessons. You just have to get wet. You have to try it out, and I think you'll be greatly surprised at the ease at which you can now comprehend subjects you previously had a difficult time grokking. The only stories that have run in the New York Times or the

Washington Post are doubting op-ed pieces run by opinion writers that are very easily marginalized. Why is it that on the one hand, 18 years ago, the same national security reporters were so credulously willing to accept and to parrot the assertions of intelligence officials that, oh yes, we do have high evidence, strong evidence to support a war in the Middle East. And now, 18 years later, yet again, their critical faculties are under test. Why are they accepting what I assume is going on behind the scenes, which is background briefings from people in Pentagon PR saying, oh no, no, this is all nonsense. Don't believe this guy.

He's got an axe to grind or whatever it is they're saying about David Grusch. The reality is, if they had dirt on David Grusch, they would have played dirty by now. They would have dumped it. And for all of the snide carping that you've read on social media, I have not seen any credible refutation drawing any reasonable doubt about why David Grusch should not be allowed to say what he's saying. Yes, he hasn't put up the evidence that he can't put up because it's classified. But why on earth did the Defense Office of Pre-Publication Security Review give him the authorization to talk about non-human intelligence, about crash retrievals, about agreements? Why did he do that? He did that because he believes on the basis of evidence he has received, he thinks the American public and the world have the right to know the truth. And frankly, if we are going to continue with the incredible lack of curiosity inside the mainstream media, where not one news reporter has engaged with this issue in a serious way, they've all just ignored it. They've gone, oh my

God, I can't talk about that. Because if I talk about that, I won't get invited to the next Pentagon press briefing where I get told about, say, the latest scoop defector story or the, you know, this is how it works. Chomsky talked about this in manufacturing consent as well for the Vietnam War. But it's not just the UFO topic, like you mentioned, it's the Iraq War as well. It's

something that's known about. Yeah. And look, it's a really important one because it's part of David Grusch's allegations, and they are only allegations. He's been at pains to say, yeah, sure, I've got the evidence. If you want the evidence, put me under oath in the right circumstances where

I'm allowed to give that evidence, and I will provide it. But he's not about to put himself in jail by revealing what he knows in a public forum, because the Pentagon knows that they have him where they want him. If he reveals beyond what he's authorized to reveal in the so called DOPSA, the Defense Office Pre-Publication Security Review document, if he goes beyond that document, he's in jail in a flash for breaching his classified constraints. So, you have a really

which I really think people need to, particularly opinion leaders, particularly thought leaders in politics, social media. We're now in a situation where the Congress, I know, because I've been talking to people in the Congress, has actively interviewed and deposed witnesses who support Grusch's claims. That's why this legislation that Douglas Dean Johnson has written about today is so significant. Why would the Congress be talking about companies that are holding secretly items of non-Earth origin, or exotic UAP material, if they didn't think there was something to it? The people behind this move, Gillibrand, Marco Rubio, it's not unreasonable to expect that they have presidential ambitions one day. Would they really put their presidential ambitions on the line by making assertions implicit in legislation like this, if they didn't think there was something to it? And what on earth is going on inside the major newspapers in America, Canada, the UK, Australia, that this issue is just consistently ignored and swept under the carpet? Yeah. I mean, we didn't go, when I was approached

by David and it was suggested that I do this TV interview, I didn't even consider going to ABC, CBS, or NBC. You know why? Because I knew we wouldn't have got within QE of getting it on air. And the reason why is because all of these networks, all of these major newspapers, have completely lost their objectivity on national security issues. You know, it's really interesting. One of the things I've noticed just in the last few hours, while this whole pre-Gozan advance on Moscow has been going on, the best commentary has not been coming from the New York Times or the Washington Post, because all of these institutions, they no longer have the resources to have their reporters on the ground doing the work that these kind of papers used to do. They're waiting for the Pentagon to tell them what to say. And that's the tragedy. So I've been going on to Telegram, I've been going on to the sites where you actually have Russian observers, Ukrainian observers on the ground reporting directly what's really going on. And this is why social media, I think, in the long run, will be the entity that breaks the story of the UAP reality. Because mainstream legacy media, of which I've been a part for so many years,

has completely dropped the ball on the UAP issue. That's the problem. And it's a huge dilemma. Because I suspect that there are people in the Pentagon right now, who feel that they've done a really good job suppressing this story, that David Grusch has been effectively marginalized. And they're working, I'm sure, behind the scenes right now, to try and neuter any congressional inquiries. I mean, for example, Tim Burchett, the Tennessee representative, and Comer, the chairman of the Oversight Committee in the House, they've volunteered that they want a hearing. They want an investigative hearing by the Oversight Committee into Dave Grusch's allegations.

And they've made it quite clear they'd like to call Grusch. But there's no way they have the clearances to hear what David Grusch wants to tell them. It's pointless. I mean, I have huge respect for their motivations and what they're trying to achieve. But even if they do it in camera, it's not entirely clear to me that all of the members of the Oversight Committee that would want to hear this evidence have the Title 10, Title 50 clearances that would allow them to hear what has been so well locked up by the national security establishment behind special access programs for so many years. And people are missing the point here. Everywhere you go on this story, the Pentagon's there ahead of you. And I'm not painting some evil picture. There are really good people in the Pentagon that I respect and admire, good people in the intelligence community who are extremely well motivated and who want this story out. They are as frustrated as we all are

with the fact that there's a lot of nonsense being used to disguise and hide what the Pentagon and the government really knows. But unfortunately, there are a cadre of people who I suspect are frightened of being held responsible for the consequences of their actions, who have presided over what I suspect is a long and enduring cover up for decades. And it's quite astonishing because in my line of work as a journalist, you always get taught to assume a screw up before a conspiracy. Very rarely do conspiracies happen, largely because governments can't keep secrets. But in this case, they have kept this secret. They've done an incredible job. And when it's leaked, they've

been able to marginalize, ridicule and stigmatize the people who've come forward. Because people say, oh, it's never leaked, you know, therefore it can't be true. It has leaked. People have come forward. But what the National Security Establishment has done so well through operatives of disinformation, who continue to get traction to my huge frustration, even on social media today, and I'm not going to name them. But there are people that consistently appear on social media and plant false information who purport to be representing government agencies. And they're not

all they are shills of disinformation. And they're there to essentially continue to sow doubt about the issue. It's brilliant. I take my hat off to them. They've done a fantastic job. But I can tell you the Congress or there are individuals in the Congress who are determined to get to the bottom of this. And this legislation, this bill that Senator Gillibrand has now brought to the house or is about to bring to the house is incredibly important. It's vitally important that this legislation pass because it's only a bill at this time. Do you think it will? It's a tough gig. I

mean, okay, it's a bipartisan measure. Both sides of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence want this bill to pass Marco Rubio's for it as well. I think ultimately, what it boils down to is whether there is the political will in the Congress and the political will is derived from public sentiment. And at the moment, you know, I would say that because of the control that the mainstream media has even to this day, on social opinion, public opinion, I would say it's a line ball at the moment, whether or not the Congress is going to back it. And certainly, I think there

probably will be private in camera secret congressional hearings like there already have been. Because, I mean, what we're talking about here, it's already known, Marco Rubio, Senator Gillibrand, they already know what I know. They already know about the legacy program and the reverse engineering program, because there have been depositions of witnesses plural, who have provided evidence to their committees to support the claims made by David Grusch. And people missed this point. Secretly inside the Congress now, for quite some time, many, many months, there have been hearings where witnesses have come forward. And I'm told at

least one of those hearings, Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor for the President may very well have been involved. Why are the White House Press Corps not asking questions like this? Did you see that ridiculous question and answer with, forgive me if I've got her name, is it Corinne Jean-Pierre, the presidential spokeswoman? Lovely woman, but she was asked the other day about the claims made by Mr. Grusch. And she just deferred it. She just ducked past it to the Pentagon and said, you'll have to ask the Pentagon about that. Why is it satisfactory for

the White House Press Corps, supposedly the elite of media in the world, to allow the presidential spokesperson to duck a question that is absolutely fundamental, when a very senior intelligence operative recently resigned, has come forward saying all these incredible things? They may well be incredible. They may very well be ontologically shocking to people. But why is the media not doing its job and asking the question? Why did the White House Press Corps when that question was asked, just let the presidential spokeswoman duck it and say, oh, you'll have to ask the Pentagon about that? Because what the Pentagon then does is it says, Arrow, which is the Pentagon's UFO investigation office, has no credible evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial presence on planet Earth or something like that. And that's not an answer. The Pentagon is confining its answers to Arrow. And Arrow is heavily constrained in where it's allowed to look and what it's allowed to do, because it doesn't have the security clearances it needs to make the investigations it needs to be able to do into special access programs that are concealing, allegedly, these hidden programs. And so, you've got this catch all where the public is being fed

a line and where you see columns like this in my national newspaper, which are just spurious nonsense, where they essentially, without any justification, they make a claim that it's all a conspiracy theory. And they don't look at the fact that the Pentagon is saying, gee, we think this is serious enough to put in legislation, reference to technology of non earth origin. Gee, as journalists, maybe we should ask the question, why is the Pentagon being asked, or why a private aerospace being asked to reveal if they have items of non earth origin, if there's nothing to this? Why is it good enough? I mean, do you get the feeling I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over again? Because I do. I mean, I don't know what has happened to the capacity for critical thinking that used to be in the American media I know. I mean, what happens to

the brave and resolute congressmen and women who would ask tough questions, the Daniel Inouye, the Harry Reeds, the people who would actually stand up and question? Are we to accept that now Congress's role is to meekly rubber stamp what the Pentagon and the intelligence community say? Because we're being played here. Even this legislation that is coming up in the Gillibrand bill, it's very constrained in what it requires these companies to do. Under my reading of this legislation, if the aerospace company was privately involved in the recovery of non human technology, if it didn't use the US government to recover that technology, it doesn't have to report it to Arrow. It doesn't have to report it to Congress. And I'm told that on multiple occasions, private aerospace companies using military, private military contractors have been involved in crash retrievals. And I can hear the debunkers and the declaimers going rolling their eyes and going wacky conspiracy theory. I don't care what you guys think. I know what my sources are telling

me. And my sources are telling me that private aerospace companies have been involved in private retrievals. And under the Senate Intelligence Committee proposed legislation, I don't think there would be an obligation on those private aerospace companies to reveal what they have. Another loophole in this legislation that's a worry to me is that if a private aerospace company is in possession of technology that was recovered with government assistance or was passed on to them by government, say 50 6070 years ago, if they divest themselves of that technology, then they're not required under my reading of this bill to report it to the Congress or to the Arrow. What do you mean if they divest themselves of the technology? Okay, well, I understand at the moment, I'll tell you my understanding. This is how much I know. I am told that right at this very moment, there is a major private aerospace company that is trying to divest itself of a craft. It has approached another company expressing interest in selling

that technology to them. And the reason why? I suspect it's because they've known this legislation is coming. That's what's going on here. You have private aerospace companies that are actively involved in trying to subvert the intention of Congress. Now, roll your eyes, I don't care.

The simple fact is, there are people who are telling me this from within the legacy program, who are very concerned that there is an active attempt underway to hide technology from the Congress. And there's another issue here. Another issue is, if a private aerospace company has been involved in a retrieval, as I understand they have been, by law, it's their property. Sure, they may have to reveal it to the Congress. But by law, there's a very, very good argument that they are under no obligation to hand over that technology or to give the knowledge to the government. And that's because there's actually a law called the Law of Ownership and Control of Meteorites. And essentially, there are provisions in international law that mean that it's not just

meteorites. Essentially, if you come into possession of something, and you've spent the money on recovering it yourself, it's an incentive for people to develop the technology that might arise from that recovery, that they enjoy the private ownership of that material. So, one of the issues that we have behind all of this is, let's assume, hypothetically, that there are private aerospace companies that have been sitting on technology for 50, 60, 70 years. In the first category, let's say Roswell happened in 1947. And let's say around about 1950 or so, perhaps in the 1970s, the Roswell craft was passed on to a private aerospace company. What happens then, if they've had possession of that object for 50, 60 years? Does the US government really have a claim on that technology? In law, there's a question mark.

And what if, as I noticed, somebody was recently asserting just in the last 24 hours on Twitter, what if say, technology from recoveries in the US has been moved extraterritorially into Canada? Oh, gee, that's interesting. What if Canada was secretly in possession of retrieved technology that is owned by a US aerospace company and being worked on by, oh, say, Canadian government scientists in collaboration with US scientists? What's the law on that? Does the US Congress have extraterritorial control over that technology? Interesting question. And then separately from that, another loophole that you could drive a truck through here is, what if those private aerospace companies have recovered that technology using private military contractors? As I understand, it has very much been the case in the last few years. What if it's been entirely recovered by those private aerospace companies, perhaps in collaboration with the US government, but they've spent all the money and all the resources on doing that? Shouldn't they ought properly to have the rights to that technology? I mean, imagine hypothetically if it is true. Imagine, just imagine if it is true that say, Lockheed Martin, let's say Lockheed Martin has a spacecraft. Let's say they've got a perfectly

operating flying saucer from say, Kingman, Texas, sitting on blocks somewhere in a cave, sitting in a private facility somewhere. Why do they have to give that technology knowledge to the Congress? And why should they? They're a private aerospace company. They've got every reason to want to develop an advantage over their corporate rivals. Even if that company was dealing with the government? Well, that's the issue. The issue is, I've spoken to people at a very high level in Silicon Valley

who have resources and money, who are very angry that they believe technology was gifted, vested into private aerospace companies 50, 60 years ago when they didn't exist. And they're now aware of this. And what they're not angry about is that the public don't know about it. What they're angry about is that they've not been cut into it. That's what's going on here. And it may all sound like a wacky conspiracy theory, but let's see it investigated. Grusch has made these claims. He has risked his career. He's risked his security classification to come forward and give evidence. And he's done it by the book.

He still has those security classifications? He does. Okay. Can I summarize the Grusch story and see if I have it correct? Sure. So Grusch is a senior official. He has, was a senior official, has or had plenty of access to different secret parts of the government, secret activities.

I'm trying to make this simple for myself and the audience as well. He's like, okay, I'm seeing something here that has to do with non-human intelligence. I'm hearing it through the grapevine. I perhaps have seen documents. No, no. It's more than through the grapevine. He's spoken directly with people in the legacy programs or people who at least purport to have had direct knowledge and contact with non-human technology. Okay. Then he's like, people, namely the public, should know about this. Okay. How do I go about doing this? Because I don't want to go to jail. So I'm going to go to a part of the government. There's a part of the government called DOPSR. So defense. Defense Office of Pre-Publication Security Review. It's when somebody has got a security clearance, they need to get authorization to speak publicly about whatever it is they want to speak about. They write down in a proposal what they want to say and then DOPSR approves it. And that's exactly what he's done here. He's gone to DOPSR, the Defense Office Pre-Publication Security Review Office, and they have approved him revealing what he's revealed.

Okay. So then he tells them, here's what I want to tell the public. And then they say yes or no, but the parts they say yes to. Sure. And just to be clear, Curt, the fact that DOPSR gives that approval is not an endorsement that what he is saying is necessarily true. All it is is merely an endorsement that what he is saying is not breaching national security. Because that's their role. Their role is to make sure that the statements that he makes don't breach his security classification. Okay. So they're not saying that it's true. They're just saying that what you're saying is not classified. Okay. So then he goes on with you and this huge new story breaks and he says that there are non-human intelligences or non-human crafts and bodies. So what I was thinking is there's this no-win scenario here. Because if he says extraordinary claims, then we can just say, yeah, but the government said that that's not classified.

If that was going on, that would be classified. They would say, please don't talk about that. Well, that's what's going through my head and plenty of others. So how do you think about that? Okay. I mean, I think he had to get DOPSA approval in order to do the interview that he did with myself and that he did with Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal. And he did that. And as I've emphasized, that approval in and of itself doesn't mean it's a warranty by the Defense Department that what he's saying is true. But if the Defense Department had not wanted him to do the interview, then they would have had to have cited the laws that he was breaching by revealing what he knows. And then, as he's explained it to me, to be forced to, he would have taken them on in court and challenged them on that.

And he was ready to do that because if, as he asserts, there is a legal and possibly criminal withholding of evidence from the Congress, that legal challenge would have given him the right to present evidence that would then have validated his claims publicly in a way that would have been incontrovertible for the Defense Department. So, the only choice that they had when presented with the DOPSA application was to give him the approval because they couldn't risk, if he's telling the truth, they couldn't risk the damage that would be caused if they're trying to cover this up of this being forced out into the open in an open hearing in a court. Because there are lawyers who are prepared to take this to the highest courts in the land. There are people in companies in America who are angry that they have been cut out of the vesting of technology that allegedly occurred 50, 60 years ago. And there is bitterness that a small cadre of private aerospace companies in the military intelligence community with a long association with the US government have been given alleged access to this technology in a way that other companies haven't.

Not least because those companies feel they have a better job, a better capacity of developing the technologies than the private aerospace companies that have been trying to do it for 50 or 60 years. That's what's behind all of this. It's not really a public campaign. What's driving the moves in Congress is that privately, there are companies that are bitterly angry that they have been cut out of the loop.

It's part of American capitalism, free enterprise, good old free enterprise, that companies should be able to compete for contracts to help the American government do what it does well. If it's true that there are companies that have been given access to non-human alien technology, and that they've had that technology now for 60, 70, 80 years, if that's true, and that's what Mr. Grusch is alleging, if that's true, then there are other companies in America that have every right to feel resentful and bitter that they've been cut out of the deal. It might explain the reason for some of the dominant companies in defense aerospace today. This is what's at stake here.

And so, what's going on behind the scenes is, yes, there is a formidable military and intelligence lobby trying to shut this whole Grusch stuff down, trying to stop the Senate Intelligence Committee from holding public hearings. And it's the Senate Intelligence Committee, by the way, that has the security clearances that would allow it to hear the evidence that Mr. Grusch has got. But what's going on behind the scenes is, quietly and behind the scenes, there are other people who are not part of that defense aerospace loop, who are bitterly angry, and they are lobbying their congressmen as well. And they're saying, if this is true, and I think it is, because I've had conversations with some of these people, if this is true, this is outrageous. This is an abrogation of the good qualities of American capitalism and free enterprise.

Why should these private aerospace companies be given a free run? Hence, this groundbreaking legislation, which for once and for all is going to force the truth to come to the open. If it's true that there is non-human technology of non-Earth origin, held by private aerospace companies somewhere in the world, under this law that's proposed, they will now be forced to reveal it. That's why this matters. But as a separate issue, I don't know necessarily that the public is going to get told this.

I think that there is quite a strong opinion inside the Congress, even amongst some of the people pushing for disclosure, that if we can get away with revealing this to the Congress privately in oversight committees, inside secure compartmented information, secret compartmented information facilities, or whatever the word is for a SCIF, it might be the better way to do it. I don't think there is a push or a strong feeling in the Congress politically that it's a good idea for America to know, if it's true, that there are non-human intelligences engaging with this planet. I don't think that there is a strong political impetus for the politicians to feel that it's time for the existence of the retention of non-human technology to be brought to public attention. But I do feel, and this is what people need to understand, there is an imperative inside the Congress now for the truth to be brought to the attention of those oversight committees. And it's what those oversight committees decide to do with that information that will be absolutely fundamental.

I mean, no disrespect to, I think, Mark Warner, who's the chairman of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence. But he's, I think, based in Virginia. I mean, who are his constituency in Virginia? The military and intelligence community. What does the military and intelligence community likely want done about some revelations of retained, highly advanced technology? Well, if I was them, if I was the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, I'd want it kept confidential so that we can develop it for our own advantage and try and develop a superiority over the Russians or the Chinese.

That's not hard. I wouldn't want it made public, and I'd be lobbying the chairman of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence to keep it confidential. But I think that what's slowly happening is people misunderstand, and I think there's a large amount of the social media commentary at the moment on UAPs, who think that what we're heading towards is some mass disclosure event. I don't think that's going to happen. I really don't. I think that what is probably going to be happening is a very controlled disclosure behind the scenes in secure facilities inside the Congress, where for the first time, congressional committees are actually brought up to speed with what's really going on.

And I think they will learn that, yes, there is retrieved non-human technology and that there is a secret reverse engineering program going on in which your country, Canada, is involved intimately. And if people dug into that, they'd find a whole lot more if they only bothered to ask. Don't you find it, by the way, extraordinary, Curt, absolutely extraordinary, that this Larry Maguire letter can leak? Jeremy Corbell and Knapp leak this letter. I've known about this letter for some time, and in fact, it was posted back in May by another source on Twitter, and it was completely ignored by people. Daniel Otis, a very respectable journalist from Canada, has noted that this document was actually up online as early as May.

But it actually says, Larry Maguire alleges to the Minister of National Defence in Canada, quote, you may not be aware, Defence Research and Development Canada, DRDC, that's Canada's equivalent, if you like, of DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, has participated in efforts to analyse UAP, which is publicly traceable to circa 1950. This recovered foreign material is studied through the Five Eyes Foreign Material Program, the FMP, which in Canada is sponsored by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command, aligned with several intelligence sharing arrangements and treaties. Now, Maguire, who's not a senior member of parliament, but he's obviously spoken, and I know he has, he's spoken to people inside that program. I know he's spoken to scientists and people with a direct knowledge of that retrieval program. But what's not happening is the spin is starting, people are now coming back and saying, oh, the only thing he knows is stuff that Grant Cameron's told him from public sources. That's not true. And Mr. Maguire needs to be pushed. And a good journalist in Canada needs to get on the phone to Mr. Maguire or stick a TV camera in front of him and say to him, sir, what are you alleging? When you told your defence minister that DRDC has been working in efforts to analyse UAP, what is your knowledge based on? Is it just based on what you've read in somebody else's book? Or is it based on direct conversations with sources? And I think he will tell you the latter.

Larry Maguire, if you're watching, I would love to have you on if you're willing to answer questions like this. Now, what worries me is that we're not seeing the follow up from media. I'm trained as an investigative journalist to ask questions like that, because I've learned to read between the lines in what Arrow says. So when Susan Goff, the Pentagon PR woman, stands up and says that Arrow has found no credible evidence of ET, that sounds like a Pentagon denial. But it's not, because she's speaking for Arrow, which is not a body in the Pentagon that has the clearances to even ask the questions that need to be asked. And so we've got this ridiculous containment going on of information, where a glib, accepting, credulous media in the mainstream media is allowing a continued peddling of falsehood.

And people like myself, who are engaging directly with people in the program, who are watching to see what happens and weighing whether to come forward, I'm getting increasingly pessimistic. Because whilst legislation like this, this bill is important, you could drive a truck through the loopholes in it. And as I've pointed out, a clever lawyer for a big defense aerospace company could go, look, all we need to do is develop a front company, divest it into that front company, and we no longer have physical possession of that information. So let's just do that. I mean, there is any number of ways they can evade accountability to the Congress.

What is needed, and what I suspect is not going to happen, is the kind of proactive investigation that David Grusch did. Because this is the issue. In the comments that were made by Susan Goff, the Pentagon PR woman, she said, there is no restriction to RO, the Pentagon's UFO Investigation Office, receiving, that's the important point, receiving any past or present UAP related information, regardless of the affiliation of the original classification authority within DOD, or the intelligence community. And receiving is the pertinent word, because RO is set up to receive information that witnesses decide to come forward with to RO under the incentive provisions laid out in the National Defense Authorization Act. And I can tell you, because I'm talking to some of them, those witnesses are sitting there looking at RO, and they do not think that RO is an objective player. They think that there is spin coming from the Pentagon, that it's being disingenuous with what it's saying, and they do not trust RO or its heads. People like Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, however well motivated he may be, the perception is that RO is not a fair player.

Which is why David Grusch went directly to Congress, by the way, because before the National Defense Authorization Act legislation was brought in in late December last year, he'd already given his evidence to the oversight committees in the Congress. I suspect he would now be required. To go to RO first under the new legislation, and he probably wouldn't do that, because he doesn't trust them. Because he's seen how they operate. And the point is, is that when I drew your

attention then to the fact that Susan Goff's comment was restricted to RO receiving any past or present UAP related information, her whole response is predicated on the assumption that people are going to come forward. What David Grusch did was proactively go out and do his job as a UAP taskforce investigator, and he investigated. And that's what wrongfooted the Pentagon. Because there are, I'm sorry, it's a terrible thing to have to say. But there are people in your military and intelligence community in America who are actively involved in a coverup, and I include Canada in that as well. There are people in both governments that do not want the story of crash retrievals and reverse engineering programs to come out. And I think a large part of

that is because they're worried about the consequences for them and their careers, if it's revealed that they've been actively subverting accountability to Congress. And so what David Grusch did was rather than wait for witnesses to come forward to RO as came forward, came through in the NDA legislation, at the time he was working on the UAP taskforce, he was tasked to go out and proactively investigate. And that's what he did. He went out, and he proactively investigated. He talked to some of his friends who had similar security clearances to his. And as he told me in the interview, to his shock and amazement, he discovered that some of them knew about the program, the legacy program. And contemporaneously

with Mr. Grusch, the reason he and I crossed paths is because even though neither of us have confirmed this to the other, because we don't want to betray sources, we suspect that at different times, we were talking to some of the same people inside the program. And so I was told about the existence of this guy, David Grusch, who was doing this great work, doing this proactive investigation, and how he was the victim of reprisals. I can't go into a lot of detail, but they formed the basis of his complaint to the Inspector General, both of the Defense Department and the intelligence community. But I think it's for Mr. Grusch to give evidence under oath in the Congress and in the public hearing that might be happening, where he can describe what's been happening.

I'm waiting for him to have the right to explain to the public what's been going on. But frankly, I mean, I know from other witnesses, what's been going on is quite despicable. I've spoken to other witnesses who tell me that they've been threatened, that they've been told their or their families could be killed if they spoke publicly or came forward with the evidence that they have. There is a very active attempt to try to subvert the Congress's intentions in forcing this to be made knowledge to the public, or at least to the Congress's attention. I mean, what people need to understand, Curt, is the Congress already knows. There are members, particularly of the Gang

of Eight. Not all of the Congress, some members of the Congress? Some members of the Congress. No, no, no, no, no. Some members of the Congress. Only a very few select members of the Congress have the clearances that are sufficient to allow them to even hear this information. Sometimes when David Grusch was giving evidence, I've heard from people who were in the room, certain people had to leave the room because they didn't have a sufficiently high clearance to hear what he was revealing. That's in this oversight committee that you're referring to? Yeah. Okay. And do you happen to know if that split politically is even of those who have access or

those who are in the know, or is it more Democrats than conservatives or vice versa? It's interesting, actually. I'd say there's a biparti

2023-07-03 13:17

Show Video

Other news