SPACE THREATS - Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial

Show Transcript

The latest news of a national security threat from space, which is an evolving story, has been pointing mainly at a new threat from Russia concerning space based weapons. However, there's also a lot of chatter about the UFO UAP threat from space. So today we will dig into these news reports and rumors. and try to look behind the headlines, as well as cover space threats such as asteroids, solar storms, and developing arena of space for dominance and other space threats. (00:46) Hello and welcome to this episode of Mysteries with a History. We will be taking on a wild ride into the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious. Like you, I have questions, and like you, I want answers. And with each episode together, we will peel away the layers to look for the truth. While it might seem black and white in some aspects, this topic and what we're going to be covering today has a lot of layers to it, and we have a lot to cover. (01:12) So let me bring in my co-host, Jimmy Church of Fade to Black Radio. Hey, Jimmy. Que pasa? You like that? It was pretty good. Cleaning up your Spanish. I like it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Doing what I can. I'm back from the Conscious Life Expo, which went on for four days this week. It was absolutely incredible. Hello, everybody. (01:39) And yeah, wow. Wow, what a week. I'm going to say two weeks on this subject, and it is really heating up, not only Washington, D.C., but it's certainly geopolitical, and it has a lot of of impact, not only on our community and the conversations that are going on. And we'll be jumping into all of that today. (02:07) We're not going to leave any stones unturned, but it's all happening at the same time. And this is, you know, when it occurs that way, Christina and the audience, of course, when it happens like that, that's when I just step back and go, OK, all right. Something I've been saying a lot lately is we have the facts, right? We have the facts. (02:37) We have facts. And then we have the truth, which is hidden, you know, somewhere behind those facts. And that's what we try to do here is get to the truth. We deal with the facts. Let's look at that. And then let's move on past that and somehow get to the truth. Now it leads me to the question of, What was it that inspired you to do this today? There was something over the last couple of weeks where you had to, because this is an important, hot, heated subject that we are going to discuss today. (03:21) What happened, Christina? Well, yesterday, Representative Mike Turner spoke at Capitol Hill and saying there's a national security issue. This is a national security threat. I cannot dive deeper into it, but the Biden administration needs to address it. And then he just dropped the mic and walked away. And so the media took that and ran with it. (03:44) They're like, what is he referring to? What is going on here? Is this UFO related? What is this national security threat that he's mentioning? And so then you have all of this is within like less than 48 hours. And, and, and, and, and you just left out the most important point. No, you're right. But then he dropped the other bomb, which is we need all of this public. (04:14) Yeah, that's it. We need all of this out in the open so everybody, not only with the United States, but everybody around the world can start discussing this. And that is interesting. Yeah, so people were freaking out and saying, what's going on here? The media created wildfire with it. And then we have other representatives coming forward and saying, no, don't worry about this. (04:44) What he's saying means absolutely nothing. And then... Today, the White House finally addresses it maybe less than an hour ago, giving an answer on to what he was referring to. But is that the actual truth? And I'm going to go ahead and tell it to you. Then we'll kind of talk about the articles that were released yesterday and early this morning. (05:05) And so what was being addressed, at least according to the White House, was that Russia has anti-satellite capabilities. So it's not harmful to humans on planet Earth, but more so it can cut off communication and a few other aspects as well, which is leading to a possibility and people's thoughts of, are we going to have, is World War III going to be in space instead of on Earth? So that's one aspect of many that we're going to be covering today. (05:38) But it's something that caught a lot of people's attention. And we can definitely bring in the UFO phenomenon into this because, Jimmy, like you had stated, the timing is impeccable, especially for those that have been following this topic. I would just say for a month at the very least. It's bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. (05:56) One after another, every single week, one thing is dropping. Referring to UFOs, referring to UFO transparency. Kirkpatrick's after he resigned says they were holding me back. UFOs are a thing. It's not just manmade. And then you have this dropping as well. So it's odd. And when you put all those little pieces together. (06:17) It creates some kind of mural. Now, what is it? We haven't gotten all the pieces yet to fully understand it, but there's definitely a bigger picture to this. I have always stated, so I am going to start here and not to freak everybody out, but let's be realistic about something. We have weapons in space. (06:46) And that's it. I'm talking about the United States. I'm going to address other countries and what they have and what they are proposing here in just a minute. But we have weapons in space. And I'm going to say this, maybe controversial, but I think that we can all look at this logically. Of course we do. (07:12) And if we don't, we're idiots. Okay? It's that simple. If we aren't ahead of the curve, then what do we do? We have to have something there. The purpose of them, which we will be discussing, is another matter entirely. But of course we do. If you thought that we didn't, what? Right? No, of course we do. (07:47) We have to. The secret stuff that is going on, one of them, if there is a secret program that is in place, and it is in place, by the way, it's called the SBL. I'll get to that in a second. To have space-based weapons platforms up there is something that not only is expected, but it's needed. Because the other guy, whether it's E.T. (08:20) or another country, to expect them not to have something up there is insane. Is insane. Now, the prospect of that, which is what we're dealing right now with this idea of Russia having a nuclear weapon in space to take out satellites, two things would result from that. One, we go back to the Stone Age. Everything is... Oh, wow. (08:48) For a second there, I distorted. That might have been my headphones and not projected out. Somebody let me know if you heard that. I heard that. Oh, you did? Yeah. See, that's the man trying to stop this show. Right there is twofold. We go back to the Stone Age. All of our communications, the GPS in your cars, transmissions, the news, Internet, everything. (09:20) If that gets crippled in space and suddenly we don't have a way to communicate. to send and receive information, news, anything that stops aside from the monetary system and, and the banking system and everything else, just think about how far backwards we would go. But there's a second problem with that. (09:45) If Russia did it, they would also damage their own communication infrastructure, right? It all goes down. So it just wouldn't make any sense to me for Russia to have something like that in space. Now, do they have the capability? I'm talking about a nuclear weapon detonated in low Earth orbit. Do we have something like that there? No, I don't believe that we do. (10:14) Do we have laser-based defensive systems in space right now? Yes. And I'll get to that. What is up with my audio? That's crazy sounding. Did that go out? Yeah, I heard that as well. It's bizarre. But, Jimmy, you're bringing up some really great points. And also the timing is fantastic in the aspect of SpaceX had launched – a few rockets on Valentine's Day as well that were classified. (10:48) Right, right. So SpaceX yesterday did two launches. One of those launches was for the Space Force with six classified satellites on it. That was USSF mission number 124. I reported on that yesterday. Nobody announced this launch in advance. So on the day of the launch, the Space Force did their press release. (11:17) Yep, we got six satellites going up into orbit, two are for this and four for this. But that's it. No information on the mission or what these satellites are doing or supposed to do. And that combined with everything else that is going on, like you had said, right now the news is coming at us fast from all directions. (11:45) It is. It is. And just timing. Timing is everything here. Before we continue, I just want to say a big thank you to Ulf. Thank you for that. And Lou Weezy. That's a fun name. Thank you as well. Right now we have 316 people watching this live. Only 150 likes. If you're enjoying the topic so far, hit that like button. (12:03) right down below. So let's go ahead and cover the article or the news that was released just yesterday referring to Mike Turner. I'm going to share an image here of what Mike Turner looks like before we read on one of the many articles that covered this topic. The one I'll be reading is from ABC News. (12:23) Let me just pull up this image. All right, there it is. And it says that the top security advisor at the White House and key members of Congress tried to reassure everyone on Wednesday after the leader of the House Intelligence Committee alerted the public to a national security threat. And the threat involved a worrying military move by a foreign country described as so crucial that President Joe Biden was urged to release all information about it. (12:53) People familiar with the discussion in Congress mentioned that this concern involves Russia's plan to place a nuclear weapon in space. However, the purpose wouldn't be to attack Earth directly, but could target satellites. This information referring to these... Satellite anti-satellite capabilities have been known for years, as Kirby had mentioned, and he is just he's a spokesman for the White House. (13:20) And he's saying, look, we've known about it for a handful of years now. But a few months ago, if not a few weeks ago, we began to realize that this is becoming more commonplace. What's the word I want to use here? Like more real before it was theory and in practice, and now it's becoming more legitimate. (13:39) And so that's probably maybe what Mike Turner was referring to. Now, when we are dealing with government statements. This is where it gets. It's a catch-22. It's a double-edged sword here. Is this a time when you believe them or when you don't and you think that there is another narrative behind it? Is this just like a nice little cushion for people to fall onto to brush off what Mike Turner had mentioned very vaguely yesterday on Valentine's Day, by the way? Or are they being serious? This is the reason why and (14:12) people should know about it, which, yes, people should know about this. But let me give you a little bit of background on Mike Turner, and maybe it might make this information a little bit more relevant because he is a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and has previously served as the lead Republican of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, as well as the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. (14:34) He also serves as a vice chairman of the Defense and Security Committee of NATO and And prior to his time in Congress, he was a mayor of Dayton from 1993 to 2001. So he's been in this field for a very long time. But based off of the offices that he's a part of, it has to do with security. It has to do with defense. (15:02) Like that is that's his background. And so for him to say something like this and then to be brushed off, it just seems a little weird. Out of place, maybe. Sort of. Sort of out of place. The curious part about his statement was his follow-on statement, of course, that I just mentioned, is that this needs to be declassified. (15:30) This needs to go open now. What I have, everybody should know. Now, here's... Let's get to the facts. So let's get to some facts really quick about this. That shooting at another satellite and taking it out in space, yes, we have that capability and others do too. Okay, so let's start there. There are also ground-based lasers that have already been used to blind observation satellites in low Earth orbit, right? So we've got a country positions a satellite to photograph and capture images of something on the (16:21) ground that we don't want them to see. We blind them with ground-based lasers. Now, that's one aspect. But the other part of this is, is it a global defense network for an adversarial threat from E.T. ? Are they preparing for something that we don't know about? Do they know something that we don't? Are there bad ETs out there that have bad intentions for us and we need to defend against that? And the other part is asteroids or some other cosmic debris that That could impact Earth. (17:07) More on that in just a minute. But there are reasons to have these platforms in space. It's not necessarily testing, measuring, which we do a lot with lasers in space. You can measure and map terrain. There are reasons to use lasers from space that aren't particle beam or direct energy weapons, directed energy weapons, DEWs. (17:40) And we hear a lot of chatter about that. Those things are real. Has a DEW been used from space on Earth? Well, look. I don't jump into the deep end of the pool when you hear these conversations start, not only in our community but in social media in general. So I don't jump into the deep end of the pool, but I will say the capability is certainly there, all right? And to think that that technology is not in Earth orbit right now is a little naive. (18:25) Those weapons platforms are in place. The reason for that, if there is some fast walker, some fast mover, some object that is not of this earth that is approaching us and we don't want them there, do we have a capability? I hope that we do. Right, and I'm assuming that we do. Now, let's talk about this for a second before we move on. (18:59) Laser satellites. Laser satellites, right? We've all seen them in the movies. The United States SBL, Space Based Laser Program, is a constellation of laser weapon platforms in space, which provides a credible air and ballistic missile defense system for the United States. Due to the recent interest by Congress and the Department of Defense, The General Accounting Office, the GAO, reviewed the existing space-based laser SBL program and assessed program progress, potential, and current management structure. (19:48) So... that answers all of your questions right there. Do we have a space-based laser program? Yes. And it is a constellation of satellites. All right. Now, Here are some of the weapons currently under development right now. We have chemical lasers. We have particle beam weapons. And we have military space planes. (20:21) Right now. Now, when we go back to the Ronald Reagan era, we don't discuss politics on this show, but let's go to the Ronald Reagan era, which was the Star Wars program named after the movie because of what was happening in the country and pop culture at that time. He told Gorbachev, okay, man, check this out. (20:48) Sign this missile treaty because everything you got is not going to work anyway. We have the Star Wars program. Now, what he said back then, Christina. wasn't the truth in that he implied to Gorbachev that we already had it. We already had space-based lasers. We already had the capability to shoot down their missiles while they were in their missile silos. (21:24) They started to turn on. And that freaked Gorbachev out. And Gorbachev believed it. And he signed the treaty. So that Star Wars treaty, it was signed and we started to reduce things. Back in 1967... The original space treaty was signed that there would be no nuclear weapons in space. All right? And as far as we know, everybody has adhered to that program. (21:55) But France... just announced the Ares program. It's called the Action Day, I don't speak French, Resilience in Space program. And it is a 100-kilogram satellite with a high-power laser to be launched. It's a defense weapon system to be launched in 2030. The United Kingdom, during a trial at the MOD's defense range, the Dragonfire Laser Directed Energy Weapon, the LDEW system, achieved the UK's first high-power firing of a laser weapon against aerial targets. (22:44) The range of Dragonfire is classified, but it is a line-of-sight weapon and can engage with any visible target. All right, now put that on the satellite. What have you got? China has developed a new cooling system that allows high-energy lasers to operate indefinitely without overheating, an innovation that could point a laser-sharp threat at the United States space program right now. (23:15) China has developed a microwave machine. Check this out. It's called the Relativistic Klystron Amplifier, the RKA. There is a lot of... of defense news about this specific weapon. It can jam or destroy satellites in space. The device can generate a wave burst measuring 5 megawatts in the K-band. And although China denies the RKA is an actual directed energy weapon, if the system was built at scale, it could set beams strong enough to rip through metallic materials moving at speed. (24:00) Very interesting things to talk about how they say it like this. Metallic, right? At speed. Metallic objects at speed. And all of this... uh could damage or destroy anything in its path uh equipment satellites uh people but to deploy this in space and to have this capability we have it the russians have it china has it uh the uk has it france is deploying theirs and I don't I again I think it would be naive to just assume that this is just to shoot down earth-based satellite systems. (24:49) I think that there is another reason for this. They know something. If this is the part of the subject that we know about publicly, what is the real intention? What is the real truth behind the facts? And those are the legitimate questions that we need to ask. What is the real purpose? Because you can say some very flowery, nice, beautiful words to the public, but it doesn't mean that they are 100% true. (25:15) It could be one aspect of many. Ilyan, thank you so much for supporting the channel. And Android, thank you so much for that as well. And luckily, Jimmy addressed it. And it says here, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, signed by the U.S., Russia, and other countries, bans any weapons of mass destruction in outer space. (25:36) That is right. And... It still holds today. All countries are still abiding by that treaty. I did have to look that up just to make sure that no one walked out of it. And I did find that information online. But I just want to touch on the Space Force one more time because there are a handful of other countries that have their own Space Forces. (25:59) But let me just say this. They were all created around the same timeframe. So you have China that created theirs back in 2015, the USA back in 2019, Russia in 2015, France in 2019, and Iran in 2020. So we're looking at 2015 and in 2020, a five-year time frame where countries are saying, you know what, we don't need just an Air Force or a Navy or just your... (26:29) basic army, we got to go into space. Space is our future. We need to go there and conquer space. And if anything happens, if we have a war in space, will it protect the people, right? There are all these different thoughts and maybe so many others. But here we are seeing a pattern of that is the time they decided to, hey, let's put in some funding. (26:54) Let's make some more advanced tech. Let's put some rockets up there with our equipment. up just right outside of planet earth orbiting the planet why during that time frame maybe compared to the cold war maybe during the time of the first moon landing why pick 2015 up until 2020 versus 40 50 years ago All of these are great questions. (27:24) And the other part, if you go a step deeper into all of this, China and Russia, their goals right now. Oh, the other launch yesterday, I found this very interesting. I forgot to mention this from SpaceX. was another lunar lander from a private company from the United States to land on the moon. And isn't it funny, which is what I'm getting to right now, isn't it funny how we successfully landed on the moon in 1969 and now we just can't get back. (28:11) You know, forget about putting humans on the moon, right? Israel tried to get their lunar lander to happen. China landed on the dark side of the moon. We've had multiple attempts over the years and one a couple of weeks ago, another one in Japan, nose dived in and went nose first with theirs. What was it called? The chin? What was it called? The chin? Anyway, we've got another one on its way to the moon right now. (28:43) It was launched yesterday. Again, this is a real space race, which brings me to my next subject. If you look at each country's programs that have the capability to do any of this stuff, Russia's short-term goal right now is the moon and Mars and people. China's program right now, what they are doing is to put people on the moon and people on Mars. (29:16) Those are the immediate goals, and those are ours with the Artemis program and SpaceX and Elon Musk. And then at the same time with all of this, are these space-based weapon systems. It's like a science fiction movie that just seemed like it was so far in the future that we could just write about it and be entertained by the ideas. (29:47) But suddenly, all of this is playing out now in real time. Back to Mike Turner. The comments and the response from defense officials, military experts that chimed in on this said, yeah. But Russia doesn't really have the ability to do that. So it's not an imminent threat. Now, that's the fact. That's the fact that was presented, you know, that was said in public. (30:22) What's the truth behind a statement like that? When we just today, Malmstrom Air Force Base was put on a lockdown. They had an active shooter. They called it a world threat, right? Okay. And I talked about it on the news. Pretty crazy. But here's the situation with that. Russia, many countries have intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on it. (30:52) Those go out into space with a nuclear warhead on it and then reenter the atmosphere somewhere else on the earth. If you have the ability to do that or to put a satellite in space, what is the difference of a nuclear weapon on a satellite being shot into space? The technology and the ability to do that is the same. (31:19) So it's strange to have everybody chime in and go, Russia really doesn't have the ability to do that. What are you talking about? What do you mean? They have thousands of missiles that have the ability to do that. Our astronauts, their astronauts launch on Soyuz rockets to go to and from the International Space Station. (31:44) What's the difference? There isn't the space shuttle program deploying the Hubble telescope in space. Well, it could have deployed anything. We have our own X-39B space plane that goes up for two years at a time in space in these secret missions. What is it doing up there? So you can't listen to somebody that would come out in public and say, eh, nothing to see here. (32:14) Oh, there is a lot to see here. With this news article, the question that comes to mind is why this secrecy behind it? Why say it's a national security threat? And then why, when other representatives were asked about it, they didn't really give a definite answer. For instance, according to Newsweek, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner said, And Florida Republican Marco Rubio, who serves as vice chairman, said in a statement on Wednesday that the committee, quote, has the intelligence in (32:50) question and has been regular rigorous rigorously tracking this issue from the start and continues. We continue to take this matter seriously and are discussing an appropriate response with the administration. In the meantime, we must be cautious about potentially disclosing sources and the methods that may be key to preserving a range of options for U.S. (33:14) action. So in my mind, I'm trying to think and rationalize of why make it sound scary to begin with. Why did no rep just say it has to do with Russia and like anti-satellite capability equipment? You could just say that. These aren't satellites that are equipped with lasers that are – Ready to shoot down on planet Earth. (33:38) No, they're shooting down at other lasers, which other satellites, which, yes, can still be kind of scary in the sense of control and communication. But it's not in the sense of, I don't know, horrifying. But that could lead into a World War Three, which in that aspect, yes, it's detrimental. That is horrible. (33:57) But this is information that humanity should know about. Because this is still important. But there was like this level of just vague touching over it just barely for about 48 hours with no one saying anything of what it really was about other than saying, yeah, it's pretty spooky, but it's not going to ruin your Thursday. (34:21) Then just say it. Just lay it down. We can handle the truth. It reminds me of the movie Network. The truth, you can't handle the truth. But, yeah, we can. And then let's talk about, I want to get into asteroids and EMPs and some other things here in just a minute. But then we have Sean Kirkpatrick. Now, Sean Kirkpatrick, the UAP task force, turned into the aero program. (34:56) He sits in the hot seat for a few months. Did he hit a year? He did, but just barely. Just barely hit a year, and then he bailed out. He tapped out. That picture right there, okay, you can take it down. No, we're going to leave it there. It's just going to make me angrier. In that, here comes Kirkpatrick. (35:21) We know that he has access to a lot of information. Not everything. Not everybody is giving Arrow and the UAP task force all of their information when it comes to UAPs and what may be going on. No, no. To think otherwise, like the CIA and the NSA and the Air Force is just dumping all of the real information on Kirkpatrick. (35:49) No, that never happened. But he did have access to a lot. And then he turns around and says in his two hearings that he did, and let's not forget about the paper that he wrote with Avi Loeb. Okay, so... He writes the paper with Avi Loeb about the possibility of an ET mothership, not my words, his, right, deploying probes to planets in our solar system. (36:25) It went viral. The press picked up on it. And then a couple of weeks later, he's sitting here. And he goes, well, you know, whatever. Nothing to do with E.T. I can tell you that E.T. is not part of the phenomena that we're studying. And I said, wait a minute. You just published this paper with Avi Loeb that says the opposite. (36:55) And now you're coming here. So which one is the real Sean Kirkpatrick? Then he came back for his funding hearing with Gillibrand. and which you and I broadcast live together, and that was a great day too as well. But he came in and talked about money, budgeting, staff, and personnel, and again, removed the ET component from everything. (37:21) Now, we've got another version of Sean Kirkpatrick. Not the one that wrote the paper with Avi Loeb. Not the one that went in front of Congress and the Senate. But somebody that is saying he was gagged. He was prevented from telling the truth. That the Pentagon interfered and said, you've got to be a team player here. (37:57) You are not going to discuss E.T. or anything like that. And Sean, and I'm looking at his quotes over the last week. Some of them are pretty dramatic. But one of them, one of these, you know, you just pick out these nuggets, Christina. One of the nuggets is, hey, man. We've got metallic orbs, right? His words again, metallic spheres. (38:28) And we don't know what they are. And without saying that they are ET, he is now implying, right? He has done a complete flip-flop here. He is implying an extraterrestrial component to this metallic sphere phenomenon. Now, a metallic sphere is anything, right? It can be anything of any size, of any shape, and to call it a sphere is even more interesting, by the way. (39:00) But to use these descriptors like this after everything else that he did in the public, which one do we trust and which one do we believe? And I'm going to ask you that, Christina, where are you now with Kirkpatrick? It's a tough one, and I'm really glad you bring this up because there's something that I do want to address on this, and Cassidy, thank you for that, but you're actually going to be in this conversation for this one because starting off with the sun. (39:31) uk, Kirkpatrick Mentions what you had just stated, but despite his claims of being restricted in what he could reveal, the Pentagon denied such allegations, asserting that Kirkpatrick had the freedom to communicate his findings in his push for transparency. So Kirkpatrick says after resigning. He noted that the eminent release of declassified material intended to educate the public, including footage and documents on UFOs. (39:58) And he lamented the challenges of conveying the truth within the Pentagon's constraints, emphasizing the need for greater openness in addressing the mysteries of UFO sightings. So Cassidy here, he is a big fan and an amazing supporter for this channel. He wrote to me, quote, because I'm reading this verbatim, and it says, I thought of something today. (40:19) Lou Elizondo was a part of AATIP and resigned because of pushback and the withholding of information by the Pentagon. And then he became a whistleblower. David Grush, who worked for the NGA and NRO... resigned because he pushed because of the pushback and the withholding of information by the Pentagon. And then he became a whistleblower. (40:40) And now Sean Kirkpatrick, the then head of Arrow, has resigned because of pushback and withholding of information by the Pentagon. So Do you see where I'm going with this? Dr. Kirkpatrick could become another whistleblower. And if we're looking at this pattern here, I don't see why not. People had mentioned before Aero, the UAPTF, the AOIMSG, all looked very similar to Project Blue Book. (41:09) And then with J. Allen Hynek, after years of sitting on information, he finally spoke out about it. Could Kirkpatrick do the same, but in a shorter timeframe, as we're kind of already seeing already? It's funny you bring up J. Allen Hynek. I was reading his book again last night, and it's such... (41:33) The book, The Report on UFOs, which was released in 1977, published in 1977, I think was J. Allen Hynek's apology to the public. Okay, that's the overall flavor, but it's also filled with... Anger's the right word. I've talked to his son, Paul, about this directly. He said, yeah, yeah, my dad was angry because he was a tool and he was used. (42:06) And he was used to spread misinformation and disinformation online. about the reality of UFOs. But you bring up a really, really good point about this. And going back to not only with what J. Allen Hynek wrote about 1977, we're seeing it repeated today with Sean Kirkpatrick. Because if you listen to what he is saying right now, and then read the Pentagon's response to Kirkpatrick. (42:42) They clearly state, and they are not messing around here, yeah, he was free to talk about what we would let him talk about. That's what they said. That's what they said in the press release. We didn't hold him back. Everything we allowed him to say, he was free to talk about. They didn't say he wasn't free to talk about classified information. (43:11) They didn't say that. Like, no, he was free to say whatever he wanted. No, that's not what the Pentagon said. The Pentagon said he was free to talk about what they were allowing him to talk about. Isn't that strange? Which is exactly what J. Allen Hynek talked about in 1977. And we could even go back to Eisenhower's speech in 1962. (43:41) Beware the military-industrial complex, man. That's a thing that runs itself, and they answer to nobody. And that's where we are today. Now, was that the reason why Kirkpatrick resigned? He said he retired because he was going to move into the private sector, which is usually what they say, right? Well, not only that, but he also mentioned that I