STRANGE WEEKLY NEWS - 086 - UFOs, Paranormal, and the Strange

Show Transcript

Hello and welcome to Strange Weekly News. In this show, we'll take a look into the news and headlines to pick out curious reports of the strange, the weird, and the mysterious. Anything from UFO news to science advancements, the paranormal, and stuff labeled fringe science and fringe phenomena. Each news item we go over in the show, I will place all the links to them in the description box below once this live show is over, as well as chapters on the timeline index. (00:42) Hello and welcome to everyone watching this live, all of my first time viewers and listeners, and of course, everyone watching this on replay as well. Please show your support for my work by hitting that like button right down below and subscribe as we do three live shows right here on this channel every single week covering topics from UFOs, the paranormal and things that are unexplained. (01:03) This was a hot week and especially we've been waiting for this when it comes to UFOs and the UFO phenomenon and UFO transparency in the government. Because we just got another skiff. When I say we, I mean, I don't actually mean you and I. I wish. But referring to the government. And it was a lot of mixed reactions. (01:23) And it just happened today, Friday, January 12th. I'm going to share my screen here. And we're going to get into this. And if you haven't watched the videos, you can find them on Twitter. I highly recommend what some of these people had to say, but we're going to read through some of the really interesting statements because some members of Congress received a classified briefing on UFOs, a.k.a. (01:46) UAP these days. And what's interesting here is Democrat Republicans. Republican Raja Krishnamurti of Illinois told News Nation, quote, I'm more concerned than what I was going into the skiff. And I think they have a lot of questions that remain unanswered. And this is really interesting here because the very first skiff that happened last month, I believe, Tim Burchett was like, this was an absolute nightmare. (02:20) piece of garbage. All right. Everything that they told us, we already knew. Now we're getting new representatives into this skiff. And when it comes to Raja in particular, he said that he is more concerned since the skiff compared to when he entered that room. And this is really interesting. There could be so many aspects to this. (02:41) There really can't. And our minds can go wild here. We could even use our imagination as well, of course. Was he more concerned because of the information that has to do with the integration of the government? Are we dealing with interdimensionals? Are we dealing with the type of agreement? Is it not ET at all or interdimensionals, but totally government-related, all being reverse-engineered equipment and everything that's going on is just a generalist conspiracy? There are so many possibilities. (03:11) possible explanations just based off of Raja's statement that he made to News Nation. But what I find interesting here is, first of all, we're going to hear a lot of people say, oh, well, everything's just a conspiracy and it's ours. It's always been ours, always will be. Well, if we compare Tuesday's show when we talked about a sighting that took place in the 1600s, it's kind of hard to say that it was reverse engineered technology of that time. (03:37) And by the way, air balloons didn't happen, weren't invented until the 1700s. All right. I want to put that out there. But if we continue with this thought, then how come the UAPDA was practically denied? Yes, some of it passed, but a lot of it was chopped out if there is nothing to hide. Why show that you're hiding something? And keep on to that little thought because, of course, we're going to mention the Artemis moon landing, the Artemis program, and how it got delayed several years. (04:10) And we're going to get into that aspect as well. But continuing on to this skiff that, again, just happened this morning. Some lawmakers have called for increased transparency, as we know, and the outcome of this briefing could contribute to them learning more about the government's knowledge on the matter. (04:28) That's what we all want to see, of course. That's what we all want. But it's very difficult when everything is in different hands, different agencies, and that's That's where it gets very hard, especially when we're dealing with the select committee here. In particular, those that were involved in this skiff, do they have the clearance to know that information? The answer is probably going to be a no. (04:59) Now, could they go through all of the screening in order to get that clearance? It's a possibility, but that could take decades and. Is this information really in their hands? Are they really in control of this? That is the question that we have to ask ourselves. And that's probably a question that they are simmering on as well. (05:18) And here I'm referring to the people that we're seeing on screen dealing with Anna Paulina Luna, Tim Burchette, Matt Gaetz, Maskovich here as well, and Burleson. They are probably having those exact thoughts. And then referring to Andy Ogles of Tennessee, he is a Republican representative. He said, I think that most of the American people fear is true, is that the government. (05:47) There is an effort to conceal as much information as possible, both from Congress and to the general public. So based off of this information, of course, we can we can dissect this. We can try to understand what he was meaning here or attempting to describe to the best of his ability what he heard without infringing on any NDAs or any clearances and things like that. (06:11) He says here, I think that most of the American people fear is true, is that the government is concealing a lot of information, both from Congress and the general public. This is not new information. We've we've heard of this. We've seen this so on and so forth. But I will say having it come out of a representative's mouth, someone that works for the government. (06:40) It's interesting. I just have to say that at the very least, that is interesting coming out of him. And same with Tim Burchette. He has said very similar things. And I would say prior to this. push for UFO UAP transparency from the government, you didn't really hear government officials and representatives use that kind of language of don't trust the government. (07:08) What they are telling us isn't fully true. It's going against the narrative, don't you think? Now, to be fair with you, I do not follow politics. I do not know what all these reps are saying aside from covering this topic. So could they be saying things like this in other fields? I would maybe. (07:27) I am not sure because I do not follow politics of any branch or things like that. But here, a lot of people now are having their eyes on the government, I would say more so than ever, really trying to see how they are handling and how they will handle the situation when it comes to the conversation. of UFOs, especially over the last years. (07:50) We have heard that this information and that UAPs is a national security issue. It is a threat, is a threat to our airspace, so on and so forth. We hear this negative narrative that should instill fear in the people. But these guys, they're saying they're hiding a lot of information and you should keep pushing for what you're pushing for, don't you think? And there is more to this. (08:15) No filter. Thank you so much. That is so kind of you. And Dan says, hey, Christina, did you see the recent alien interview from Project Blue Book? Also, I want you on my team when we can travel to stars with aliens. Heck, yes. I got to get my TARDIS. It's right now in the auto shop. But heck, yeah. Now, as for that little tidbit, I have not seen it yet. (08:35) So I don't know. But I'll keep my eye out for that particular one. Interesting. Thank you for that. So then continuing onward, because this wouldn't be a UAP government transparency conversation if we didn't bring in Tim Burchette. And so as I had mentioned a little bit earlier, especially for those that are just getting into this topic, it's kind of difficult. (09:00) It's very confusing. It's a bit dicey. So I'm just going to lay a little bit of extra information for those that need the gaps filled in, because this wasn't the first briefing. that lawmakers have gotten on UAP. But Tim Burchett, who is a representative of Tennessee, among others, have expressed frustration at what he calls a lack of transparency. (09:23) And Burchett believes the Pentagon is holding back even in the briefings. So he is meeting up with what Representative Ogles said, which I just need to emphasize, I have not heard representatives say that before, ever. Have you? I got to ask you that. For those that follow politics and all these other different facets and aspects, aside from UFOs, have you heard representatives, lawmakers, those in Congress use that kind of language? And I'm being honest. (09:58) I want to know. Okay. Okay. Now, lawmakers' response were varied because some expressed satisfaction with the information that the intelligence community shared and said it provided some clarity. But others shared a very different perspective, raising concerns that the intelligence community supposedly was withholding and withholding information on UAP, which isn't anything new. (10:25) Now, for those lawmakers that are saying, you know, this was pretty darn good. I really like this. Why does he have a Southern accent? I don't know. It just sounded right in that moment. But we have to ask ourselves, are they satisfied because they don't know anything about the topic? Are they satisfied because they were paid to be satisfied? Are they satisfied because they genuinely think it was good information? Every single person, almost every single person, has an agenda. (10:55) They have their reasons. And they say some things because they're told to. which is really garbagey, but that's true. That's the case. And now with Burschett, at least from what I'm seeing, this man is speaking his mind. Now, could he be getting some backhander money? When you're dealing with government officials, at this point, you just got to assume that's the case. (11:20) You just got to assume that's what's going on because corruption is real. across all governments, across all over the globe. OK, but. I want to give these people I do, I want to give these people the benefit of the doubt for those that are saying, you know what, it wasn't really that bad. First, I got to say, bless their heart, bless them. (11:44) They are probably not familiar with the topic and the gravity of this conversation, because in my opinion, This conversation that we're having referring to UFOs, UAP, UAP transparency is one of the most important conversations that humanity is having right now. And you might say, Christina, why are you saying that? And why do you say that from time to time? If we are able to understand this little tidbit, we should be able to traverse the stars with a bigger and brighter mentality to where we won't be like the Klingons. (12:18) in Star Trek. We're not going to kill everything that doesn't look like us or want to fight with them. And as Ronald Reagan mentioned in his UN speech many years ago, if there is this exterior threat, maybe a UFO threat, will it bring our species together? There's already so much divide going on. (12:38) Could this topic bring us together? And that's why I believe this is one of the most important conversations that humanity is having right now. And what the government is doing, making this information public, Talking about this publicly, it's getting more people interested in this. And that is one of the biggest takeaways, at least in my opinion. (12:56) But according to the briefing notes obtained by News Nation, lawmakers asked about allegations raised by Air Force veteran David Grush, who, as a whistleblower, shared exclusive details with News Nation before testifying in Congress. We first heard of Grush back in the summer when Ross Coulthard, a Russian, Australian journalist, did a whole interview with him. (13:22) And this is when the world first heard about this whistleblower coming in from the government and seeing that the government has reverse engineer technology. This blew off lids. This went viral, insane. And to this day, months later... He's still in the news. People are still talking about him. And now while we mention UAP in the government, UAP transparency, UAP truth, whatever, he is one of the first names that comes out of people's mouths. (13:56) That's significant. Now, take it or leave it if you think that he's a plant or not. Push that aside just for a moment. People are talking about this conversation, and that in itself is one of the biggest takeaways. But Grush brought his concerns, including classified information, to the inspector general that couldn't be disclosed publicly. (14:19) Now, in the interview that Grush gave to News Nation over the summer, he claimed that the government has recovered non-human aircraft of exotic origin, and he claims that he's seen evidence of a secret UFO crash retrieval program. And so then people said, okay, show us the paperwork, show us the bodies, show us the pictures, right? And then you hear this aspect of, well, it's all hearsay. (14:42) Everyone, all the information that Grush knows, it was given, it was told to him by someone else. He didn't see any of it firsthand. Like, yeah, that can, that sucks. There's no other... Better word to use than it sucks. But if we're looking at this from an optimistic standpoint, it's a step in the right direction. (15:04) Is he setting a foundation for more UAP whistleblowers to come forward and have this level of confidence to do so? The ones that we've received so far have been burned, burned like it's nobody's business. People in the UAP UFO community, they're like, oh, we want someone in the government to give us information. (15:24) We want someone on the inside to tell us what's up. Lou Elizondo did that, but he got burned so bad, so bad that we don't see him anymore. Now, there could be different reasons as to why that may be, why he stepped away from the limelight. People say he was a plant. All the information that he was providing was fake. (15:46) Some say he's real. He is a hero. If we push that aspect aside of what you believe, of what if his information was true or not, he came forward. He did interviews, podcasts several times a day. He didn't stop for about a year. But he was being honest. like dragged through the coal. Grush is getting that same kind of treatment. (16:10) It's very scary. It is for these kinds of people. Again, if their plants are not just in general, it's not just their lives that are in danger, but also their families' lives. And that's where it gets really tough. So this is interesting. There's a lot more to unfold here when it comes to this skiff. (16:27) Hopefully more information will come forward. Hopefully Burchett and others will provide more information on what happened if they can or if they will receive more skiffs or if we will receive another UAP witness hearing. We were kind of I wouldn't use the word promise, but Burchett said, oh, we should definitely get one by December of 2023. (16:47) But that came and left. 2024 has already been a very wacky year. We're only halfway through January and it's been interesting. There should be hopefully more information to come on this topic as a whole and it It might maybe be the year of disclosure. Now, we say that every single year. Oh, this is the year, guys. (17:12) This is the year of UAP disclosure. And then we're always left disappointed. But how the year is just turning out, honestly, it might be. But what do you think? What are your chances on this? not chances, ideas on this. I was reading a comment and I read it and I said it at the same time. What are your ideas on this? Do you think I'm being too optimistic? Do you think there needs to be some pessimism in there? Do you think some people are too pessimistic and they should be more optimistic? What are your ideas for 2024 based on solely how the last six months have gone? (17:54) Six months. I think from the summer up until today, We've gotten a lot. We really have compared to any other year when it comes to this topic. Thanks, Dan. I will look into that. Thank you so much. But let's see what you have to say. Hillbilly says, 2024, year of the jellyfish. Yes. And what's really cool is that jellyfish don't even have brains. (18:22) It's a whole nervous system going on. It's insane. If you just look up the basic facts about jellyfish, you'll be mind-blowing. It's so cool, actually. I am trying to read your comments as fast as I can. And some people are bringing up some interesting aspects. Hyde says, what's the next hearing? I have no idea. (18:55) I have not been given information on that. I couldn't find it online, at least not yet. But hopefully soon. If I had to guess, and this is just a random guess, OK, I would say maybe February, March again. Just guessing here. I have no intel. I have no inside people. I'm just saying that's kind of like if Bursch said December of 2023, I'm going to push it a few months. (19:22) I'm going to say let's go with the end of February. March sounds pretty good, but I could be wrong and that's okay. John says humanity deserves the truth. Yes, they do. Yes, they do. But when it comes to the truth, it depends who is providing that information, the language that they're using, because certain language will instill fear or happiness and peace. (19:48) You see what I'm saying here? So let's say they they say when I say that I'm referring to the government, the media, whatever my people that have big audiences and they say, OK, aliens, E.T., they're already here or they're visiting. depending on the language that they will use, is going to affect how humanity will react to it. (20:09) So keep an open mind, try not to be biased, and remember the narrative. getting into our next one here still on the topic of ufos it's referring to pilots because early last year the pentagon launched a website enabling military personnel and other government workers to report sightings of ufos this is and spread i didn't know dating back to as far back as 1945. (20:39) i didn't know that little tidbit this is according to the usa today by the way But this is referring to Arrow and they had their website up. But then for a good handful of months, you were not able to report your sightings. Now, only military personnel could report their sightings. I think that's still the case today. If you were to check the Arrow website, you need to have paperwork clearances. (21:00) And if you check that box and say that you have that you are a part of the military or whatnot. there are legal consequences to that. But the move was a response to official hearings on the subjects, which saw military pilots provide their own testimonies about sightings of UFOs off the coast of the, um, East coast of the United States. (21:22) Now here, they're also mentioning referring to USA today. They're also mentioning that UAP hearing that took place in July and also referring to Ryan Graves sighting and, um, For for David Fravor, his Tic Tac sighting was on the West Coast, which is like, you know, from San Diego, California, the Catalina Island, that right there. (21:44) But here, the East Coast was mentioned significantly in that. Hearing if you wish to listen to it again, it's something that I think is worth your time. But while the new report system was great for military personnel, it did not offer anything to the general public or even civilian pilots and air crew. (22:05) And the option It didn't give them the option to report anything that they might have seen. And I agree with this. It's like it's a catch 22 when it comes to UFO stories, UFO cases, topics is that people want to listen to government officials, pilots that work for the military more so than a civilian. (22:30) Now, some people are going to roll their eyes and say, well, I don't, Christina. OK, we are not a part of that majority. All right. But for the majority of people, they want to hear from a military official, someone with credentials. But it's a catch-22. And why is that? Because people say, ah, don't trust the government. (22:47) Do not trust anything they have to say. Do not trust any officials. And you can't, well, can you? Let me back it up. Can you have it both ways? Can you? Is it possible? Is it impossible? You see what I'm saying here? Because you're going to hear that argument a lot in this topic of, Don't trust the government. (23:06) They're never going to give you transparency. They're just going to lie to you back to back to back to back. But then they just want to hear military pilots. They just want to hear military officials give their cases, but not your average Joe. So here. What it's mentioning in this article is that everyone should be able to give the UFO sightings, including civilian pilots and air crew. (23:30) And here we're looking at people that work for United, right, which used to be Continental and all these other ones that people that are in the sky on a daily basis, maybe. are seeing strange things but they are not allowed to report it at least not to aero so sponsored by representative robert garcia and representative glenn grothman the new bill aims to change that by creating a reporting mechanism for civilian pilots as well and it says here by mr garcia quote ua tree UAP transparency is incredibly important for our national security, which is why we need to create a space where those in aviation have the ability to report their findings and experiences. (24:18) And yes, OK, that's my stamp of approval. Puck approves. It's putting that stamp right down there because yes, because yes. Now, when we are dealing with civilian sightings, continuing on that thought with military sightings, right? The reason to why people don't always like civilian sightings is because they're not held under oath, they're not held by their credentials or by their status, so they can lie. (24:46) They can be a little unhinged and report a sighting that didn't actually happen, right? And they're not gonna receive the consequences. Now with military officials, In reality, for the longest time, since 1945, maybe before that, they were very scared to report their sightings. Ryan Graves had spoken about this during his UAP witness hearing in July, stating that for those that report their sightings can lose their jobs, can lose their status. (25:14) And so that's why people are a little bit more inclined to believe these military events. officials because they have more to lose than your civilian ones that are just saying it maybe for a laugh, maybe for fame, maybe because it really did happen. But maybe they just don't have the language in order to properly express what happened. (25:35) Do you see what I'm saying here? This is where it gets kind of dicey and kind of difficult. And yet Representative Robert Garcia and Glenn Grothman are saying, At the very least, it should be open to people in aviation, civilian pilots and crewmen, not open to everyone. Okay. It ain't open to. everyone that you see on the street at Walmart, but it's open to those that have a basic understanding of anomalies that can be seen in the sky, a trained eye for weather balloons, Venus, so on and so forth. (26:11) And it continues. This bill is another step forward for disclosure and to provide a safe process for UAP witnessing by civilian and commercial personnel. Again, referring commercials, referring to your airports, airlines. that kind of stuff Now, if the bill does pass, it will also require the FAA to share any information relating to the cases with the AERO office, the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, so that they can be investigated further. (26:44) And this is really, really cool because the FAA has, yes, they do have a kind of reporting center-ish with certain pilots. They had it, then they dropped it, then they had it again. They're very difficult to work with and to receive any paperwork about people documenting their UAP sightings. They're very cage and they will not usually share that information with you. (27:10) Now, the FAA and Arrow are working together. Now, is this for the public's benefit or does it just look nice on paper? Hmm. It gets hard. It gets hard with these questions because we don't have the answers. And some are going to say yes and some are going to say no. JJL, thank you so much for that. (27:30) Thank you. If you're enjoying that show, hit that like button right now. We have 425 people watching this live. Of course, only hit that button if you're actually enjoying the show. So it continues here in Grothman quotes stating this. The bill is a crucial initiative that empowers those on the front line of our skies to contribute valuable intelligence regarding UAP sightings that can help us ensure the potential threats are thoroughly investigated. (28:01) So here he is using the word threats as government officials do when it comes to this topic. But what's interesting about this, and I'm really glad that the USA Today was able to capture this information, are these particular quotes to be able to see to the best of their ability to see the inside of these representatives' minds, asking questions and seeing how they're answering them. (28:27) Because every single word has, for the most part, value. And in this case, when Grothman uses the word threats, okay, we know what's going on here. We have an idea of the mentality that he has or taught to have or that he's witnessed firsthand. And so it says here, this is another quote from Grothman. (28:47) It says, with the majority of Americans believing that the government has suppressed information on UAPs, our bipartisan effort highlights our need for transparency from the federal government regarding UAPs to better protect the safety and security of American citizens. He hit the nail on the head here. (29:08) He is addressing a real issue that people are having, and that is the trust in the government. And he's saying, look, I hear you. I see you. I have social media. I know what's up. I want to address this and say I am on your side. That is the message that he's attempting to convey here. Now, is that the truth? Is that what he's really feeling and thinking in that moment when he gave that quote to USA Today? We can't read minds. (29:38) We don't have that power. All right. Even if we did, that's not to tell anybody about that. But here he is saying, look, we know, we know you don't trust the government, but we are really trying to push for the very least for UAP transparency. But if we use our beautiful big brains that are like 10 pounds, by the way, our brains are heavy. (30:04) They're like 8 to 10 pounds plus the skull. It's crazy. But if we use these beautiful things that were given to us at birth, we have to ask ourselves yet another question because I love asking questions. It's what I do best. We have to ask ourselves here, what does UAP transparency actually mean? Is it just dropping all the paperwork at your feet that you're able to download from the from the government website? Is that what it is? Is UAP transparency for the president of the United States to say aliens? (30:38) That's what's up. Is UAP transparency having a sighting for yourself and the government saying, yep, that was definitely E.T. was definitely a UFO sighting. Everyone has their own interpretation of what UAP transparency actually means, and there hasn't really been a consensus of many people agreeing of what it means, other than we want the government to tell us information about UFOs, UAP, ET, whatever. (31:08) And in some ways, we're kind of getting that information. We've received reports from AERO. We received reports from the AOI MSG before it turned into AERO. We're getting these... skiffs to where just the topic is being made public. Do you see what I'm saying here? It's a very complex topic, but more so than anything, there's a lot of room for interpretation and a lot of room for questioning. (31:37) And I would say of a divide as well for people that have different mentalities on what transparency actually means, what disclosure actually means. if I'm going to be as frank as I can with you, I don't know. I don't know what, in their mind, referring to the government, I don't know what transparency means to them. (31:59) I do not know what disclosure means to them. I know what it means to me, but my definition is going to change from your definition. But 2024 is turning out to be a very, very, interesting here and maybe we might get those answers what do you think tyler says disclosure is any information reveal release but full disclosure is showing everything and that's what i don't think will ever be given by the government if we are shown everything It will cut it will bring to light so many other projects, so many things that really could be a national security issue, because if that transparency is for the world, right, that that infinite, that like fully transparent, like a piece of plexiglass. (32:53) Then you could bring in the topic of, okay, our adversaries are going to take that information, take that tech and use it against us, right? It's those that have the most information, have the most power. And the only way to have that kind of power and knowledge is by not sharing it with others, keeping them dumb, keeping you smart, keeping you in power, keeping other people not. (33:19) It's disappointing. Yeah. It really is. It sucks. But that's the mentality of these government officials. But you know what? I want to change up this topic just a little bit with y'all. We've been really diving into this and I and I love having these kinds of like brain fests with you. Like this is so much fun. (33:41) But we got to bring in about the moon landing. Okay. And the Artemis. All right. This is important kind of stuff. And Sasha, thank you so much. Keep being the trailblazer, Christina. Thank you. Thank you. And Hydes, when will we hear about your data collection tools for 2024? Soon. Soon. Thank you so much. And no filter. (33:59) Aliens are in control. No worries. Hey, that's interesting. Question is, what are they actually controlling? You know what I mean? Is it for our benefit or not? So many questions right then and there. But let's get into our next one here. And by the way, whoever took these images of the crew for the Artemis program, honestly, they need a raise. (34:20) Like this is a really, really fantastic image. I took photography in high school. I love it. I haven't done it in a very long time. But I can definitely praise a photographer when I see a good one. And this one, I'm pleased with it. Brian says, anciently, apocalypse meant roughly disclosure. Interesting, and thank you for that, Brian. (34:44) Okay, so let's get into this because this one is definitely throwing in a lot of conspiracies and things that I would like to hear your side of because the moon in itself, all right, just the moon in itself is whack. All the information that you can find online even on the dark webs or on the light webs, whatever the regular webs is, they are so opposite. (35:10) They are so yin and yang. It's like, which one do you believe? Those that say that the moon isn't even real. Those that say that there was never a moon landing. Those that say that there are aliens on the moon and there are like full-blown civilizations going on there. the possibilities and the answers are endless. (35:30) And we're not going to get into all of that. Jimmy and I actually did a show on the mysteries of the moon on this channel. You can find it here where we cover everything referring to the science and to the conspiracies that you can find it. If you're into that kind of topic, just type in moon on my YouTube and you'll find it there. (35:47) But this is bizarre because the Artemis program, it received all of this praise and amazement of like, yeah, we're going back to the moon after 50 years. This is so exciting. We're going to bring tools. We're going to put the first colored person, the first woman on the moon, this, that, and the other. (36:05) And there was just so much of like, yeah, right? Yeah. And then as of recently, I mean, like this week, maybe last week, if we're stretching it that far, they're saying, well, we were supposed to launch it in 2024, but now maybe 2025, maybe 2026. What's going on here? Why? You had 50 f