UFOs and AARO and the Future of Disclosure

Show Transcript

It's been six days since the release of the latest Arrow UAP report, and some things need to be said. And I know that you have things in the back of your mind that you want to say as well. And these six days have given myself and others to see the reaction and the fallout, as well as look at the possible future for UFO disclosure. (00:34) Hello and welcome to this episode of Mysteries with a History, where you'll be taken on a wild ride into the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious. Like you, I have questions, and like you, I have answers. Questions. And I want answers. Oh my goodness, I've been saying that intro for like several years now. (00:52) We messed it up. Can you believe that? Anyways, we have a lot to cover, so let me bring in my co-host, Jimmy Church of Fate of Black Radio. Jimmy, what a fun way. You're supposed to be rehearsed. You're supposed to be professional. After this many shows, you should be on autopilot. I know. Autopilot, autopilot. (01:14) Now, it's funny that you mention it like that because welcome, everybody. How you doing? It's going to be a great show today. um in in that yeah you go into autopilot mode and then you catch yourself right when you flub right and that's it's it's it's just really strange for for the audience they catch it too you know that right oh yeah they catch it because they're here every day and And they know. (01:45) So I'm moving some stuff around on my screen. I like the way that you put that in your intro. It's only been six days. And there has, I don't have to ask you where you got the idea for this week's show. But I want to start off with just a very, very general statement that I have been making publicly. (02:13) I have refrained from other commentary and insights on the report. There are a lot of excellent researchers out there and people that have read through this, and they have their own takes. I don't want that at this point through this broadcast, and you will be joining me tonight on Fade to Black for another version of this same show. (02:41) another version. Okay. Today is Christina's show. This is her take on the report. Tonight, it'll be my take and then her response to my take along with the audience. And then you have the audience in the middle hearing not only both versions of the show, but they will be able to then go and read the report and assess through everybody else's comments throughout social media and the news and the media. (03:13) on the report and come to your own conclusions. And that's our goal today in doing two different shows. So, but I need to really press that point that I have read through the report now so many times and I keep coming to I'm fine-tuning it, I should say, but I'm coming to other conclusions and other conclusions. (03:40) So I'm excited about this. And my first question to you as we start through this, how many times have you now read through the report? If I had to be brutally honest, because that's the only way I like to do these things, about three times. That's a lot. It's a lot. It's a lot. Now, the report itself, to get to a technical part of this, I'm going to pull this up. (04:08) And I did notice this after my like 10-3 through. There's the file itself. Do you have a download up for everybody? I do. You want me to pull it up? Okay. No, no, no. I mean, in the comments. Pop it up in the chat. If you don't have your own downloaded version of the report, let's get that up there so you can go back and reference this either during the show, of course, but for later reading. (04:46) And, okay, I think Zenzibille just got it up. Yeah, and I'm putting it in now as well. Okay, good, good, good, good, good. Is this... It's 64 pages in the PDF. But if you scroll to the bottom and you get to the end of the report, everybody, there are, let me make this kind of semi-official. The last 10, it ends on page 64. (05:26) Do you want me to share my screen or do you want to? I'm sorry. It ends on page 46 and then you have the cover page and then you have the title pages. So the report itself sits in the middle and it is between 30 and 40 pages because once you get past, you know, page four is still the table of contents and And then page five is blank. (05:53) And then the introduction starts on page seven. And that goes through page 46. That is the body of the report. After that, it's footnotes and references in the end of the report. And then the first seven pages, six pages, are the table of contents and the introduction. the introduction of the report with its cover page. (06:20) So there you go. So the bulk of the report sits in the middle between pages 7 and 46. Which in all honesty has been yet our best report that we've received where we get anywhere from seven to 11 pages and even that's being generous. So to be able to receive a 40 plus page paper with more chewable information, this is something that a lot of people saw as a plus that saw this in a more positive light than our previous reports. (06:54) But honestly, With more information, with more words, with more data collected, there is more space for flaws. There is more space for incorrect information compared to the previous reports. Before we even get into this one, let me just kind of lay a foundation. When we received our preliminary reports from the UAPTF, from the AOI, MSG, even from Arrow not too long ago, they were short they they were very word salad e papers where they try to use as many words as possible to tell you absolutely nothing the only thing that we were able to (07:35) grab from any of those reports was the term balloon-like entities people were like whoa what is that and many were grabbing on to that. For this one, there's a lot to look into, some information that people weren't familiar with prior. And so when you look it up, you still can't really find too much information. (07:56) But let's let's go ahead and get started with the report looking on page six, which is the introduction. And I'm going to read this to you. I even have it highlighted. And if you like, I can share show the PDF on screen. But let me just read this for now. Because it says, in completing this report, Arrow reviewed all official USG, which is United States government, investigatory efforts since 1945, researched classified and unclassified archives, conducting approximately, approximately, 30 interviews and partnered (08:31) with the intelligence community, the Department of Defense officials responsible for controlled and special access program oversight, respectfully. So just from that point, that one sentence, two sentences, there are two words that promptly come out and that is approximately 30 interviews. Why can't you just tell us the exact number? Like you're not cutting a person in half and only asking their top part or their bottom part. (09:00) You're asking an entire person. And then also they end the sentence with respectively. What does that mean? Starting off your entire paper, with that first paragraph. And now with that, and it's written from the introduction forward from a single perspective. So this would indicate to me that this was written by one person. (09:39) This wasn't a team effort. And missing from this report are the authors of the report. It doesn't list anywhere. It says we, it says Arrow, but it doesn't say Sean Kirkpatrick. It doesn't have another list of names. It doesn't have co-authors. That is very, very, very strange to me. When you write any scientific paper, anything of this nature, It is then peer-reviewed. (10:17) The authors are named and cited. That is missing from this report. Now, I don't know if this is a key component that others have noticed and have commented on. Like I said, I have refrained from reading everybody's assessments on it, but that is the one thing, I wanna know who wrote this report. So as you start to read from the introduction, you get the feeling that it's written by one person from one perspective. (10:51) And I think that that is a very important component to this as we go through the report. You can go to the end of the report and go to the last page. There's no authors listed. There's nothing on the cover page about who the authors are. It is just from Arrow. And it seems to be written from a single person perspective. (11:17) The other comment that I have to make that starts with the introduction, it reads like, this is my take after reading this report many times, it reads like a report that was written, and I'm not saying this in a derogatory sense, but it is like a high school level report freshman college level book report, a report on the, the Punic Wars, whatever, you know, it's like, it's, it's written like that. (11:59) All right. It is it is it's candy coated and it's from a personal perspective and it's written as a single person's opinion of a situation or or an historical event. And you get that from the word go right at the introduction. And this is important to talk about. But first, Decker, thank you so much for that. (12:26) And Chris, that made me laugh. Thank you so much as well. It says that error report should be printed on toilet paper so we can put it to its proper use. That's funny. Okay, so going to your point, Jimmy, about how it was written and in the sense of the format for... Okay, if it was to be a scientific paper using all of this jargon that your average person isn't familiar with... (12:52) No one was going to read it, which maybe that wasn't a bad idea for them because as we're going to go along, we're going to tear this apart. But the thing is that When you are writing a report, you have to consider as many people as possible. And they want to just have an assumption that maybe you don't have a super high education, but you still want to understand the report. (13:15) And while that might sound insulting because it is, that's just kind of the mentality. It's the same thing as that like content today. you only have the first three seconds to get someone's interest. We have a shorter attention span, as the saying goes, as a goldfish. And that's changed over the last few years. (13:33) Our education and our attention spans have shrunk significantly. And maybe this report could potentially be hinting at that with the way it was written, because it is easy to follow. There isn't any big... fluffy words in there. Your average person was able to read it and follow along. And so was that the purpose so that more people could maybe agree to the report versus those that said, oh, it's too complicated. (14:00) Therefore, it's all false. Let's throw it down the toilet. I mean, do you see what I'm saying here? Does that make sense to you? It does make sense. And there's another, staying on your point and going back to what I just said, it reads like... just a book report. And so when you do a book report or you've got to turn in some kind of paper on some kind of subject, you are going to pull information from your research and compile your, your said document. (14:40) Okay. And for those like the teacher, uh, that is giving these instructions. And for those that understand the subject matter, they're going to read the report and understand it because they know the contents of it. That's what we have here. It is a historical perspective from one person's search into the subject. (15:06) It is glaringly missing quite a bit of information that is not included in here. And I'll say specifically for the record, The Tic Tac and the Nimitz are not included in this report. And that I find highly suspect. And I don't know why it was not included here when we were talking about military professionals that were involved in that case. (15:32) The reason why Aero exists today is because of the revelations that Captain David Fravor brought forward in December of 2017. That is why Aero exists. And that's why this report was written today, was because of that moment in December of 2017. And it's not included in this report. Amongst other modern historical cases which were neglected and were not only... (16:04) Were they not included in the report? But you have to go back and ask yourself why. Why were those, when you have something very, very concrete that you can go and analyze, that is not included in this report. What this report is about is about smearing Not only individuals, but also the community in general. And that's the way that this report is written. (16:31) Also, one last comment. Everything in this report, except for Kona Blue, which I did not know about until this report, and I was very interested in that. Aside from Kona Blue, there is nothing in this report that you cannot get from public information. Okay? It's that simple. There is nothing new here. Anybody that has a general interest in this subject got nothing new from this report. (17:01) There's nothing in there. Not a single thing except for Kona Blue. Emphasizing on your point on your point on how it was written, kind of like a college paper, a high school paper. There are some opinions in here, which is always dangerous. And we're actually able to see it right here in the next or so paragraphs, for instance. (17:24) Let me just kind of start off here. Because it says that these investigators were managed and implemented by a range of experts, scientists, academics, military and intelligence officials under differing leaders. But then there's a bit more because it talks about and I emphasize this actually on strange news. (17:42) I found it so profound. And it was talking about belief, talking about conspiracy theories. And the way I read it, it was the Internet is lying to you. Do not believe the Internet. Believe the government. Believe this report that I am giving out to you. And it's just something that I don't think landed the way that maybe they anticipated for. (18:07) And I'm going I'm trying to just I'm reading through it as fast as I can and attempting to to find it. Here it is. Talking about a consistent theme in pop culture. And then it goes on talking about like off world spacecraft and extraterrestrial biological remains. And then it says that like Arrow recognizes that many people sincerely hold versions of these beliefs. (18:31) And I want beliefs to be in all caps and in bold, which are based on their perception and past experiences, right? But then it's saying with television programs, with books, with movies and the vast amount of Internet and social media content centered on UAP related topics are most likely most likely has influenced the public conversation on the topic. (18:55) And so this is where I'm saying, OK, we understand just from that paragraph alone, we understand their viewpoint of it is because of it's because of media altogether that you are getting it wrong. When it comes to aliens, extraterrestrial spacecraft, reverse engineered technology, blame them. But everything the government has ever said, according to this report, or what they're attempting to provide to the public, is that it's true. (19:26) They're telling you the truth while the media is not. Am I wrong for thinking it like that? No, that's exactly the point. That is exactly the point. It is because there is a singular, appears to be a singular author of this report writing from their position with their opinion. This report isn't based on facts. (19:53) It's not. And the citations that are at the end of the report are public information. That what is missing from this report, and if you are going to go on the record and write a report like this representing the government, you know what's important? Names. You cannot gloss over. There is not a name in this report. (20:23) There's not a name anywhere. So if you're going to go and interview 30, right? 30 interviews. Approximately. Right. Heads of corporations. Okay. Well, who? What CEO? What CEO went on the record? And in this report where they don't name those names, and obviously, and I'm going to say this on the record, the report takes a direct crack at Lou Elizondo. (20:58) Now, your opinion of Lou Elizondo does not matter here. But clearly, there is something going on with Arrow and Lou Elizondo. But they don't mention Lou Elizondo by name. To say OSAP and AATIP and this group of individuals wanted to influence and wanted to do this, wanted to do that, but they don't name names? Well, go on the record. (21:26) If that's the case, if you've got something personal here that is so deeply rooted and burning inside of you that you can't, Put the person's name in the report because you're afraid of the repercussions of that because you've got a personal ax to grind. No, put that name in there. If you interviewed the CEO of Lockheed or Northrop Grumman or Raytheon, wherever you went with this, where are those names? What dates were the interviews and what was said? The only explanation for that is this is an opinion piece. (22:08) This is an editorial piece. This is no different than anything else if I'm going to pay to have an op-ed inserted into the New York Times or the Washington Post. It's an opinion editorial piece. I'd like to emphasize on that because we're looking at page, about page 30, page 30 to 33 here. Talking about no names being mentioned, not even authors, just quickly backing it up. (22:35) Back in November, Kirkpatrick did allude to this report, saying that we were going to get new, interesting information to give people a better perspective. But on page 33... It says here, Arrow and a leading science laboratory concluded that the material is metallic alloy. But then what scientists, which lead scientists and what lead science laboratory are you referring to? But there's a little bit more because they kind of answer, they attempt to answer your question, Jimmy, on why there weren't names in the report. (23:10) And it had mentioned that because they were under NDAs, these people, they weren't able to They really weren't supposed to talk about these government projects and things like that. And they emphasized in the report, actually, that if you infringe on an NDA, it could be punishable by death. And they actually put that in bold. (23:32) And I'll find it for you in just a moment. But also there's also jail time. So that could have possibly have been a reason. And there's a bit more to that because then it said in volume two names would be released. Right. Yeah, and also right there it says, on the next page, we'll circle back to it, but it says, Arrow found no evidence of any NDF or any NDAs signed by anybody. (24:02) And I was like, wait a minute, okay, who said that? It's just an opinion. And obviously, if that is the case, then you're taking somebody's word. Now, also, on page 30 in the summary, right at the top of page 30, it says, It says this, and I quote, as of September 17, 2023, Arrow interviewed approximately 30 individuals. (24:30) Arrow categorized these individuals into three tiers. Tier one, interviewees who are those who have spoken with congressional staff members of Congress and have subsequently referred to Arrow. Tier 2 interviewees are those who have been referred to by Arrow by Tier 1 interviewees. And Tier 3 interviewees who are Arrow-generated interviewees that have a corroborating touchpoint to the principal integrated narrative of reports from Tier 1 and Tier 2 interviewees. (25:02) Priority is given to those interviewees who claim the first-hand knowledge of government programs, events, or details about any resulting material. Interviewees relaying second or third hand knowledge are lower in priority, but Arrow has and will continue to schedule interviews with them nonetheless. Now, to say something like that in such a general sense without breaking it down, you can. (25:34) go pop a number on it and then refer to who those interviewees were and on what date. It's so obvious that this kind of content is opinions and the cognitive dissonance, which is referenced in this report, by the way, is being worn, those blinders are being worn by the report writer. They want to ignore anything else out there that may change their opinion. (26:17) And that's what the report is. It's very, very obvious from the word go. Now, can we back up? Are you backing up? Let's go to the beginning of the report. And let's start at page 9. Okay, page eight going into page eight. And I'm going to read through these one by one, these bullet points. (26:54) UAP non-disclosure agreements, NDAs. Arrow has found no evidence of any authentic UAP-related NDA or other evidence threatening death or violence for disclosing UAP information. I'm going to stop right there and say that this is a direct crack at Lou Elizondo. Luella Zondo and David Grush as well. Well, many, many. (27:19) Right. But that claims that they're hiding behind an NDA. And this is this is that nobody can comment about that at this time. So there's that bullet to a CIA official allegedly manage UAP experimentation. The named former CIA official was not involved in the movement of extraterrestrial technology. The same former CIA officer signed a memo rejecting a claim made by interviewees that he managed the movement and of experimentation of off-world technology. (27:54) Says right here he's named. Or she. Who? What's the name? You can't, at this point, you can't hide behind, well, it's CIA, we can't reveal. You say it's a named former CIA officer. Okay? Right there, give us the name. Because at this point, the rumors, the innuendo, the soap opera drama that is social media that the report author is complaining about is doing it themselves right here. (28:34) Because this is innuendo. Bullet point three, alleged UAP intelligence community document, an alleged 1961 special national intelligence estimate that was leaked to online sources and suggests the extraterrestrial natures of UFOs is inauthentic. Bullet point number three, aliens present during a DOD technology test. (29:00) Arrow reviewed information related to an account of an interviewee overhearing a conversation about a technology test at a military base where aliens allegedly were observing, and Arrow judges that the interviewee misunderstood the conversation. Stop right there. Arrow judges, right? Arrow judges the interviewee is crazy. (29:28) That's what that says. That's it. Bullet point three, claim that a military officer touched an off-world craft. And this bullet point was, well, the interviewee actually touched an F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter and thought it was an alien craft. That's right. And it says that it was misconstrued by the interviewee, although the named former officer does not recall having this conversation with the interviewee. (30:03) Again, we're lacking names, innuendo, and opinion. Test of off-world technology. An interviewee claimed that he witnessed what he claimed, right? wording. What he believed to be testing of extraterrestrial technology at a United States government facility almost certainly was the observation of an authentic non-UAP related technology test that strongly correlated in time, location, and description provided in the interviewee's account. (30:34) What test? Where was it? What are we alleging here? This is just a statement by the author. UAP disclosure study. Interviewees claims that between 2004 and 2007, the White House requested a research institute in Virginia study that theoretical societal impacts of disclosure in the UAP are extraterrestrial in origin. (30:58) Arrow confirmed the study was conducted but was not requested by the White House. It's opinion. Let's move on. No citations. Named companies allegedly experimenting on alien technology. This is one of the points that I'm going to make quite a bit. Arrow has found, Arrow, has found no evidence that U.S. (31:26) companies have ever possessed off-world technology. The executive scientists and chief technology officers of the companies named by interviewees met with the director of Arrow and denied on the record that they have never recovered, possessed, or engaged in reverse engineering extraterrestrial technology. Okay, so we don't know who these companies are. (31:46) We don't know who was interviewed. We don't have their names. But Arrow has found no evidence. So apparently, and we don't know who, the CEO of Lockheed comes into Sean Kirkpatrick's office, and I'm making assumptions here, and Sean Kirkpatrick says, okay, Do you have any flying saucers? No. (32:07) Okay, cool. You're going to say that on the record? Yes. Okay. Next. Bring in the next. Right? That's what we're talking about here. You're just going to take somebody's word just like that without naming who you interviewed? That the press, the media, and members of Congress, our elected officials can do follow-up on this? It's very interesting. (32:33) There probably was no follow-up. It's a huge point. Experimentation on alleged extraterrestrial spacecraft samples. Arrow has concluded, again, Arrow, has concluded that a sample from an alleged crashed off-world spacecraft that Arrow acquired from a private UAP investigating organization and the U.S. Army. (32:56) Now, is he talking about... Is he talking about Tom DeLonge? right, because the U.S. Army is mentioned here, right, is a manufactured terrestrial alloy and does not represent off-world technology or possess any exceptional qualities. The sample was primarily composed of magnesium, zinc, and bismuth with some other trace elements such as lead. (33:21) This assessment was based on its materials characterization. Okay, lab test. Who did the test at Arrow? Arrow concluded that And what were they testing? I need all of that information. I need all of that information. So it sounds like, again, because this is so empty in words and information, that I'm jumping to the conclusion, because it says U.S. (33:51) Army, that this is Tom DeLonge and arts parts and the piece that was purchased by a making... very, very broad conclusions here. Purchased from Linda Moulton Howe, turned over to the U.S. Army, and they used the U.S. Army's labs on that piece. So is that what is being referenced here? It's just from the... (34:25) metallic uh composition and the bismuth and the mention of that and zinc alloy I'm pretty safe in saying that except there's no no information here okay all right um okay now uh going on to page 10 aero assesses Not independent. This is Arrow. Arrow assesses that all of the name and described alleged hidden UAP reverse engineering programs provided by the interviewees either do not exist, are misidentified authentic, highly sensitive national security programs that are not related to extraterrestrial technology exploitation, (35:11) or resolved to an unwarranted and de-established program. Okay, now there's a lot of information on this statement in the rest of the report. One, the de-established program, we'll get to that in a little bit. But to say that everybody involved didn't know what they were talking about, didn't have access to the real information, or this is a national security issue. (35:40) That's it. There's no other conclusion to come to that the author is the judge and jury here. And the disappointing part is that because there are no author names, if it was one person or several people, we're not able to question them on why they thought the things that they did or how their investigations went, which I think in their mentality was a brilliant idea because Arrow... (36:10) It's this whole agency that you're not able to pinpoint and grab a person out of it. And what I think is really interesting about this, Jimmy, is that Kirkpatrick left in December. He had alluded to this paper in November. The report was released in March. So three months after him leaving Arrow. And now the current director, like for the time being, Is Timothy Phillips. (36:35) But but what's interesting here is why was the report released several months after Kirkpatrick left? Who wrote the paper and how many people proof read the paper? There's all these really valid questions. And when you're releasing anything that requires scientific analysis, it has to be peer reviewed. (36:59) And those that peer review it need to put their name on it to be held accountable. Here, from what we're seeing, is that no one is being held accountable, which it's child's play. The point that you're making is so important. When you read through this... Now, I'm not a New York Times bestselling author. (37:27) I'm not a book editor. I'm not any of that. I write the way that I speak. Actually, I write a little better than I speak for some reason. I don't know why that is. But... I have a general grasp on the English language and grammar. And reading through this, I've just got to say, there are some points of this, the way that it's written. (37:55) It's like nobody did a proofread and nobody did an edit on this and let it get out in its current state. Again, I'm not going to sit here and pick apart this and grade the paper on its grammar, but it reads funky to me. It does. It reads funky. It doesn't flow right. But that's my opinion, and you can read through this yourself. (38:21) Now, I want to get to Kona Blue. at staying in the flow here, because on page 10, it goes straight into Kona Blue. Now, this caught my attention. Everybody knows, I don't need to state my credentials, but I have probably interviewed more people than anybody on the subject, okay? I can say that with a fair amount of confidence. (38:53) And so in doing so, I have a lot of information. I've read all the books, not all of them, but I've been doing this for 50 years. I'm 60 years old and I have a pretty firm grasp on timelines, on projects, on cases. I just do. Okay. All right. That being said, Kona Blue, right? Even for me, for me, you know, because I'm reading through this. (39:24) Christina, I'm telling you, right? I was like, Kona what? Kona who? What? What? Okay, here we go. Now, Kona Blue, I was hoping it was going to be something more than it turned out to be, but I didn't know anything about it. So for those that haven't read the report, and I've heard me mention Kona Blue now a half a dozen times since the start of the show. (39:50) Here we go. This is page 10. The interviewees and others who have mistakenly associated authentic, sensitive national security programs with UAP had incomplete or unauthorized access to these programs. I find that a very interesting statement. Discussion of these programs outside of secure facilities presents a high risk of exposing national security information. (40:17) Yes, I get that. I also call BS. One named program was a UAP related prospective special access program or a PSAP. That's an SAP that hasn't gotten to SAP level. It's just a suggested program. Let's go and see if this has merit and see if we can get it funded. So the idea is there. You've written up the idea and it is called a PSAP. (40:52) This PSAP was called Kona Blue. That was proposed to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and supported by individuals who believe the United States government was hiding off world technology. The program was never approved by DHS, and its supporters never provided empirical evidence to support their claims. (41:16) Now, I'm going to come back to this because the third bullet point here on page 10 is, in 2021, without sufficient justification, the scope of an IC-controlled access program was expanded to protect UAP reverse engineering. What? Right? Oh, we're getting somewhere, aren't we? This program never recovered or reverse engineered any UAP or extraterrestrial spacecraft. (41:46) This IC program was de-established due to its lack of merit. This was referenced in the introduction page of this report. Now, let's go back to bullet point number two, because it directly reflects into bullet point number three. And that is this. Kona Blue appears to be, if we read this correctly here, Christina, a Lou Elizondo OSAP ATIP extension suggested by those involved with OSAP to extend this program. (42:29) Now, I'm going to say Lou Elizondo and those around him. But what I find interesting about this, and I'm going right back to Lou Elizondo, why didn't Lou Elizondo mention Kona Blue? Kona Blue... If we read this correctly, was a suggestion about backwards and reverse engineering craft, and this new project is going to go and investigate this, and it's going to be called Kona Blue, apparently spearheaded by the OSIP ATIP Bigelow crowd and Circle. (43:11) Why are we reading about this in this report? And why wouldn't Lou Elizondo mention this in the past? I have interviewed him multiple times. Okay. He had every opportunity to mention Kona blue. Um, I now, unless I missed something in the past, I haven't listened to everything that Lou Elizondo has ever done. (43:34) Um, But I certainly, through all of the data collection and all of the Freedom of Information Act and Susan Goff and everything else that we have centered around this, the United States Navy and the Pentagon and everything else, there has never been a mention of Kona Blue before. And we're getting it in this report. (43:56) And it's written because in my estimation of the situation, which we'll circle back to, that this is another direct crack at Lou Elizondo without naming names. Just Kona Blue and the fact that this was supported by, and I'm quoting here, Supported by individuals who believe the United States government was hiding off world technology. (44:24) All right. This program was never approved by DHS. Very interesting part of this report. It is. And it's something that a lot of mainstream media outlets were honing in on. If you read any summary, at the very least, just a summary from ABC, MSN, News Nation, doesn't matter. They all mentioned Kona Blue in their reports. (44:48) And but without really providing on any information, like what is it actually? What was it referring to? Who created it? Is it a real program as well? Because there's no information. Now, does it mean there's no information because it doesn't exist or there's no information because it's a very secret private project? I think for this, only time will tell, because now that it's out in the open, hopefully someone that was a part of this project or a group will come out and address it. (45:19) But it's only been six days since this report was released, at the very least to the public, because in the beginning, the front cover says March 6, 2024, but we didn't get it until March 8. Now, We can only imagine what the classified version of the report looks like, because this is only the declassified version, or the unclassified one, right? It's long. (45:44) It's okay. It's good for many people. But maybe in the classified version, there might have been more information regarding Kona Blue than what we have so far. Do you think that's a possibility? Yeah. Well, okay. So what do we do with that, though? It is a possibility. But what this report, now we're going to continue going through this, but Lou Elizondo centers right in the middle of the push and the effort here. (46:19) Lou Elizondo, Chris Mellon, Danny Sheehan, you know, the list is long, right? And now, so I'm only saying Danny because Danny was representing and is representing Lou, but Danny's efforts also in Washington, D.C., and what was going on at Congress. Because the way that it's worded here, it says... (46:47) Arrow assesses that the inaccurate claim that the United States government is reverse engineering, see, the inaccurate, right? Arrow assesses the inaccurate claim that the United States government is reverse engineering extraterrestrial technology and is hiding it from Congress is, in large part, the result of circular reporting from a group of individuals who who believe this is to be the case despite lack of any evidence. (47:19) Arrow notes that although the claims of the United States government has recovered and hidden spacecraft date back to the 1940s and 1950s, more modern instances of these claims largely stem from a consistent group of individuals who have been involved in various UAP-related endeavors since at least 2009. He's talking about OSAP and ATIP. (47:42) Many of these individuals were involved in or supportive of a canceled DIA program and the subsequent but failed attempt to reestablish this program under DHS called Kona Blue. Arrow assesses that UAP sightings and reports of these sightings to U.S. government organizations and claims that some UAP constitute extraterrestrial craft and that the United States government has secured and is experimenting on extraterrestrial technology have been influenced by a range of cultural, political, and technological factors. (48:21) Again, pointing straight back now, if we stop right here, Christina, I'm going to ask you two questions. The first one is, is this the point where those that are being called out in this report put up or shut up? right? It's like, okay, we've been going back and forth, back and forth. We've made the accusations. (48:53) We've had the congressional testimony. We've got David Grush on the record, right? Got David Fravor, right? We've got Ryan. And so with all of that, is this the point where Claims have been made, response. Claims have been made, response. Now, are we at that point where those that are supposedly in the know in this community have to put up, have to put it up, put it out there and spin this back around onto Arrow? No. (49:37) The crazy part about this is that in the first several pages, this is mentioned twice, where we're looking at influenced by a range of cultural, political, and technological factors. And the very intro of this paper, it says movies, books, TV shows, social media. That's who is to blame. And... When we're looking at this, yeah, all of these names can come to mind. (50:05) David Fravor, David Grush, Ryan Graves, Lila Zondo, and the list goes on and on. But those are like the most famous ones at this point in time. Are they pointing the finger at them? Well, let's bring this up. And right now, if you're enjoying the show, hit that like button right down below. We have 485 people watching this live, 278 likes. (50:27) Let's get to 300. Hit that like button right now below, if and only if you're enjoying the show. So here's my point that I want to make, Jimmy, because let's say they are pointing a finger. Specifically, let's look at. David, David Fravor, just for an instance, because those videos that were recorded, they were authenticated by the Pentagon in 2017 and 2018. (50:49) Pentagon said, yeah, these are authentic. We don't know what they are, but we're going to call them a UFO. We don't we don't know what's really going on here. Then that's when David Fravor was really becoming coming out and telling his story, especially on 60 Minutes, where it really took off. (51:04) And then you have this report that could potentially be pointing the finger at them. It's very contradictory, if and only if that is the case. But then it also mentions in this report that everything when it comes to the military, when it comes to the government itself, is that it's all compartmentalized. (51:22) The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. And I'd like to emphasize on that because in this report, Arrow mentioned, we were given access to all of the programs. All the agencies were willing to talk to us and give us information. Is that true? Yeah, that's nearly a direct quote that you just stated, by the way, out of the report. (51:49) And that's a heavy, heavy statement without backing it up. Right, because no one's had that access before. And I don't think it even happened with Arrow just because it would be classified as dangerous. But on top of that, once again, it's so compartmentalized that people don't really know what's going on, no matter the agency, no matter the clearances that you may have. (52:16) It doesn't always matter. It should, but it's more complex than that. Well, but isn't that the point, though? Exactly. The point is very, very clear here. And somebody just said in the chat, I just happened to just glance down and caught one comment. They're blowing by really fast. We're at a stalemate. (52:41) It is a stalemate. That's exactly where this is, right? And the claims that Arrow is making, that everything is unsubstantiated, that you don't have any proof, and the debunkers that are out there and the skeptics are out there, where's the proof, where's the proof? And there's that. And then they go and write a report without anything behind the report. (53:09) It's an opinion, and it's somebody's opinion. I'm never going to say nobody's not entitled to your opinion. Of course you are. But if you are going to make these statements, you need to back it up, just like Grush. Grush needs to back that up. The statements by Lou Elizondo over the years, those need to be backed up. (53:32) If we take this at face value, Where NDAs don't matter. There is no NDA. Nobody can hide behind an NDA because there is no NDA about UAPs. Well, if Arrow is a government paid for organization, an established government body, right? Arrow at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base says, you don't have to worry about NDAs. (53:59) Right? Well, okay. That's the case. And it's right here. It's time. That's the stalemate. Right? It's like pushing it right back on. Now, I'm just saying that there are many, many people that have made some claims in the UFO community. All right? Many. Well, I can't really say because I can't really, you know what? The time for that is over. (54:31) The time for it is over with arrow, right? The time for that, if you know something, give it up. That's it. That's it. That's it. We're at a stalemate here. Somebody is not telling the truth. That's it. So which side of it? Who's going to step up first? It's hard to say. Maybe we could potentially mention that Lou Elizondo and David Grush have already come forward, but they were hiding under their NDAs. (55:04) But is this leading a potential foundation for people to come forward, or are they losing faith in Arrow? For instance, Arrow mentioned that they only interviewed approximately 30 people. However, on their website, they said, if at any point you have worked for the military, you have worked for the government, and you've had a UFO sighting, come on the website and tell us your experience. (55:26) They probably hopefully should have gotten hundreds or or these people that had experiences that work for the government never trusted Aero to begin with just because the way that they've conducted themselves from the beginning all the way to the end. And a great example of this was that Aero funding hearing last year with Gillibrand, Kristen Gillibrand, that was kind of a mess. (55:52) The first report that we got from Arrow wasn't really that great. The face of Arrow, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, it was very two-faced. And I'm just going to emphasize on this because he wrote a paper with Harvard Professor Avi Loeb about motherships and probes and how they could potentially be in our solar system, pushing probes and all over all these planets around us or even on planet Earth. (56:16) Avi Loeb wouldn't have mentioned that if there wasn't a little bit of backing, because just using your imagination, he could have written a fiction book, a science fiction book, but instead he made it into a paper that was published in the Smithsonian. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick put his name on that. He didn't have to. (56:37) He could have just looked from the sidelines, but he decided to be a co-author and the only co-author. And then during that funding hearing with Kristen Gillibrand. Two weeks later, two weeks later. He wasn't questioned on it. He wasn't pressed on it. And then he's showing these two faces, one that's saying, nope, no aliens, no government doesn't know anything about that. (57:00) And then you have this paper. While it was merely theoretical, there had to be something behind it. Otherwise, it would have never been published. Now, while it was a draft and it has yet to be peer reviewed, just the concept of it being peer reviewed is significant. Kirkpatrick did not have to put his name on it, but he did. (57:21) And before we continue to Saka, thank you so much. And Android, thank you for that as well. He says, what are both of your thoughts on the Malibu base being removed just a few days after? after the arrow report related or coincidence when it comes to the Malibu base. It has a very special place in Jimmy Church's heart because fill in the gap, Jimmy. (57:44) I broke, I broke the story. That's right. Now, now, um, it's not the first time now, uh, the Malibu underwater base. And I don't want to spend too much time on this. Um, uh, You can go back to 2014 when I first broke the news about the Malibu underwater base and the images and the analysis that we had done at that time. (58:10) I've done many TV shows about it. I've done many radio programs. It's been in a movie or two. Okay, so I've covered it extensively. When I first broke the story in 2000, I think it was 2014, Back then, it's 10 years ago, so it's all a fog now. But I had gotten emails from people going, dude, they've removed it. (58:38) And I went back to Google, and it was fogged out. And then I would go back to Google a couple of days later. And you have to understand, at this point, this was on every website, on every news, on planet Earth. There were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of links. It was insane what happened at this point. So there was a lot of energy and a lot of people going back and looking at it, and suddenly it was gone. (59:14) Because so many people were going and referencing it and looking at it, and my original stuff said JimmyChurchRadio.com at the bottom of the page on all of the images that I put out there. So people were going to JimmyChurchRadio.com. There was a link to my email. People had it. They were writing me. And sure enough, it was scrubbed. (59:34) But then it was brought back. And then it was scrubbed again. And that happened in that first two or three months probably, I don't know, maybe a dozen times. And then it stayed there. Now, I understand now, once again, that area has been fogged out. I haven't gone back and looked. Is there a connection to this? I don't know. (1:00:00) Some people have mentioned it was on a podcast or somebody else had mentioned it somewhere else. And I don't know who the podcast was or anything. I didn't recognize the name, but that maybe it was connected to that. So I don't know. I don't have any idea. But to have it happen like this 10 years later is very, very interesting. (1:00:25) Is it connected? I don't know. I really don't know. Let's go back to it, but thanks for bringing that up. It's just weird that they let it fly for 10 years, and then now all of a sudden it's scrubbed. I want to go to page 11, staying on subject. On page 11... The aggregate findings of all United States investigations to date have not found even one case of UAP representing off-world technology. (1:00:55) Okay, now this is stated as fact. It's a bullet point without citations. How can you say this and not mention the Nimitz? How is it possible to say to date have not found even one case of UAP representing off-world technology when we have the testimony of Captain David Fravor and everybody on the Princeton, everybody on the Nimitz that has come forward? How can you say that? It's an incredible thing. (1:01:37) So that right there, and it kind of goes back to court. And if you're a witness on the stand and you get caught in a lie, then the rest of your testimony is stricken. Don't believe anything else. That's it. You got one crack at it. This is a lie. This is an untruth. And it's stated as fact. None of the programs mentioned by the interviewees are UAP reverse engineering programs. (1:02:08) And all the authentic programs have been properly noted and reported to Congress through the Congressional Defense and or Intelligence Community. Aero has no evidence for the United States government reverse engineering narrative provided by interviewees and has been able to disprove the majority of the interviewees' claims. (1:02:29) Some claims are still under evaluation. Aero determined that a piece of metal alleged to be recovered from an off-world spacecraft is ordinary terrestrial origin and possesses no exceptional qualities. Now, if we go back to this point, by stating that none of the programs mentioned by interviewees, none of the programs. (1:02:54) So arrow, is saying that without any names of these programs or who Arrow interviewed, what proof Arrow has of any of this. But apparently Arrow has access to special access programs and the information behind it that congressional or oversight committees do not have. That arrow's got the power of the Senate, more power than the Senate Intelligence Committee. (1:03:27) That arrow has more power than the White House. That arrow has more power than the NRO, the NSA, and the CIA combined. And they can go and get all of the relevant information on a special access program. That's what's being stated here. And I call BS. That is an impossibility. Period. So what do we do? If you're making false statements and you are lying, then what about the rest of the report? I said to you earlier, I was going to ask you two questions. (1:04:11) I ask you the first one, should we put up or shut up, right? Is the onus now put back on those in the community that have made claims about having information, okay? All right, well, it's time to bring that forward. The second question I wanted to ask you, Christina, is now knowing what you know and reading through this report, What's the conclusion that you have come to? Is this misinformation and disinformation too as well, which are the claims that are made in the report? Is the report in of itself doing the very same thing? (1:04:52) What's your conclusion? Let me provide you an example. Looking at statistics, everyone's taken a stats class once in their life. People are able to manipulate data by removing certain outliers in their numbers to benefit the paper. For instance, may mention here that there were approximately 30 people that were interviewed. (1:05:16) The word approximately is really bothering me. But pushing that aside, Maybe they could have interviewed 50, 100 people, but they only took the most ridiculous 30 ridiculous in their mind in order to benefit their paper for their standpoint, for their bias, for their opinion. The thing is that when anyone's conducting any kind of investigation or research, there's going to be bias behind it. (1:05:41) Yes, it sucks. It happens. That's just how it is. But here we're really able to see that from the beginning to the end on how this paper was written, really putting the blame not on the government, not on how they're putting out information, but about these conspiracy theorists by the Internet, by books and movies, by groups as a whole. (1:06:04) And so that really does not lend them credibility when there isn't this level of ownership. Now, the nice thing about this paper is that it's easy to follow. You have nice bullet points. Things are nice and easy to bite. But just because it's easy to read, it doesn't mean that it has a lot of truth behind it. (1:06:25) There have been people that have done pretty significant analysis, and I want to get a shout out to Robert Powell here. who had mentioned that when he was going through this report, that there were a lot of flaws. Dates were wrong. Names were wrong. Looking when it comes to Robert Friend instead of Roger Friend or the Kenneth Arnold sighting, it was off by a day. (1:06:48) And so these little things are while it might not mean anything to the general public, when you're writing a paper and you've been sitting on it, let's say from December until March, okay, it should have been proofread at the very least by Kirkpatrick himself after he finished his paper to read it once again. (1:07:08) When you're getting certain information wrong, it's not It's not good, especially when it comes to a paper, when you're doing it verbally, like an interview or a show. Right. Yes. Your memory is faulty. Mistakes happen. But to me, it was sloppy. It was lazy, maybe by design. And that's something that we have to ask ourselves. (1:07:31) Was it just a speedy paper that was written? Because these days, writing a 63-page paper with these bullet points and these gaps and these paragraphs, it's really easy to write, especially if you have, at the very least, a high school diploma. You're able to write a 63-page paper, and this gets, what, 40 pages? To me, it looked... (1:07:51) The visuals were nice, like how the format, but the actual writing, it could have been significantly better. But then you could say, Jimmy, when it comes to the UFO community or those that are reading this, they're never happy. They're never satisfied because we're never going to hear the words, yes, aliens, yes, extraterrestrials, yes, reverse engineering. (1:08:14) We're probably never going to get that. But yeah. from reading this the way that I did, I'm like, pushing that aside, it could have been a lot better. There is a lot of emphasis here on Project Blue Book and how Blue Book came to be formed. You know, Project Sign, Project Saucer, Project Sign, Project Grudge, and so forth. (1:08:38) A lot of emphasis on Project Blue Book. And what is very glaring here is is the author of this report says Blue Book got it right. Okay? And by saying that and mentioning the thousands of cases and the 65,000 digital files and the 701 cases that were unresolved, but all of that can be explained away. All right. (1:09:12) Now, I want to go back after I say this to the UAPTF report, the first two. But here is on page 28. findings. None of these investigations, including the United States government, foreign and U.S. academic efforts, reached the conclusion that any of the UAP reports indicated extraterrestrial origin. That is a lie. (1:09:45) And the author of this report, by stating very categorically that Project Blue Book got it right. There was no mistakes with Project Blue Book. There was nothing extraterrestrial. The author of this report needs to go and read J. Allen Hynek's own book written called The UFO Report and Project Blue Book written in 1977. (1:10:11) Read what J. Allen Hynek had to say and his own conclusions and where he was on all of this. Because that by saying none of the investigation, including the United States government, Project Blue Book and everything else. Go and read that. Go and read that. Richard Dolan's Excellent UFOs in the National Security State, Volume 1 and Volume 2. (1:10:38) Go and read those. The author of this report has not done any of that, where you have compiled military and U.S. government case history one after another. And J. Allen Hynek does it excellently all the way back in 1977. To call this a modern, and it's quoted in here a few times, 2009. 2009, this is some pivotal year. (1:11:08) The modern history, this is what we need to go and focus. But yet, Project Blue Book had it right. and Condon had it right. The Brookings Institute had it right. All of that is stated in this report. Okay, so if you're going to say that without reading J. Allen Hynek's book from 1977, because you wouldn't make this kind of generalized statement. (1:11:32) You just wouldn't do it. You wouldn't make this generalized statement if you have read Richard Dolan's work. It's very important. Now, Well, Jimmy, actually, wait, wait. I'd like to really, really go off on that point because you bring up really excellent ideas and points that need to be addressed. (1:11:50) Because let's say Project Blue Book did get it right, okay? And that there were no UFOs as the results that are in this report. No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the USAF demonstrated any indication of threat to national security. Okay, that's kind of what Blue Book was for. It was going around the United States and understanding people's sightings, right? To really put to rest, put to bed that aliens are real, that UFOs are one, a threat and two, extraterrestrial. (1:12:21) But let's say they what this paper is saying, that blue book got it right. Then why continue funding? Because of their mentality during that time frame, because it ended in 69. all right, guys, we don't need to make any more projects. We don't need to waste any more manpower, equipment, tax dollars. (1:12:36) We know the answer. It's not extraterrestrial. It's not a threat. So why continue? But then they don't care about those results because then they do the CIA evaluation of UFOs. Then you have these committees. You have the Condon Report. You have the National Academy of Sciences assessment of the Condon Report, which is kind of what ended Blue Book. (1:12:55) But why would you bother funding OSAP? Why would you bother funding ATIP? Why would you bother funding the UAPTF or the AOI MSG or AERO if you already know the answers? If you said Blue Book already did it right in 1969, why bother? And that's a serious question. Why if you already know the answer? And so this is something that's been bothering a lot of people. (1:13:21) Representative Tim Burchette is one of them. He's like, After reading the report, he asked himself and he mentioned it on one of the news outlets. And he said, what's the point of doing this? We should defund it altogether when it comes to Arrow, because obviously you already have the answers. You already know what you're doing. (1:13:40) But if you already knew what you were doing, why did you continue from 69 all the way until 2023, which is where we were just a few months ago? Do you see the flaw there? There's a huge flaw. And the huge flaw in that mentality is in the first and second UAPTF reports. And if you remember, and I encourage everybody to go back and read those reports or look at, go back and watch the shows, the excellent shows that Christina and I did on those reports. (1:14:17) In that, the report came to the conclusion that It's not us. It's not our adversaries, right? It's not Russia and it's not China. We have the other bin that we're lumping all of this into. Now, pump the brakes here. You cannot make a statement that none of these investigations, including what? What about the UAP task force? Are you saying that that report didn't matter? It shouldn't have been written that the report, the conclusions that went to the House, that went to the Senate, that went to the White House, (1:15:02) that was commented on by Susan Goff and the Department of Defense and others. all commented on that report, that the report was wrong, that it came to the wrong conclusions, that arrow is the last word here. I have serious, serious issues with that, Christina. I really do. Now, this here, are you ready? The lack, this is page 28. (1:15:34) The lack of actionable, researchable data, specifically the lack of speed, altitude, size of reported UAP combined with resource constraint, high volumes of cases and perceived differing levels of support from United States government officials were factors in all investigative efforts. Now, right there. The lack of researchable data, the lack of actionable data, the Nimitz case is right there, right? Right there, that's 2004. (1:16:10) We have the Roosevelt case, right? These are my, all of the witnesses are alive, right? The rear admiral of the Nimitz, go talk to him. Go talk to him. David Fravor, right? I mean, it's just like right in front. What do you mean? You've got altitudes. You've got the radar. You've got the witnesses. (1:16:38) You've got the timing of it. You've got 80,000 feet down the sea level, right? You've got video. What do you mean no researchable data? But you can't comment on that. You have to leave that part out. You cannot say that in this report because it contradicts itself. The report becomes, and I hate to say it, my favorite word, the report becomes a paradox. (1:17:12) It does. It does in so many ways. It's like a dog catching, attempting to chase its own tail. We are seeing that in this report, and it's contradicting previous reports. Now, we don't have a lot of time, so it's something that I really would like to emphasize, and that is when the first report came out by Arrow, No, excuse me. (1:17:33) After the UFO witness hearing in July of 2023, they were tearing apart Arrow in a very roundabout way, specifically Grush. And so after that, Kirkpatrick immediately goes to LinkedIn and posts his paper and he comments on how insulting that witness hearing was, how terrible it was and how Arrow is doing amazing work to get the information out there. (1:18:00) In a way, we are seeing it again just several days before this report was released to the public. Kirkpatrick had published on Scientific American getting ahead of the game, it seems like, after he saw the flaw that he did last year. He's like, I'm going to write a paper, a quick one. Actually, it was kind of long, to be honest with you. (1:18:21) Scientific American talking about this report before anyone even sees it. And it says here, many outside observers nonetheless have criticized Arrow as supposedly part of a continuing government cover-up of the existence of aliens. Interestingly, they have not provided any verifiable evidence of this, nor are some of the more outspoken willing to engage with the office to discuss their positions or offer up the data and evidence they claim to possess. (1:18:51) Too often these critics and their supporters rely on secondhand friend of a cousin reporting with no personal firsthand knowledge or rigor in their critical thinking. That's an insult right there. Some claim that those with firsthand knowledge of this supposed cover-up have related to Arrow, but no source in my tenure as director of the office had firsthand knowledge of anything to do with alleged reverse engineering program of extraterrestrial spacecraft. (1:19:22) So he is trying to hit the bull in the eyes before the reports even released because he knew that he was going to get intensive backlash once this report was going to be released. So he's addressing it right beforehand. And don't worry, I will place that link in the description box below for you to go ahead and read because it's interesting. (1:19:42) And what we're seeing here is a pattern of from Kirkpatrick that in one way, he doesn't deal well with criticism. We saw it after the hearing and we're seeing it just a few days before this report was released. He was trying to cover his tracks or at the very least provide a cushion for himself when he was about to fall. (1:20:03) And more people, now that the report has been made public, people are doing analysis on it, people are sharing their insights, their opinions, their frustrations, which is really what's going on here. Kirkpatrick is seeing this as the great work that he did. He's seeing this as that he did everything that he could. (1:20:24) But did he really? Because if he truly felt that maybe just maybe he wouldn't have written that paper two days prior to cover his tracks or to protect him if he truly felt like he did everything that he could for the report. But what do you think about that, Jimmy? I'm wondering where Puck is in all of this. (1:20:45) So, you know, no Puck. I don't have a name for this guy. But, yeah. And let's stay on this. Because I think that those criticisms of Arrow are totally valid. And they do need to be addressed. When you're talking about in this report about individuals that are trying to influence the public and are trying to do this because they have a belief system in place and so they want to use social media and everything else to spread this misinformation and disinformation. (1:21:27) Well, wait a minute. Isn't that what this report is doing, too, as well? And is Arrow attempting to smear and spread misinformation, not necessarily disinformation, but certainly misinformation? Because I'm going to go back to this point right here that I made earlier, and it addresses your point right now. (1:21:52) At various points in history, now it's like the Mandela effect right here. At various points in history, individuals inside and outside of the United States government, including J. Allen Hynek, the United States Air Force had a key goal of debunking and explaining away reports of UAP. Arrow found no evidence to suggest that the United States Air Force had a policy intended to cover up the evidence of extraterrestrial knowledge, material, or interactions. (1:22:25) Rather, the United States Air Force instead sought to focus on what it determined to be more important concerns. such as Soviet technology and U.S. defense readiness. At least the first iteration of Project Grudge sought to resolve all cases and prohibited its staff from characterizing reports as unknown or unidentified. (1:22:48) This statement is false. That statement is not true. And if you go back, and the reason why it's false is because the author of this report, again, with their blinders on, is only referencing the material that they've chosen to research. Because one of the most glaring, glaring mistakes in this report is going back to Project Mogul. (1:23:21) This report cites the GAO and their report about Roswell. Roswell debunked, case closed, right? All of that is referenced in here. And one of the bullet points referenced in here is that the alien bodies, I'm putting that in air quotes, that were seen by witnesses were the dummies from Project Mogul. If the author of this report was worth their salt, would know that Project Mogul was 1954. (1:23:57) Right? Roswell was 1947. Period. The mogul reference and the excuse for that was a mistake because it was a lie, first off. But they didn't understand or didn't know about the dating of this. And they just thought they could blow it off. and put that out there in this report, and it's Roswell case closed. (1:24:29) And by stating that in this report, it of itself says the author of this report hasn't done the research, doesn't know the important parts of history. This is a glaring, glaring mistake, and that is of itself misinformation. Period. There isn't another way to look at it. You are participating and doing the same thing that you are accusing others of doing. (1:24:57) So, yes, the criticism that you pointed out here, that maybe Arrow is also doing what... Doing what they are claiming others are doing? That it's misinformation and disinformation and smear campaigns? Yes, that's exactly the case. So you can't turn around and use Mogul and the GAO's report and Roswell case closed. (1:25:22) Those reports, which was two were in 1995 and one was in 1997. I read those when those came out. And the Project Mogul reference, which is used as ammunition in this report, is false. It's an untruth. We were only able to get through halfway through the report. But Jimmy, I'd like to end it with this. Now that this report has been released, you've read it a handful of times. (1:25:51) People have done analysis on it. What do you think this will be for the future when it comes to UFO disclosure or UFO transparency? Did it leap us forward? Did it roll us back? Did it leave us in the same location? What are your thoughts? Or does it mean nothing for UFO disclosure? Well, okay. Honestly, this report will be just a footnote in history. (1:26:21) It's not going to be referenced as something important. Well, to go back and quote the 2024 Aero UAP report, it clearly stated blah, blah, blah. No, that will never happen. Its importance and its significance, it's important this week to show you that the BS will continue and attempts at that will continue. (1:26:48) But is there anything significant in this report that will be a part of history? No, there's absolutely zero here. People have similar ideas. Dickey says it doesn't matter. Dennis says it shows we cannot trust. No Filter says it's valuable evidence. They protest too much. So people are seeing this in the sense of it doesn't fully impact the... (1:27:16) drive the push and the passion that people are having in attempting to get UFO disclosure, but something that I think I mentioned now every show, and that is at the end of the day, disclosure will not come from the government, it will come from the people. But let me say this, this report Thousands upon thousands of eyes have looked at it. (1:27:38) At the very least, they've heard it in the news, as a TikTok, whatever it might be. People are becoming more aware of this than ever before. And I would probably have to say, A small thank you to the government for at the very least just addressing these things, showing interest in it. And even though they're attempting to debunk it, and this paper is a great example of that, they're still talking about it. (1:28:08) And then stories come forward, alleged abductions come forward, so on and so forth. And it puts people down their own rabbit holes to attempt and find the answers where the government is falling short. So I got to see it in the positive light here, even though the paper wasn't that great. You're trying. (1:28:29) You're trying. You're trying. You're trying. Christina, that's what we all love about you, and that's great. But I've got a lot of conclusions, and I've got a lot of predictions, and my crystal ball is never wrong. So let me make one prediction right here. That book that J. Allen Hynek wrote in 1977, right? That book, I'm pissed off I was used as a tool. (1:28:53) That book, the Hynek UFO report, Kirk Patrick's going to write the same book. He's going to write the same book. I was a tool. I was used. I was wrong. I must apologize. We need to do this. Kirkpatrick's going to write the same book. Christina, get ready. I'll see you tonight on Fade to Black. We will continue this. (1:29:15) Tonight's my take. Oh, I've just gotten started. Right now, I'm responding to Christina's insight. Tonight, she gets to respond to mine on Fade to Black. Everybody, thank you so much. Great show today, Christina. We'll continue it tonight on Fade to Black. Thank you so much. I'm excited. It's going to be really interesting because, as I had mentioned, we only covered half of the report, and there's still so much to get into. (1:29:40) If you are enjoying these kinds of conversations, hit that like button, subscribe, and jump over to Fade to Black later tonight. nighttime by the way so we can continue this in a great level of detail cindy thank you so much for that and moon at noon thank you as well you guys are so amazing for supporting the channel and to give puck the puck wedgie ramen because that's all he eats he's a very picky eater I do want to say that before you head out, please, if you're watching this on a computer or on television, (1:30:11) scan this QR code. It'll take you to all of my social media links and my website where I do write articles on these shows. So if you don't have time to watch the show in full, that article will help you out and it'll still keep you up to date on the crazy things that are happening right here on this channel and around the world. (1:30:31) really exciting news before you go this is really cool cosmic portals album just came out yesterday there's 20 plus tracks on space ambient music that I made for you to help yourself relax fall asleep if you have insomnia or to use your imagination to wander the universe it is across all music platforms again it is called cosmic portals if you just scan this qr code it'll help you get there and it's really exciting hopefully you really do like it that is it for today I will see you later today on faith of black and (1:31:07) tomorrow for strange news be safe and remember keep your eyes on the skies