Dark Journalist and Susan Manewich dismantle the New York Times' UFO disclosure narrative, exposing it as a deep state marketing operation led by Senator Harry Reid to protect fossil fuel interests amid peak oil. They dismiss the alleged $22 million AATIP budget as trivial compared to trillions missing from NASA and DOD, linking the story to Project Blue Beam and Robert Bigelow's Continuity of Government schemes. Ultimately, the hosts argue that suppressing new energy technology and weaponizing space serves economic control, urging a shift where human consciousness leads technological advancement rather than military defense. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Crowdsourced Rocket Scenarios00:14:31
We are live now.
Hi, this is Dark Journalist, and I appreciate everyone joining me.
I'm looking, it looks like everyone's here.
So we'll get started.
Alexandra Bruce is joining me from Forbidden Knowledge TV.
Hello, Alexandra.
Hey, Valentine.
How's it going?
Wow.
Well, we're on the cusp of all kinds of important stories, and you and I are doing a series of live broadcasts over the next couple of weeks, interspersed here with the holidays on everything.
From this incredible, bizarre sort of play that the New York Times has rolled out about UFO disclosure using some pretty kind of, you know, B footage.
I mean, it's not even particularly good footage for UFO footage.
But we're going to be talking about that extensively and we're going to go deep into the Bitcoin stuff.
But that's next week, this week, and today.
We're going to talk about that New York Times article and all the things around it because.
By the time this broadcast is done, you're going to see that stuff, I believe, in a much different fashion.
But I guess my first question for you is how did it strike you right off the bat when you first saw it?
Well, the New York Times.
Yeah.
Well, I thought I was having a.
Because it's.
It feeds me.
It's Louise.
I don't know.
I think if you just go ahead, so far I can hear you okay.
We were having some issues earlier, which is why we took a little longer, but just give it a try.
Okay.
Well, I mean, I'm going to talk a little bit.
So, Luis Elizondo is one of the key people in Tom DeLong's team for his To the Stars Academy venture, where he's trying to crowdfund money to make an entertainment company that creates films about the UFO phenomenon.
And it's helmed by all of these defense intelligence and CIA guys.
And Elizondo is one of them.
So I'd never heard of this guy in my whole life, and now he's in the New York Times.
So this is one of those things, like Bitcoin, that I don't think would be happening.
I don't think this is, or, you know, it wouldn't be happening.
It wouldn't be in the New York Times unless it was sanctioned?
Yeah, unless it was approved.
Yeah.
You got that impression right away, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, that's like some ground roots, you know.
And then it's interesting, then, when you look at it like that, why do they need to make the narrative that Elizondo is this disgruntled employee?
You know, you pointed out something good.
It's like, why is he a disgruntled employee now when his project was defunded five years ago?
Right.
So it ran the way that they laid it out in the article is that the program, AATIP, was running from 2007 to 2012.
And they use the spooky black money.
Well, I'll tell you, $22 million is not black money.
That's a pretty mild mannered budget.
I mean, you can probably have a few meetings for that.
That's about it.
But a few $800 toilets for that.
Exactly.
So we're looking at a very unusual thing in this.
Now, I think the actual news story is that the New York Times is covering UFOs.
That's the actual story.
Right.
The other story, which is that Senator Reid.
As the Senate Majority Leader funneled some money to his friend Robert Bigelow to get him involved in this project.
Bigelow, of course, is a billionaire, doesn't need the money.
That's a little more interesting.
And then Senator Reid, when this came out, he's all ready to go and he says, I'm not embarrassed about having done this.
The truth is out there.
And Senator Reid puts a little animated GIF of a UFO in his Twitter.
I'm not kidding.
So, what are these guys up to?
That was my first question.
Right.
Yeah.
I mean, it is disclosure upon us in whatever form that may be, you know.
It's a fake.
I ran a very interesting Grant Cameron.
He's a Canadian ufologist who's been at it for 40 years.
And he said, well, if you look at all these guys who are involved with Tom DeLong's venture, and they're all defense, they're all military guys.
Yeah.
Is this going to be turned into some new reason to wage war?
Yes, right, exactly.
So, well, we're going to go really deep into the factions because I've identified the factions.
Over time.
And the fact that this is coming up is very interesting because I'm going to lay this out and then let's get into it.
The first thing was the reanimating the Space Council, which is what Trump did over the summer.
And then he brought it back up recently after meeting with Pence, who he put in charge of it.
By the way, this thing has been defunct ever since Bush Quayle got it in motion in 1990 with a mission to go to Mars.
Okay.
Didn't take off then.
They put Quayle in charge of it.
That's probably why.
But what happened was Trump said, I'm going to do this.
Now, my thinking is that Trump wants to get his hands back on the black budget space program.
He understands that there are all these opportunities, but he's understanding that they're not telling him what's going on there.
So I think that was his first attempt.
Now, I think before the Democrats didn't get in in this election, they thought they were getting in, and Podesta was rolling out this plan with fellow Democrats that they were going to do some kind of a weird version of disclosure.
And just like in the 90s, they were going to raise the bar for it and maybe put in a kind of a scenario of like, oh, we need defense funds for alien invasion, something along that line.
And they certainly in the 90s were building up to this.
Okay, what was the next thing we saw?
It was we're going to audit the Defense Department.
This came out December 8th.
Now, that's huge.
Of course, Catherine Austin Fitz has brought up that there's $21 trillion missing between DOD and HUD.
And then Mark Skidmore, Who was the professor from Michigan got on board with that and said she's right and put his students to study it.
So now it's a story out there ping ponging everywhere from beyond the alternative media.
Now Forbes and RT and all these other people are picking it up.
Okay, so if they're going to do an audit of this program, and if there are two factions around this UFO thing, then this one faction that's doing the audit is obviously going to catch this program that slipped beneath the waves for 22 million bucks of Harry Reid giving it to his friend and campaign contributor, Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace.
That's very important.
I think right there we might be looking at a whole scenario.
What was the next thing that happened?
This bizarre thing, where the New York Times suddenly is stepping up on this.
And in the middle of all that, you had this weird commercial venture come invest in my To the Stars thing with Tom DeLong, which was one of the worst rollouts, I think, in history, capped off by one of the worst appearances on the Joe Rogan experience.
So it seems to me there are two factions fighting over that secret wave of technology that's under there.
What do you think of that?
Yeah, I think you nailed it.
I'm not exactly sure who is who here.
I mean, it seems like a lot of these Democrats are in the pro quote unquote disclosure thing, which probably means some kind of war.
You know, like the ultimate, the one that Cal Rosen talks about, you know, being the final false flag of all time.
Can you go through that just for people who haven't heard it?
And I think it is very pertinent.
Cal Rosen, she lived, she was a school teacher.
That they assigned to work with von Braun is kind of like this civilian interface.
Werner von Braun, who became like the father of the rocket program for, I guess, the Manhattan Project, is that right?
He was brought over here in 1944.
He was one of the paperclip guys who was actually not covered up in Nazi.
Everyone knew that he had been a Nazi and that he, I guess, had been captured or.
Somehow.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
And he was a major.
He was a major.
Yeah.
Of our rocket program.
And he brought over all of his own guys because he outlined, hey, this was my command structure putting together the rocket program.
I need all those guys.
And that's where he got Walter Dornberger and all the rest of these people.
So, what he told her, what he told Carol, who was somehow his assistant, I don't know how she got that job, but.
I think this is the late 70s.
Right.
And he said, you know, he was talking about the different kinds of false flags.
It was going to be rock states, then it was going to be terrorists, and finally it was going to be aliens.
Are invading, and that's why we need to put nukes in orbit around the planet.
Right.
No, you're absolutely right.
There's one you missed in there, which was a space menace, like an asteroid.
So it seems like maybe they jumped the cliff on that one because when you look at it, they definitely have done the terrorism one you talked about, if you want to just trust his setup.
The first one was the Russians, then the terrorists, then the space menace, and then an alien invasion.
Well, you can't do the space menace one because there are thousands, tens of thousands more.
Amateur astronomers out there.
That's how astronomy works.
It's sort of a crowdsourced thing.
Yeah.
So everyone's looking and everyone knows what's out there.
So you can't say, oh, there's this thing that nobody else can see because tens of thousands or more people know what's going on.
Right.
And then there was this weird meme in 1998 that kind of gathered in momentum the ultimate urban street legend, which is Project Bluebeam.
The idea of an alien invasion as the ultimate false flag.
And that's what you're leading up to.
Now, it is interesting, and I have to say this about Carol Rosin, which is, you know, she spent that time with him, and it's interesting that he laid this on her in a sense.
It was almost like a message in a bottle.
And certainly we have to look at that scenario.
Blue Beam itself is an idea, you know, it has always been the way to dismiss UFOs in a way, because people would say, oh, you know, I don't believe anything about UFOs.
Like you catch a lot of people in the Liberty Movement saying, you know, we don't believe anything about UFOs.
That's just a government scam for Blue Beam.
So, Bloombeam was a way to not get those people thinking about.
Bloombeam, as I understand it, was more about creating illusions of UFOs, you know, with lasers and things.
Right.
It's like holograms.
Right.
So, it's interesting.
So, we come up to a scenario, and you and I have been looking at the UFO thing for a very long time, and we know people who've been looking at it for a whole lot longer.
So, when we see in the New York Times them presenting this 27 second video of these guys looking at this little thing, and They're Navy guy pilots.
Through a fighter gun camera.
Yeah.
Gun camera.
Right.
So you have some commentary there.
I mean, the biggest thing you ever saw in your life.
I mean, it doesn't.
It's so unremarkable.
It's terrible.
You know.
It's right.
What is it?
They're already calling it the Tootsie Roll or something.
The Tic Tac.
Right.
Well, it's interesting.
I can think of footage right off the bat from like 1979 in New Zealand that already kicks ass on that.
So this thing is, in terms of what they've presented, Is no big deal.
Now, here's the other very strange thing.
We've had the whole Tom DeLong Academy to the Stars op out there, and he's been the more and more he moves out there, the more and more ex CIA people are around it.
There's no five star generals the way he talked about when he first came out.
So I don't know what happened to those people.
They scurried away.
But then you have veteran ufology people like Leslie Kane saying, Oh, this is great.
You know, like he's the greatest and stuff.
I mean, it just feels like they're off their game or something because.
And they could be a little bit suffering from fatigue and the fact that they've been at the UFO thing so long and all the stonewalling has worn them down.
But, you know.
That was the response.
I got a lot of positive responses when I ran his presentation.
Yeah.
I could see it because I don't know if you watched the whole thing.
It's long.
You know, these guys, these intelligence guys, are all very articulate and very intelligent and impressive, you know.
And you're like, oh, good.
And they sound like reasonable, good, patriotic, whatever people.
And you want to.
You know, believe what they're saying, but it's just by virtue of what their job is.
You can't.
No, I mean, they're CIA people.
Bobby Inman is one of the biggest advisors to the whole DeLong thing.
And the DeLong thing is all about you buying in and getting stocks.
It's an enterprise, it's a financial enterprise, it's not a public works program.
And, you know, some of these skeptics, I have to give credit to the skeptics on this, unfortunately.
The alternative community itself, the independent research community, is not doing a very good job lately.
And I'm going to point this out hardcore.
Check this out.
Skeptics, people like Jason Colavito, who runs this blog bashing everything from ancient aliens to Eric von Daniken to whatever.
And, you know, I don't buy into his stuff.
He's just a cynical guy.
It's such a stock personality that's out there.
These quackbuster people.
I don't know, the profusion of websites and publications that are these quackbusting.
Yes, right.
It's so easy.
Amazing Randy people, and it's just pathetic.
These people are the shallowest.
People ever, if that's what they think is doing some kind of service to whatever, maybe it needs to exist.
Cynical Quackbuster Narratives00:16:18
I mean, it can't, it should exist.
I'm not saying it shouldn't.
Well, what's weird is that it was that group of people who had to come to the rescue during the rollout of the DeLong thing because the, you know, all those channels like Coast to Coast and all that, they're all pushing this stuff like it's real without much.
So you have some big people, ex retired intelligence people around this op, something about UFOs, and Tom DeLong saying, We'll raise enough money and we'll make our own lighter-than-air craft, interstellar craft.
The thing would cost trillions of dollars to make, we know.
And he raised $2 million.
But Colevito peered deeply into it.
And then he got other people to peer deeply into it.
And what they said basically was: when you look at the charter for the company, it's actually an entertainment motion picture company.
That's the corporate commercial charter that it's under.
It's to make movies, actually.
That's what the designation says.
So, it's not like this is, you know, public broadcasting.
It's not PBS or, you know, we have to get real about it.
It's just some weird marketing campaign.
Now, let's go into DeLong a little bit.
I've done a series of interviews about DeLong.
And my general take on DeLong is that this is somebody in search of a marketing program.
Now, before he came out with all the UFO stuff, he came out a year earlier with a book.
A lot of no one talks about this book.
And it was all about the paranormal.
And he was going to have these major people, scientists, proving that ghosts exist and all this stuff.
And he used all the same techniques.
Oh, I'm keeping it close to the vest and all that.
And then he had a whole PR thing.
On that.
As a matter of fact, I got the press release, but that's 2015.
It was a year before all the UFO stuff.
And it was the same formula hired a New York Times bestselling author to co write the book, pretend I have secret information.
Expert scientists are giving me info that other people don't have.
But I don't know that he's pretending or that he's trying to bring something to the mainstream by hiring people who are going to be bestsellers and get it in the New York Times.
And so he's thinking, you know, maybe in his world, he thinks that getting all these, uh, DIA and CIA guys involved to shepherd it, to be good shepherds, that it will succeed in his dream to mainstream this kind of information.
Well, that is the DeLong being played idea.
And it could very well be.
But the thing is, from the marketing perspective, I've broken down this formula because over the summer, of course, with the stuff I was doing outlining Intel ops versus marketing ops, and they often can work together too, because if you can get an Intel op that funds itself, so much the better.
But the marketing side, You know, if this guy markets his stuff about ghosts and the paranormal and it falls on its face, and then he turns around the next year and he picks up UFOs, runs with that in the same fashion, then it represents a kind of marketing pattern.
That is, I've called somebody in, they've given me advice, they've said, hey, these are the things you need to do.
So when I look at DeLong, I'm thinking DeLong, you know, is getting advice from a marketing team.
That's first.
Well, it seems to me like it's actually set up to fail, I don't think it's set up to succeed.
The Academy to the Stars.
Yeah.
You know, they might get one project out and it'll be disinformational and then that'll be the end of it probably.
Well, then it could be.
It could very well be that they've got this guy and they're thinking, oh, he wants a marketing program.
And they targeted him and said, hey, we'll give you all access to all this stuff.
And he's laying his own money out to market the thing.
And then, you know, inevitably with him at the helm, it'll crash.
Yeah, it could very well be.
It's interesting.
I guess what grabs me the most is that.
What we should look at first when we see a release like that is we should look at the Intel part and the marketing part.
If there's a marketing part and an Intel part, then we have a pattern going that we've seen over and over again.
And those things have gone through communities like the UFO community since the 1960s and the New Age community and all the rest of it.
So, you know, we're used to those.
But it does seem like there's a heightening when you open up the New York Times and it's on the front page.
Yeah, well, my stepfather forwarded the Washington Post coverage of the same story.
Right.
So that means, you know, that mainstream normal people are going to see this now.
And now it's got all the news that's fit to print.
You know, it's got the imprimatur of the mainstream on it, which to a lot of people still means that it's the official real, you know, truth or anything that's worth talking about.
Well, I, you know.
Weird as opposed to, you know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think it's interesting.
It is.
It's like it's a turning of the page where the mainstream media is cooperating with those deep state elements for what?
That's the next section that we have to go into.
Because what's interesting is the New York Times article didn't mention DeLong.
This is what I find fascinating.
The person that they put forward, the face of disclosure in that article, is Harry Reid, which is really bizarre.
And then Harry Reid goes out with that weird tweet, as I started with.
Well, I don't know.
Alison, they have a picture of him in a diner.
Very staged, you know, very professionally shot.
He's looking.
Yeah, he's the other one.
Yeah, he's the other one that they kind of highlight in there.
Right.
Well, and he's the most, I think, vocal.
Well, not the most vocal.
A lot of these guys, those guys are sharp, the guys that Tom DeLong has.
And Elizondo is a really smart guy.
Yeah, it's not about their intelligence, it's just what they're up to.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I think the problem is there's a lot of buying into it because the UFO thing.
They need something to charge up their ranks, right?
And there's been a lot of blockages around it.
So if they can control how people see UFOs, if they can pretend that we're starting, you know, I mean, in a way, when I looked at that newspaper cover, I was thinking to myself, you know, big deal.
Like 1947, they had a newsflash.
It was from Roswell.
There was a crash saucer, right?
Washington, D.C. was Boz there.
Pictures of, I don't know, seven faint craft flying over the Capitol building.
That was on the front page of the New York Times.
All right.
So this is, I mean, Technically, as a story, this is what's fascinating.
There's nothing new in there.
What I see is the real story in there is the Reed Bigelow transfer of $22 million, which is a pithy sum when you think about it, when you're dealing with the black budget.
Even the fact that they called it the black budget is funny to me because I know how much money that they use for the black budget.
So when they're saying that, they want people to think that the black budget consists of people rolling around a few million dollars here and there.
And the black budget's extensive.
But Reed, let's take a look at Reed for a moment.
Reads a Mormon.
The reason I bring that up is nothing to do with the Mormon religion, but the Mormons, especially Mormon in Nevada and Utah, there's an incredible backtracking history of CIA involvement.
And so that's the first thing.
The second thing is he's on a gaming commission before he becomes senator, really deep in the Las Vegas deep state stuff.
So, okay, so he's got a friendship that he develops with a billionaire.
Named Robert Bigelow, who wants to bring his stuff into space.
What does that consist of?
Space tourism, space mining, maybe communications.
But certainly, Bigelow is one of the major players, like Bigelow and SpaceX.
So, Reid is the Senate majority leader.
He's known for very underhanded action.
You know, I go through his history in that way.
But Reid also is known, one of his interesting credits is blocking over and over again audits of the Federal Reserve.
So, this is not a person looking for transparency.
There are a number of people who've studied the Bundy case who say that Reed put the Bundys on the kill list.
That came out, and that was a subject that both Joseph Farrell and Catherine Austin Fitz looked into.
So, you know, I mean, this is the character of Reed.
This is not somebody particularly good.
And then suddenly he's saying the truth is out there, and he's got sunglasses on and talking about UFOs.
I mean, that's when I stop and say, what are they up to?
What is the op here?
Well, I think it's what you're saying.
They want, they're going to deploy their narrative.
Yes, narrative deployment.
I could have called this episode narrative deployment.
Yeah, we're going to get to questions later.
So hang in there, everyone.
I do appreciate those, and we're going to need them.
So, one thing I want to start with on this, which is going back to Trump's space council for a minute, there is one other very strange connection I want to point out, which is the two senators that agreed to do this black project with Reid.
were Senator Ted Stevens, who died in a plane crash in 2010, very interestingly, not around to really talk to us about it, and Daniel Inouye.
And Inouye was the senator from Hawaii, but here's something very fascinating about him that I've learned through my research with Professor Peter Dale Scott.
Inouye is very close to the COG program.
And as a matter of fact, when it was brought up during the Oliver North hearings going all the way back to the late 80s, when Oliver North Started going into how all the things happened with Iran Contra.
He mentioned something ultra secret about COG, and it was in a way who stood up and addressed COG for the first time as a senator.
Nobody had ever mentioned anything about COG because it was the ultimate untouchable.
And COG, continuity of government, which was set up in the 50s to help us survive in the case of a nuclear catastrophe in the 50s.
So they were able to pour millions of black dollars into COG.
And one of the things that Professor Scott did through history is he charted all these deep events, all the way from the JFK assassination through Watergate, Iran Contra, the financial scandals, and he would always find COG people showing up.
By the way, Rumsfeld and Cheney were deep COG people.
So I felt like, in a way, being part of this is another link in that COG continuity of government chain that we need to really take a deep look at.
And the fact that Reid is the only one left alive.
And that Podesta is giving him a shout out, I think goes back to this idea that the Democrats thought they were getting in and they were going to roll out some kind of a UFO op that was going to be related to this defense idea.
It was all going to be we need to build up a defense against this kind of unknown alien menace, this unknown technology.
Because even the way that Reid is talking about it doesn't make any sense when you're coming out as a senator, he's really saying, oh, it could be about national security.
You know, I go back to the 50s and stuff.
I mean, they have clips of Harry Truman talking about flying saucers and saying, well, they pose no defense risks.
So therefore, you know, we're going to study them, but move on, basically.
And by the time you get to 1970, in the public, they wrap up Blue Book.
That's over.
So for me, when I'm looking at this, what I'm missing really in the weird piece of the puzzle is Reed.
Reed coming out and being the face of this is very unusual to me.
You know, The fact that the DOD slipped out some video and said, yes, we had a program, okay, there was an audit coming up.
It was probably going to come out anyway.
The Trump side with the Space Council, probably to embarrass the Democrats, would have said, look, he gave some money to his friend Bigelow.
So they decided to disclose it first with the help of the New York Times.
That's the way that I looked at it.
But still, Reid in the middle of all this doesn't sit well.
Well, I think you have a bit of a job when Hillary was stumping on the.
On the Kimmel show, she was like, Oh, they have a new name for it.
They're called whatever UAP.
Yeah.
Phenomenon.
Unknown aerial phenomenon.
Oh, yeah.
That's so much better than UFO, right?
Right.
And this was part of her campaign pitch, they were going to look into it.
And so, I mean, you definitely saw some signaling there that that was part definitely of this current crew of Democrats, of their agenda.
And so I would imagine that Harry Reid is a part of that.
Yes, I don't think there's any doubt about it.
When you see people like Bobby Inman hanging around the outskirts of this, and we've done a lot.
Of shows around Inman and his deep state connections.
And Inman is one of those guys who, if you go back to the 80s, he did come out as a former assistant CIA director and saying, Yeah, we did obtain technology from crashed UFOs.
This thread has been hanging out there.
He was a test version of it.
Some people say he talks too much.
You know, he was going to be defense secretary in 1994, and he withdrew because he said some things about Israel.
And he agreed with Clinton not to do it.
But the deal is that he has a tendency to spout off a little bit.
But it looked to me, if you look at those, go back to those interviews from the late 80s, that Inman is really part of an operation to bring this up.
And it has to do with Reagan's Star Wars thing.
There's this whole kind of direct tieover for that.
And then by the time you get into the 90s, that's Democrat style disclosure.
It's that half of the deep state, it's a different version.
And you know about that version well.
Yeah, it seems to me in all of these, it just seems to want to peek its head out and then sort of disappear again.
It's just a slow acclimatization program.
That's what it really looks like to me.
It doesn't really intend to knock it out of the park, like Tom DeLon probably wants it to do.
He thinks that by having a film company, I mean, I understand.
I used to want to make films about.
You know, underground bases and stuff.
You know, but that weren't because a lot of sort of dystopic action sci fi type movies have those elements in them.
They have aliens, they have underground bases, but you're sort of already there and it's not like disclosing anything, it's not revealing anything.
You're just, you're already there, you're in that fictional world.
Right.
Whereas I think Tom DeLong and sort of what I wanted to do, like, I. Identify with what Tom DeLong's trying to do.
I wanted to do the same thing.
But now I understand that nothing happens unless they want it to.
Tom DeLong wants to sell t shirts and sneakers.
You're not a t shirt fan.
He wants to make big budget Hollywood movies, and $2 million is not even close.
Yeah, well, he could take his own $80 million, I guess, and lay it down if he wants to do it.
No, I think that Tom DeLong, first of all, in his appearance on Joe Rogan, and I don't want to spend too much time on DeLong because You know, there's a much deeper, meatier action around the story, actually.
And like I said, in the New York Times article, in the Fox News article, you know, the major articles on this, they don't mention DeLong, which I, you know, there's a good reason for that because that release doesn't have anything to do with DeLong, except he tweeted about a week ago that stuff would be coming out.
Declassified Hollywood Demons00:08:11
And he was, he's right.
Obviously, somebody told him that.
But it's not his video.
It's not like he went to the Defense Department and said, please release this video.
And they said, sure, Tom, here it is.
You know, but there does seem to be this thing where one, There's a group.
I think this is a test market action.
And I think it is an Intel psyop.
And I think they would use a guy like DeLong because DeLong doesn't come across as the brightest bulb in the shop.
Let's start there.
It's not his bag.
He's a kind of a burnt out punk rock singer, right?
And he has this fascination.
So they're thinking, hmm, that might be an interesting story to pitch, you know, magazines and websites.
This guy, you know, this kind of like crazy rockers into UFO stuff.
And then they're thinking, well, he might reach a younger audience.
There are all these considerations around it.
But then he, you know, everything is about invest now, get the money now.
And so, so much for I want to get this stuff disclosed to the world, most of it's a money pitch.
And anyone who studies it closely knows that.
And if you study the financials on it, it's even dicier.
And I would recommend there's a series of articles about that that are out there.
And I'll put them up after this interview.
I have put them up over the time, but I'll put them up on the Dark Journalist Facebook page so people can go through those very carefully because the financials are very unusual.
Things like you can invest with a credit card to get stock shares.
Not a lot of states accept that, you know, so there's weird stuff going on here.
But what I want to do is I want to explode.
This notion that, you know, this 30 seconds of footage thing, which isn't very good, is some kind of revelation.
We've had much bigger, better stuff in the UFO field.
This ain't so hot.
The thing that's a revelation generally is that they had a program, AA TIP, and AA TIP was there to watch UFOs from 2007.
They said they killed the program in 2012.
Okay.
22 million bucks over five years.
Basically, like I said, pays for a few meetings.
So the story is unusual.
It's like, you know, it's like the pretense of a story because it doesn't really, you know, for anyone who knows anything about the topic, it's nothing new.
The only thing that's new is that the government actually has said, yes, we had a program doing that for five years.
Well, and yes, we've declassified this footage, and even if the footage is underwhelming, It's a UFO and it's declassified and it's from the government.
So, that is something for people who are not involved in this conversation and have not been following it.
It must be like, wow, you know, might seem like new, like a new thing.
Yeah, but in actual fact, you know, by day two, when they do any research, they're like, oh, there was a program to study this stuff in the 60s.
You know, so it is old hat whether those people thought so or not.
I just think that the The emphasis on this thing, they're trying to re, you know, what they're trying to do is rebrand their image around UFOs.
If you go into the DeLong stuff, what does he say?
And it's absurd, right?
It's that the CIA has been battling demons.
That's literally what he says about UFOs that UFOs are demons and that they've been fighting the good fight.
All these CIA guys and government guys are heroes.
And I will bring that story out and everyone will be so proud of the CIA.
So it's like a weird CIA PR op.
Basically, and then you look at it and it's surrounded with ex CIA people, so it kind of makes sense.
But I do feel like the de emphasis of DeLong in these news reports tells me that the rollout was fumbled, and that he fumbling the initial rollout and then his appearance on Joe Rogan, they've decided, hmm, let's lay him back.
What happens if we put Reed out there as more of a front man for this?
And that's where I think things are right now.
I think they're very unsteady about DeLong.
As a matter of fact, DeLong did not tout this release in such a big way on his Twitter.
He just happened to mention that, hey, Elizondo was in the New York Times today.
Again, you know, for a grandstander like him, that's pretty mild.
But the other thing about DeLong I'll mention is that the Academy to the Stars thing, they put up the footage and said this is one of our new releases or whatever.
But if you look, I mean, it's DoD footage that's declassified, it's not Tom DeLong footage, you know.
So there's a weird thing there where he's sort of riding, and maybe they're letting him ride, but I think we have to get that clear to know what we're talking about.
This is the problem with narratives very often, which is when they come out with a PR narrative, you have to know what's real and what isn't.
And then you get a better idea of what they're doing and what they're up to.
But when this stuff is just, you know, when it's force fed at us and people who have experience, like Leslie Kane, are getting on board with it because the UFO end of things has not been very good to people commercially who were involved in it, you know, just ask good researchers like Richard Dolan or whoever, you know, they're not making.
Money doing that stuff.
So I do feel like there's a fatigue factor, and the DeLong thing comes in for money and says we're going to raise money and it's exciting, right?
But in terms of actual journalism, you know, if you have people around you like Kane who are, you know, has been working with DeLong, then does somebody like Kane have to say, you know, I don't have any contractual engagement with DeLong?
I don't have any, he's not using me for consulting fees because if she's writing about him in the New York Times, then we should probably know there's nothing wrong with her doing work with somebody like DeLong if he is hiring her.
But that needs to be disclosed.
You know, that's the disclosure I'm looking for.
Just like Reed kicking back money to Bigelow, you know, that's disclosure, right?
I think that's interesting.
So we have one of the main campaign contributors to Reed, and he is getting a big kickback of $22 million for his, you know, Whatever thousands investment.
I mean, that's how Nevada works.
And I think that that's what's really in that story for me.
And I think the UFO part really is kind of fluff because in the articles, it's that mystery of like, oh, maybe the truth is out there, you know?
And I'm sure the news things are going to play the X Files theme every time they show it.
And the X Files part 16 or whatever is coming out January 3rd, right?
And this is interesting.
You almost wonder if.
Yeah, our TV shows are sanctioned by the government too.
Exactly.
That's incredible.
I mean, this is really incredible timing, let's face it.
It is.
Yeah, yeah.
One wonders, one wonders, like how much.
Well, you know, you see that money is a problem.
And so, a lot of, you know, like Top Gun, there's a whole, like, I think the Pentagon has an office in Hollywood and they give access to.
The expensive equipment to people, you know, to directors who want to shoot movies with military themes, you know, and it can be worth millions and millions of dollars in a budget, in a film budget, to have those things.
Absolutely.
So this feels like the same kind of cozy relationship.
Well, the problem that you mentioned at the beginning is the one that, you know, we're still at, which is if Elizondo had anything classified to say, then why is he allowed to talk?
Pentagon Access and Oil Money00:12:53
Right.
It's very interesting.
The reverse psychology that's being used, he's a disgruntled guy who quit in an outrage like five years after the fact and then joined Tom DeLong.
It's an interesting story.
Hello, Susan.
Hello.
Hi, Susan.
Hi, how are you?
We're being joined by Susan Manowich from New Energy Movement.
Aloha.
Hi.
How are you?
What a busy day for you.
Oh, it's a busy day.
Yes, absolutely.
Hopefully, I'm not joining you too late.
Not at all.
We've been going back and forth on the New York Times article and the release, and we've tied some interesting things in together.
But right off the bat, let me just ask you you had a very interesting Facebook post today, actually, which I basically want to ask you what was your first reaction when you saw this?
I mean, it was a mixed reaction, but unfortunately, the initial instinct is the fact that they tie in, call it soft disclosure, with the To the Stars group, with the Pentagon,
which seems like, once again, we're looking at UFOs and extraterrestrials as a threat, as opposed to seeing the greater implications of what's happening and going on, which As we know, that type of information has been suppressed for a very, very long time.
So I wasn't too pleased about it.
However, there's maybe a bit of a thread of some hope.
I actually met Ralph Blumenthal, one of the authors, probably about eight to ten years ago.
And actually gave an interview with him quite a long time ago, which never went anywhere.
But the point is, I had a chance to meet.
This individual and actually felt pretty good about him as a human being.
So I'm still kind of processing and looking at what all this is.
And sometimes there's people that have very good intentions to try to get information out, but may not understand the greater implications of some of the things that they're connected to.
And I mean that for people in general, it's not necessarily in this one situation.
So I think what disturbs me a bit is the.
Just intense suppression of this entire arena for so long.
And when people are given a little bit of a breadcrumb, they jump all over it and think that the veil is going to lift and we're going to know all the truths, and here we are.
And I think for those of us who've been in this for a long time and have maybe suffered a bit and have been popped around and whatnot, we know better.
And so that's why there's a lot of caution.
Unfortunately, like I said, I pretty much just got in the door a little while ago, so I didn't hear what both of you had to say earlier.
My apologies for that.
But we know that there's caution here, that there's usually something behind this in order for this type of article.
And I think there were a couple that were released today.
It wasn't the exact same article, but to hit all those major news outlets, it makes us a bit leery.
I'm assuming that's what the one of you maybe communicated earlier.
And we also know that the potentiality of more threat, threat, threat, fear, danger, danger, danger, and therefore we need to look at technologies to defend.
I think a lot of us are really sick of that narrative, and there's information that actually says otherwise in regards to the contactee experience.
So, yeah, that's a bit of my reaction to it.
But we need to dig deeper as well and find out additional information.
But it does look like technology still is the main game in this thing and not consciousness.
So, I take it it doesn't sit well with you the idea of the CIA defending you from aliens.
I hate that idea.
Terrible idea.
No, you know, I mean, I've said this before and I'll say it again, and both of you are so on it and so bright.
You know, mankind has created very destructive technologies for a very long time.
And what we find with the research in regards to contactees that have actually encountered these beings and Information gleaned from the contact experience that they're giving us warning signs that we need to shift some of the things that we're doing from a technology standpoint and not create technologies that are destructive, that we actually need to be really careful with what we're doing.
And that's, if there's any fear, we should be looking at what we're creating, why.
And we haven't done a very good job taking care of our planet, and we haven't done a very good job taking care of each other.
And that's the thing that we need to look at.
We need to stop pointing the finger at everybody else that's there and now creating a threat that, you know, most likely isn't there.
I say most likely.
I don't know with 100% definitive.
However, most of the research and, you know, that we find at this point is that it's us that needs to shift our ways with how we treat the earth and how we treat each other.
Oh, absolutely.
You've been around the UFO.
Thing for a fair amount of time.
When you see this 30 seconds of footage, does that look like a revelation disclosure video to you?
No.
No.
And when I say we've been around the UFO arena, let's be a little bit clear with that.
I've been behind the scenes with this stuff.
I'm not big with the conferences.
I'm not big with when folks come out with their stories and And all the hype that goes along with that.
If anything, I've avoided that for a very long period of time.
I've tried to look at the genuine research.
I've tried to be connected to the collective contactee experience less focus on the lights in the sky and more focus on the information gleaned as people have been shifted, as they've been changed, as they've been walking with maybe a different awareness that they had previously.
I just wanted to clarify that.
Well, this audience knows that you worked with John Mack and all that.
So that's, you know, you've been, you understand it more.
You know, you're not somebody who just discovered the UFO thing.
You have years and years of experience around it.
But you're not a, you know, yeah, you're not a walk in.
No, no, no, didn't have that luxury.
No, I've been at it for a long time.
But again, you know, behind the scenes and lived my life like a pretty normal person growing up in New England.
So, Yeah.
I'm glad one of us is normal.
It's good, actually.
It's good to be normal.
I count on that.
No, I know what you mean.
There's a big difference.
The culture around, and I think what you're getting at is interesting actually, because the culture around the UFO thing has degenerated to such a point that a lot of people wouldn't want to be associated with it.
And I think that's what you're getting at, which is it's become a marketing op.
But these things that are important that get into these areas, like around the deep state and the things that they control, for example, they do have to make it a very untenable position for somebody to go in it.
That's why, you know, in my shows, I've I've brought up so much about Mac because he really bucked that whole system.
Yes, he did.
Yeah.
So he was a character who came forward and said, look, I'm a Harvard professor.
I am somebody who has these credentials over years, and I've opened my eyes to this possibility, and I'm going to work in that direction.
And so he was really a cut above.
When I see people, veteran journalists like George Knapp and Leslie Kane, working around the DeLong thing and kind of being cheerleaders for it without.
Sounding a more reasonable tone.
That's disturbing because I think that gets into what you were talking about, which is it is, you know, it's easy to starve this branch of research because when you get them in that position, then anything you say they'll take.
They'll be so desperate just to have something to move their careers along.
Yeah.
And, you know, let's be realistic that the new energy technology arena and the ET UFO arena.
There's, you know, what's being presented out there is the government aspect of it.
What's not being, because what is that?
Like, that's the easy, quote unquote, provable thing that you can hang your hat on.
But the reality is, it's so much deeper than that.
It's so much more rich than that.
And there's other people than the government that are working on new energy technology.
And when I see, These writers or journalists and investigators that don't know anything about new energy technology and they begin to lump this whole thing together.
It's a little embarrassing because people will chomp on that and will chew on that, but they don't realize that this is a much richer and deeper field and that both of these fields have been severely suppressed for an extremely long period of time.
So they're gripping onto one narrative.
When the reality is, it's so much richer, it's so much deeper than that.
And, you know, what it goes back to, in my opinion, it goes back to our sovereignty, it goes back to our energy sovereignty, it goes back to us being able to, you know, look up in the sky and have our own connection with what we think the cosmos is, as opposed to someone's narrative on that.
And, you know.
Yeah, cover up.
Go ahead.
Yeah, it's the biggest, the most important things that are not, they're being overlooked in all of these news stories and disclosures are.
Having to do with, yeah, who are we?
Who are we?
Not them.
Or what is all of this?
And the energy.
I think one of the biggest reasons for the UFO cover up is that it would completely upend our current energy system, the whole fossil fuel business.
I think that the reason why we might be seeing some more information coming out right now has to do with the fact that oil has peaked.
Oil is too expensive to produce.
Oil is a problem economically now, and it really is time to move on.
I mean, not only for economic reasons, but also obviously for ecological reasons.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
That's what we see over and over and over.
So, you know, in some ways, it's almost laughable that it seems, you know, and I don't know with certainty, but it just seems that they're still trying to control this narrative that they've been trying to control for a very, very long period of time.
And it's not serving.
See, I think that's the thing.
Whoever is doing this, I think someone maybe in some ways, or however many people there are, think.
That they're doing something beneficial, they're doing something good, but at the end of the day, someone is still trying to control the narrative.
And I think that's the problem is that they're not.
There's a great line in this movie.
I love this movie.
It's the movie Agora, and it was about Hapasha of Alexandria.
And there's a line in the movie when the fall of one empire happens, you've got this group that's coming in that creates a fall, and then this new group comes in.
Lockheed Breakthroughs and Ships00:15:06
And Rachel Wise says this great line.
She says, Your God has not proven himself more merciful than his predecessors.
And that's what's going on here.
You've got someone who's trying to say, okay, well, these black budget things were happening, and now we've got the To the Stars group, and we're going to do it now.
But it's the same type of mentality we're the saviors, we're the heroes, we know better, and give us your IP, give us your information, because we're going to be the ones to do it.
Now, here's where I say, I don't want to sit here and criticize Tom DeLong anymore.
I mean, because you can.
It's not difficult, unfortunately, to do that.
Because he's made it easy for himself.
And these guys have actually made it easy for themselves to be picked on and to be criticized and whatnot.
But, you know, I think that there is a new way that's emerging.
And there are very, very smart people.
There are very, very ethical people.
And people that understand that things like moral technology do exist.
And people that do not want to see space be weaponized.
And it's these folks that are coming on the scene, that are coming on the pipeline, that realize that this infrastructure is in the process of being created to actually have consciousness lead technology and not the other way around.
And where my frustration comes into play is when I've been in this for a while, been in the technology arena and have been in, quote unquote, call it the understanding the extraterrestrial arena, and it just, the message is.
So loud and clear that the technology can't be leading the way because the wisdom isn't there with who's been leading it.
And the information that keeps coming in says that the consciousness has to lead, the ethics and the moral piece needs to be there.
And I don't know who can't get around that.
And that's something that we can get around.
That's something that you can say, you know what, that makes sense because I'd like to see my child and my grandchildren actually have a space in this.
Well, Oppenheimer actually would agree with you because he had great reservations about unleashing that.
And that's what I was thinking of.
It's fascinating with all your experience with breakthrough energies.
Can you, I'm going to put you on the spot here, but can you give me an example of, you know, let's say obtaining knowledge from a source like the UFO file, like crash retrievals or something, and the kind of breakthrough technologies?
That could be achieved from something like that.
What are the potentials for that if you had to explain it to somebody in a nutshell?
See, okay, so can we clarify the question so I can better answer?
If a flying saucer crashed and we got it and we reverse engineered it, what are the implications of that?
What are the kind of good implications of that that we could get from this kind of breakthrough energy that's associated with these crafts?
Sure, that's a hypothetical because I haven't had experience with a crashed ship and retrieval.
I mean, there's stories, right?
And so I would just be quoting stories.
Yeah.
Well, let me put it this way We've got a long history of the government maintaining crash retrievals.
And many people have gone on the record about it.
I think there's enough there.
It's not that you have to say that you've recovered them, but you know that they've happened.
Let's say it's in the literature.
It's back engineered.
So, what is the implications of, you know, what exactly are the implications of that technology being reverse engineered and coming out to a wider public?
What is it exactly that we're talking about?
Is it the end of the petroleum paradigm?
What exactly are we saying?
Well, there's a couple of things to that.
It gets into.
See, where my mind goes is this may not be the answer that you're looking for, but why did the ship crash?
Was it taken down?
Or did it just crash?
I highly doubt that you've got ships that are just randomly crashing into Earth.
I'm sure that there's some degree of being.
Being taken down, I would imagine, as part of it.
Of course, the implications are to understand things like anti gravity technology and the creation of materials and what materials are used and is it magnetic, is it plasma, and are there alchemical aspects that are at play here that we can tinker with and that we can develop, meaning human beings.
But when you back engineer something, you may understand the mechanics of it.
But you don't understand the consciousness that went into the creation of the technology, which is actually an important part of how it flies, why it flies, and where it goes and what it does.
So, you know, I think that, again, because this field has been insanely repressed for so long, you know, them saying, like, ridiculing UFOs, and now realizing from 2007, allegedly, to 2012, that there was a $22 million budget to actually.
Into these types of things.
So there's hypocrisy right there.
What are the implications of it?
Well, let's maybe start to look at some of the things that Lockheed Martin, which we know is one of the biggest.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, the ship that DeLong is claiming that they're going to build with Academy to the Stars, Lockheed Martin probably built that 40 years ago.
I mean, for anyone who studies it even one inch deeper, all that stuff is apparently fluff.
Apparently so.
You know, it's fascinating, I think, because we're going to do a whole show on breakthrough energy, but it's so interesting because the UFO thing brings it into focus.
So when you see the UFO stuff on the cover of the New York Times and you do all this work around breakthrough energy, do you think to yourself, my God, like we could be so much further ahead?
They've repressed this stuff so much, and now they're trying to give us these little, I think the thing that I saw in your Facebook post was something along the lines of same people who have been repressing this story are now trying to give it out to us in small bits.
Yeah, I'm actually looking at it to see what I wrote.
It was a long day of meeting.
No, it was inspired.
It was inspired.
There's no question.
Yeah, the media has done so much on this field for a number of years.
And it's a little bit of a tough pill to swallow to think that there's a legit understanding.
Of the UFO phenomena, because once again, it seems like they've got their slant, they've got their idea of what this is.
And again, what makes me cringe is about the weaponization aspect and hearing some of the things, and the fact that they quoted the To the Stars and Hal Putoff and DeLong actually talking about aliens as being some type of a threat.
The lack of true research, the lack of true knowledge, the lack of true understanding.
And that's what's hitting mainstream.
Unfortunately, we can be surprised, but we can still have our genuine emotions and be disappointed and be frustrated.
Because what that shows me, which is why I agree for us to show up tonight, is that once again, it just gives us all a lot more work to do because it continues to show that the true understanding of this is still really far from a lot of people's eyeballs.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
There's no question about it.
I do think it goes back to a conversation I'm thinking about with Catherine Austin Fitz, who has really looked at the UFO thing from the financial side.
Yeah.
And you looking at it from the energy side.
And I like these perspectives and bringing them together.
So here's something that she said.
When she went through all these details about the Phoenix Lights and she was thinking about the trillions that were missing, well, now she's up to 21 trillion, but at the time of the Phoenix Lights, she was looking at a much smaller number, maybe.
Two or three trillion.
And she was looking at the reports of the Phoenix Lights and saying, because she'd been wondering, what have they been doing with the money that's missing?
And at the time, it was missing from NASA, it was money missing from HUD, and it was money missing from the DOD.
And she said, that probably is the kind of thing that Lockheed could build with that two or three trillion dollars.
And so this brings that reality home.
When these things disappear, Uh, down this invisible, you know, hole, and this kind of secret system of finance gets revealed, and we know that there's money missing from it.
You know, I even made some comments earlier about how black money, as it was described, and the black budget, as it's described in the article, is a joke because 22 million dollars is nothing, you know, it's basically a day's work for those guys.
Uh, so you know, they all the time they're working to make you think of the black budget as this little small amount of money that's you know, you can is reasonable, but when you get to the Figures like 20, 30 trillion, you're getting deeper into that secret system of finance.
And then you start to think to yourself they are building an infrastructure in response to, you know, you could say the alien presence into this other presence, whatever it is that they're observing.
There is a response there.
And that's something that we don't get to see.
And it could be that some of those things that have been implemented since Star Wars, really, in the 80s, the SDI program.
It could be that some of them are going to become obvious.
For example, Lockheed Martin put out all this data about the space fence, and that was pretty menacing.
I don't know if you ran that, Alexander, but that you saw it and it was pretty.
I mean, the space fence, I ran the original that was, I think, published by Log Heaney in 2015.
Yes, well, this one just came out.
It's the one we talked about, it came out just about a month ago.
And you said, Oh my god, now I know what your Elena Freeland interviews are about.
If you look at the thing that I sent to you that I ran was from a few years ago, it's not new.
I'm just, yeah, this one just came out, but anyway, the point is that the space fence.
Is such a communications, it looks like a cage around the Earth.
And I really encourage everyone, again, everyone's going to go to my Facebook because I'm going to post that there too.
But I really think everyone should take a look at this because it gives you the idea of what they're about, even in their visual graphics.
And this is the level that they've sunk to, basically.
We've kind of rolled into this period of time where these guys are looking at things like a space cage around the Earth.
And the idea.
Ostensibly, is that this thing will keep out the space junk because there's so much space junk floating out there.
Well, gee, I don't think there is actually.
And the other thing about that is NASA, the regular public program, it has pre 1965 levels of funding.
So if they're, you know, all the stuff that's out there, it seems to me they're not making a whole lot of new stuff to go out there.
So I'm not sure what space junk they're talking about patrolling with that.
But I think the space fence is one of these funding mechanisms that you can kind of bury money in.
And it has multiple aspects to it.
So, when I'm thinking about their real space response to what they've been up to since the 80s, I think that it might be at a point where it's going to become visible.
So, therefore, they're going to have to identify some type of a reason for that stuff without saying outright aliens are there.
And so, if they allude to this mystery and that we need to build up against this mystery, that seems to be kind of like chapter one of this phase.
How does that sound?
That's not right.
Alexandra.
No, this fence is interesting.
I thought it was going to be something that would go around the whole planet.
It's actually something that is more like it's a fence that tracks things that go through it.
Like, you're going to go through a fence.
That's what it is.
Right, right.
Actually, I had somebody write back and say that he worked at that facility.
I think it's in the Marshall Islands.
He said, I worked for the Air Force at that facility.
Base.
Right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He actually was, yeah, he was on that actual island, which is where the space fence is.
And that's an interesting point, too, because of course it has to have an earthly origin projecting out.
And it's not on land.
It's not, as far as what's being revealed, the space fence project per se is completely land, not satellite based.
Right.
Exactly.
That's fascinating, too.
There is a book coming out in February, which is Alana Freeland's work.
And it's called the Space Fence, or actually, they changed the title of it.
But we'll have her on in January to clarify this.
But we've done a series of interviews with her.
I think the Space Fence is important if we want to understand what it is that's going on here with the other things, because the idea that some activity that the public will be able to witness is coming up.
Now, I mentioned earlier, Trump reopened the Space Council, which had been closed since 1990.
Interestingly enough, Obama said he was going to open the Space Council up and didn't.
In 1990, Bush and Quayle said we're going to Mars with this thing in 25 years.
Didn't happen.
And then, for some reason, in my opinion, Trump, understanding the space economy that's coming space tourism, asteroid mining, communications that whole thing is there and he's being left out of it because this deep state has control of these different factors.
What does he do?
Presidential Control of Space00:02:36
Very unusual move, actually.
He opens up the Space Council and he sticks Pence in as the head of it.
And then now he just announced off that space council we're going back to the moon.
Well, this is reasserting presidential control of a program that got out of presidential control probably around the time of the Reagan era.
And so these are the things and the types of trends I think that we should watch.
Okay, and with that, I don't know.
Well, I want you guys to answer that.
We'll wrap up on that note and then we'll take a few questions.
Very interesting to point out that the space fence thing.
I really, this is what Ilana Freeland is distracting that it is, I guess, the visible vestige of the Star Wars, the Strategic Defense Initiative.
And that this is probably the remaining vestige that's out there of continuity of government.
Yes.
You know, all through November, I was doing the JFK specials, and that's when the COG rules kind of took over.
You know, that COG group, continuity of government group, took over what was on top.
Basically, the public sector that was running things, President Kennedy, and they installed Johnson.
The COG group has spread out over time.
And even in this story, as I mentioned, Daniel Inouye, who's a major COG player and the only person in the Senate to ever mention COG, only to tell Oliver North, shut up about it.
He happens to be involved in that little $22 million kind of junior mini program that was such a big story in the New York Times today.
I do think that's significant.
And, you know, what happens, it's an interesting thing because it's so arcane in a way, but the COG rules are completely secret because they're based on nuclear holocaust.
So it's easy to bury money in projects like that.
So when you take those rules and then you have a space program, you move those rules into space because you can apply the same concept to it.
So when people talk about a secret space program, you know, instead of these people going off about, Being ambassadors to different planets and stuff like that.
The secret space program makes a lot of sense from the hardcore perspective of the secrecy from the underground base COG structure moving into space.
You don't have to acknowledge it to Congress.
You have a secret system of finance that goes back to the National Security Act.
Squished Sovereignty in Power Structures00:03:14
I mean, those pieces fall into place at least as much as they can for us looking at it from the outside.
You know, my simple comment is this.
Is we have politicians in the military suffocating people's capacity just to be able to look and feel outside and to look at those stars and have that deep natural wonderment and to have their own connection with the cosmos.
I don't see the theologians, I don't see the cosmologists, I don't see the moral technologists.
Where are those people in any of this?
They're not there.
And it's because they have kept this hidden, they've kept it secret.
It's a joke.
I mean, it is a joke.
With all due respect, sometimes we sit here and we listen to the military stuff, we listen to the government stuff, but there's a beginning of life and there's an end of life, and there's life that happens in between.
And our capacity to have a human experience here, where our divine beingness, this is the thing that's being threatened right now.
I mean, at the end of the day, it's about technology for them, but it's about our sovereignty for us.
And this is what I feel like this battle is about right now because.
Unfortunately, they're creating all these different laws and all these different technologies that are getting into our minds and getting into our heart space as well.
And you have to work a lot harder in order to just live and be on this plane of existence.
And I think it's our right and it's our right on this planet to be able to genuinely reach for the stars, not to have somebody tell us how to do it, and certainly not by a group that's controlling things and doing things, many of whom have.
Made a career of doing things in the dark.
This isn't man's greatest hour.
This isn't what it's about.
We've got the conversation wrong.
Again, it should be consciousness leading.
It should be humanity.
That's what it should be.
And unfortunately, this thing is torquing.
And I think that's what a lot of us are reacting to because that sovereignty is continually feeling as if it's squished in some way.
And so, what does that mean?
In my opinion, it means that.
This movement really needs to occur.
It needs to take place that we actually look at this.
I don't know if you call it a space fence, you call it a cage.
So human beings are actually going to be put in type of, Gaia is going to be put into a cage.
Well, that's probably one of the dumbest things that I've ever heard in my life.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, what's interesting about that, it's really well put and well said, because You know, this is fascinating when you get into that power structure and the power differentiation they want to create.
You know, it's fascinating because it becomes less and less intelligent, you know, as it becomes more and more dominant.
Deep State Factional Infighting00:06:25
There's no question about it.
With the loss of intellect and wisdom comes the increase in subjugation and subversion.
It's like an abusive relationship.
Absolutely.
But it's happening, and I think Catherine Austin Fitz said this the other day.
It's happening in front of our eyes, and maybe things aren't so hidden anymore.
And people are like, oh, well, okay, fine, so be it.
Right, right.
This isn't a dream, it's really happening.
It's been really happening for a while.
Well, you could say the threat is real.
If you look at the YouTube page where his To the Stars presentation is posted, Nobody's buying it.
You know, people aren't dumb.
They don't need permission or any official announcements from anybody, from the DIA or the CIA.
That's the last, exactly, that's what's being expressed on the page there, is that those are the last people you're going to get your, you know, sovereignty or self empowerment from.
So, yes.
Certainly not looking to them to tell you what time it is.
No.
So, And nobody is buying it if you look at that page, and maybe that's why the New York Times left Tom DeLong out of their article.
Right.
Absolutely.
I thought it was a very significant omission.
I can tell you, having been around journalism, who you mention and who you don't is very key.
And if you leave somebody out, there's usually a reason.
Because if you leave them out and they're important and they're expecting to be in there, they're going to call you as soon as that thing hits.
And they're going to say, they're basically going to chew your ear off because you didn't put them in.
So something was going on there.
And I think it has to do with this wave of the way that the rollout was handled, really is tanking that aspect of it.
Which is good.
Now, I will mention something about the name Academy, though, which I find disturbing and I want to share here, which is I've done a lot of work around Bobby Inman.
And Bobby Inman is one of these intelligence officials who's always been close to the UFO file.
And he's about as deep as the deep state gets.
He's on the board at Stratford.
And, you know, he's just one of these characters that you're always finding popping up around this UFO question.
And in the 80s, he actually came out and said, Yeah, we've gleaned technology from crash retrieval.
So he's on the record.
Inman is on the board of Academy.
And when I say that, people understand the double meaning.
So, Academy to the Stars has a relationship with him, yes, but Academy is the new name for Blackwater, which was the unit that got sent into places like Iraq as mercenaries just to play cleanup.
And they'd send these guys in to do dirty work.
And we all know about Eric Prince and running Blackwater and the number of congressional investigations during the Bush Cheney administration about that.
And then you have to ask yourself, If Inman's so close to and on the board of this academy, which used to be Blackwater, and boy, they changed that name because you say Blackwater and people think, you know, death squads, basically.
So then let's think about Inman having the ear of DeLong, you know, in this puppet show.
And then you think about him being on the board, it's just incompatible.
You know, the two things are completely incompatible.
And I think that's the type of research that we should be leading with.
And I don't think when you get into deeper research, when you get into alternative research, we should be hearing things like, hey, disclosure's upon us, you know, and the UFO sites and stuff, open minds or whatever, like Tom DeLong's the UFO researcher of the year or something.
I mean, you know, his stuff's a marketing op and it's got an Intel op embedded.
You get a twofer right there.
Whatever the people involved want to do, obviously, earlier, Susan, you missed this, but I split it into basically Democrat.
And Republican splits in the deep state.
One side wants to do, you know, the Podesta Hillary type disclosure was one thing.
They both want to use this alien threat thing.
Trump, to get that back on his side, the Space Council, you know, he announces the Department of Defense audit.
And then all of a sudden they say, hey, this program, we did this program for 22 million before Trump said, hey, these guys were wasting time spending money on UFOs.
See, so weird.
You know, we started to look at that way.
It makes a little more sense.
It gives us a little more context.
That's the kind of journalism I think we need to bring into the space to get a handle on it.
You know what?
It is interesting.
I mean, when you look at it like that, we start to understand the split.
The factional infighting, from what I understand from the good researchers on this, the people like Farrell, the people like Fitz, even Linda Moulton Howe will go into this and say the factional infighting in that deep state around this issue is major.
They've never been more fractured.
So, we've heard in the 80s there was a split between what they called magic groups that were handling this.
And that split brought us a weird off balance thing that was kind of like a disclosure that came about when it really came into the culture.
But now we're looking at something which is one side is trying to get at the other side with it because they've been trying to fight each other with just about everything.
And this thing, they really need super dominance over it.
And that one wave, the Podesta people with DeLong and all that, they thought they were going to get in, didn't happen.
They don't have the power.
They can do this though, because this was prearranged.
Trump people get in and they say, Well, Space Council, Department of Defense audit.
I'll get at it that way.
This is how I size it up politically.
That's brilliant.
It's brilliant.
It makes a lot of sense.
Opening Salvo for Change00:04:48
Guess what?
I think it's.
I mean, because why the hell are we fighting each other, which is what they've basically been doing to people here in the United States for so long?
It's like different genders fighting each other, different ethnic groups fighting each other, different religious groups.
Now, ironically, the karmic tables have been turned against them, and now they're fighting each other on this.
I mean, I'm sorry.
It's kind of comical in that regard.
When you really think about it, it's kind of funny because it doesn't change the fact that people are waking up.
And people are having their own experiences, and they can access this higher knowledge through meditation, through being connected to nature, through being a good, nice, kind human being.
I mean, it doesn't change that, right?
It doesn't change that fact that you can research and look at things on your own time and your own information as well.
So, I mean, it's kind of funny in that regard.
So, you know, the pot got stirred up with the article today.
I might have been slightly frustrated when I saw it because I'm like, oh, great, here we go again.
But on the other hand, here we go again.
Here we go again.
Right, right, right, right.
Another opportunity for all of us and new people coming into the fold, which there are every single day that are sick and tired of the dumb narrative.
They're done.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Susan, just from your perspective, Thinking about the field, what do you think is important?
You know, if somebody's opening salvo for finding out about the UFO topic, what this thing in the New York Times today, what would you like to see as their opening salvo?
What would you give them?
Um, the subject, uh, honestly, it would be the stuff that that you know I'm working on right now with that group, free.
Um, it is the collective understanding of what we know regarding.
The contact experience and what we know regarding this topic.
And, you know, if they feel like they want to counterbalance it with the government narrative, go ahead, but at least counterbalance it.
You know, take one narrative as being the whole enchilada or one person's story that seems to have a lot of backing from a media perspective or has marketing around what they do.
You know, serious marketing around their story.
You know, that's a narrative.
It's a narrow narrative, but taking the collective understanding with.
Good solid researchers that have PhDs that look at these questions, theologians, cosmologists, astrophysicists, you know, people that actually have been looking at these things for a while that don't have a specific agenda tied to some big government something or some big university something, right?
And there's a lot of those folks that have put themselves on the edge to bring truth and to bring true research.
And that's actually where the realer story and the more interesting one begins.
Oh, absolutely.
I 100% agree.
Alexandra, where would you like to see them start?
Well, you know, I can want all kinds of things.
I think.
You could choose one.
Well, I think that probably for them, you know, they have to stay away from the spiritual implications of things.
I think getting practical and talking about how to redesign.
Energy and our whole energy systems.
How would you like an average person to enter the UFO world?
You know, like let's suppose that this opening salvo with the New York Times article, for the first time, somebody would look at it and say, wow, you know, this is new.
That's how they're trying to get them in to say, oh, the government's watching this.
Well, I guess.
How would you like to see them come into it?
I mean, well, the way I want to do it is completely not very mass friendly.
I mean, because it really would be an existential kind of.
Confrontation, you know, what is this all about?
What is creating?
Yeah, you want to see them look at it philosophically.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, it's great to have some sensible dialogue around this because I'll tell you on one hand, we have the mainstream media that's been blocking the issue nonstop for a long time, and now this little thing has trickled out.
Even in that article, there was some tamping it down, like, you know, oh, this is interesting, but still doesn't mean anything.
Public Needs vs Hero Syndrome00:04:58
You know, it's one of those.
But they'll play the kind of Pentagon's game of how they want to get this out just to have the story.
And then on the other hand, you have people around independent media who really aren't doing any good hardcore research about it.
And so there's a problem.
You have like a two-edge problem.
And then in the middle, walking down this very narrow path, there's some intelligent conversation about what it is and what it means.
That's the conversation that needs to grow.
So, before we go, let's see if anyone has any great questions.
You can ask questions now.
My eyes are on the board, and I do appreciate that everyone's here.
It's a big crowd tonight.
It's great.
So, you know, you guys can think of your questions.
One quick one that I have for Susan that I wanted to ask is how is it going with the new energy movement?
It's going very good, it's going great.
Fantastic.
We haven't done anything publicly.
Looking at Facebook posts, we haven't done that.
We've been focusing on the back end and really strategizing and looking at what this field really needs, who needs to be part of it, and developing a tremendous infrastructure to be able to support what we feel are some of the most critical and essential questions that need to be answered.
And so we'll be coming out with that soon.
I still can't say too much, but what I can say is.
Things are going great because the team of people that we have, they're very smart, they're patient, and a lot of them have seen a number of things throughout these last many years.
And we continue to get more support globally as well, which is wonderful.
So, you know, that's the best I can share with you right now.
I know I'm holding back a bit, but it's because we're still putting some of the finishing touches on things that we need to.
To do right now, but things are going very, very good.
And also, you know, really understanding this field as a whole because what people seem to know about new energy technology on the internet and on, you know, the YouTube videos and things like that, there's more hype than there is the true juice.
And what we're really trying to get to is the true juice and push away all those things that are actually a lot of noise and just getting to the juice.
So things are going very, very good.
I saw some question in there.
It was rolling so fast that I think it was Is there now an actual free energy device?
Everybody asks that.
Everybody asks that.
And what I can tell you is there is not, as far as I know, somebody else may know different, that the general public can actually purchase and get delivered to your home and that you can have it working.
That does not exist yet.
That is to my knowledge that that does not exist yet.
Is that potentially coming?
Of course, absolutely.
But there's a lot of things, and this is where the public needs to come into play.
There's a lot of things that need to happen from an infrastructure standpoint for that technology to actually go from being in the creation phase and the prototype phase and the actual working phase to then getting to someone's home.
And that's why the New Energy Movement is a movement.
Because if you want this to be energy sovereignty for people, it has to be a movement.
And the public needs to actually be in support of that.
If we think the powers that be are going to develop this and it's just going to magically arrive to people's homes, think again.
Or if you think that this technology is going to come out and then it's just going to be delivered to you by an ABC person, not going to happen.
This is something that if people want this, it's a movement and you need to be a part of it.
It's not going to be just hand delivered.
You have to put your energy into it.
It's not like Amazon, it's going to show up and say, Your free corporate free energy device.
No, it's not like going to Starbucks and going to your energy Starbucks and being like, yeah, I want four or five times COP greater than one.
Can you just deliver that?
Not going to happen.
Wow, it's interesting.
Do you feel like this is one of my questions?
Do you feel like groups like DeLong's are kind of trying to steal this idea of new energy and don't really have their heart in it?
The New Energy Hero Trap00:03:04
God, you're making me laugh.
I feel that it's the, it's, I will be kind.
It's the hero syndrome, and we've seen it.
Gene Manning and I are writing a book.
We're finishing up.
It's called Hidden Energy.
And we've seen it over and over.
And bless everybody who has, you know, the hero syndrome.
I'm going to save the world.
I'm going to be the one to do it.
Now, granted, we all have our special energy blueprint, you know, that we bring to this.
Plane of existence that we're here to achieve.
But there's something about this arena, there's something about this field that the hero syndrome never works.
It doesn't work.
It's almost like the universe has this key that says if you have the hero syndrome, it's going to blow up in your face.
So I think that these people think that they're doing well for the world.
Of course they do.
Why would they put their energy into it if they didn't, right?
And it's common that people that don't have high levels of creativity or maybe even a high level of intelligence take other people's ideas and their information.
That's common knowledge as well.
So, you know, and, and, You know, maybe these guys are doing something that's beneficial as well, but is it actually what they say they're doing?
Do they have the capacity to deliver that?
I don't think so.
And I think that there's others that absolutely positively do.
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
Wow, fantastic.
We'll be watching for more with you.
Of course, we have an interview coming up.
I would say that, you know, a lot of things are going to spin out in the next week.
So, we're doing another live episode this week, and I'll put that on the schedule for everybody.
It's great to have both of you here to go through this fantastic stuff.
Of course, Alexandra with ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.net, she's doing a lot of coverage around this and other topics.
We're going to get into Bitcoin sometime in the next couple of weeks and go deeper on that.
We're seeing all these kind of ops fly up at once.
So, it's a heightened, accelerated time.
And I find it interesting they're doing it before the holidays.
They're going to get all this in there, and people will forget about it over the holidays, and boom.
But it is interesting timing, let's face it.
I just hope that I can get my holiday shopping done in time for everything, that they don't drop any more bombs, that we have to deviate our life too much right now for the love of God.
I thought they wanted us to be shopping during this time.
Right, exactly.
Well, they've got you going 24 7.
And so we'll be watching for that.
It's new energy movements.
People will be.
Watching for the many things and the projects you have coming up for 2018.
And I hope to have you back on soon.
And Alexandra, what's going on with Forbidden Knowledge TV?
Modern Music and Holiday Violence00:02:24
You actually ran something about Debussy, which I thought was very fascinating.
Well, I just, I'm getting very nauseated by the stuff that I have to talk about.
I mean, do I really need to publish another article about people who think that?
Directed energy beams are causing the fires in California.
I mean, I think, I don't know.
Maybe the technology exists, and I think that what the story is there is that thousands of people believe that.
That's significant.
But I don't, I'm done talking about it.
I don't want to do another story about it.
I just don't.
Well, it's like how many.
The whole abuse story, the violence and the violence.
I just, I'm.
So I decided, you know, There's something wrong with our culture that it's just not even football is safe anymore.
So I just thought, okay, if we have a problem with our culture, maybe we should focus on culture.
And I just thought of the song that had been in my mind, and I heard it, and it's just so beautiful.
And it's.
What was it?
Can you say what it is again?
It's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Fawn by Debussy.
And it's.
It pretty much invented modern music.
You can hear jazz.
You can hear jazz.
You can hear.
Every MGM musical is in there.
It's like modern music was born.
What era is Debussy?
This particular song was first played in 1894.
And then just hear how modern it is is amazing.
And it's so beautiful.
It's a thing of beauty.
It's just fabulous.
It's transporting.
And I got so much feedback from people saying, thank you for delivering us from just more crappy, crazy news.
Yeah, it is fascinating, isn't it?
It's like you need to keep that balance going, or it's a very tricky terrain.
But when you step into news, when you step into journalism like that, it's.
Gerald Salenti used to say this because he meditates and he said, you know, it was his way of kind of taking out the garbage.
And I'm sure people can appreciate that.
But everyone appreciates that you're there like a warrior dishing out all the forbidden knowledge TV news.
Tomorrow's Clearer Data00:03:49
And the same with you, of course, Susan, doing so much on this.
And thank you, everyone.
It was a really good crew in there tonight, I could tell.
Very feisty.
A lot of people have brought up the.
The Las Vegas story, which has been going on.
And really, I highly recommend Alexandra's coverage on that story because anything that's important that comes up about it, she really finds the good stuff on that.
And, you know, there's no question that it's a major story, but it is one of those which, from the outside, it's very difficult to get a handle on the facts.
And I've tried to tell people over time the way that these operations work, a lot of the deep state operations, and one of the reasons I go back.
To their older ones, so often, what I call the deep state cold cases.
You can see and unwind all the disinfo when you are looking at them over time.
It starts to become very clear because of the way that they operate.
The story that they were putting out there falls apart, but it takes years.
And trying to get up close and with it, you know, like the day after 9 11, it's very hard.
But 10 years later, it was a lot more possible.
Somebody mentioned Judy Wood in there.
I have a lot of respect for Judy Wood's work.
And, um, You know, we've crossed paths, but we haven't set up an actual interview before.
But I do feel like she's somebody whose work I respect.
And the idea around directed energy weapons, I think, is very important research for us to be engaged in.
There's this idea that there are all these technologies out there and they're kind of invisible to us, and we're trying to get a handle on them.
So the more hardcore data we get from people like Judy Wood or Elena Freeland or Susan Manowich or Alexandra Bruce, that, you know, starts to give us the details that we need.
Because if somebody just wants to run us over a cliff with an idea, That everybody is targeted with an energy weapon, then it's going to be a long time to get to the truth.
So, I do appreciate those questions, though.
So, basically, you know, I'm on the same page with you guys.
All right.
So, that's it, unless anyone has a last minute question for anybody.
Oh, thank you.
Very nice.
Good luck and good night.
I like that.
Let's keep an eye on this story.
Let's update it.
We're going to be doing so much coverage on this New York Times article and everything that comes out of it.
The AA TIP program and Harry Reid's involvement, the way they're putting Harry Reid out as the face of disclosure, very unusual.
And it's the kind of thing that makes me uncomfortable when I look at it because you can see an op is being weighed out.
You know, if they should put this retired Senate Majority Leader out there as the face of this instead of DeLong, it's a very kind of sneaky maneuver, I think.
So that's about it.
And thank you very much, Alexandra.
And thank you, Susan.
Thank you, Daniel.
Thank you, Alexandra.
Thank you.
Thank you both.
And, Alexandra, what's up for what's coming out tomorrow?
I think this is what's up for tomorrow.
I think it's a good idea.
I think it's a good idea.
Thank you, everyone.
And I really appreciate it.
I am looking at everyone who's out there.
Buddha Girl, Groovy Bean did a great job in there.
She kind of saved the day.
And the moderator, thank you for the Kennedy assassination truth coverage.
You know, there's more of that coming.
They just released 3,000 more documents.
Which I think is fascinating.
So, you know, it's the never ending unwinding on that story, but it's incredibly important.