Dark Journalist and Joseph Farrell dissect the CIA's "Age of Disclosure" documentary, arguing it is a defensive maneuver to reclaim narrative control after losing ground to grassroots movements in 2014 and 2015. They link the November 21st release date to JFK assassination anniversaries, connect recent drone sightings to coordinated information management, and criticize Hollywood and political figures for oversimplifying alien phenomena as purely benevolent or demonic. Farrell emphasizes that the UFO file encompasses human technology, non-human tech, and non-technological entities, warning that rigid policies based on incomplete data have historically caused errors like the 1952 Truman shoot-down order. The discussion further explores Curtis LeMay's alleged hostility toward JFK regarding nuclear policy, the controversial 1962 Ripple test achieving clean fusion, and how modern advancements in portable nuclear reactors and AI energy demands might validate historical claims about red mercury while posing significant environmental risks. Ultimately, the episode suggests that understanding this complex technological landscape is crucial for avoiding flawed future policies driven by binary thinking or deep state suppression. [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
JFK Anniversary UFO Documentary00:03:51
Hello, everyone.
This is Dark Journalist.
Tonight, I have a special interview for you with Oxford scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell.
Dr. Farrell will expose the CIA big budget Age of Disclosure UFO documentary and talk about the secret structure, calling the shots behind the scenes.
Please join us.
Joseph, it's great to see you.
Good to see you, sir.
There are so many things going on that we can scarcely put it into one or two episodes.
Yeah, we really can't.
It's hard to keep up with.
I mean, really, Daniel, stealing the French crown jewels and.
You got a little Sherlock Holmes going on there?
Moriarty?
Yeah, Moriarty.
Let's steal the crown jewels and really piss off the French this week.
Excellent.
Anyway, well, there's a little clown show in progress in America, too.
No, really?
This is the Intel rollout of UFO disclosure just for you and I, and it's called Age of Disclosure, and it's brought to you by 33 different Intel agents.
Oh, I'm getting ready already, Daniel.
You're going to love it.
Get your tickets now, everybody.
Dan Farah is the director who put this all together, and he's Steven Spielberg's producer.
But he shares another very unusual accolade in his CV, as it were, which is he's Lou Elizondo's agent.
No.
Now, wait a minute.
Just stop right there.
Since when do whistleblowers have to have agents?
Agents.
There we go.
I mean,.
Come on, people.
But don't you know Elizondo's risking his life, Joseph, just to bring the info truth?
Yes.
Let's make sure that we book you where you're going to have the biggest chance for an assassination.
That'll get your name out there.
Wow.
This thing, scheduled for release November 21st, has already debuted at these theaters.
It's getting the posh treatment of, like, oh, these.
CIA talking heads now are giving you the truth.
I'm sorry to interrupt again, but wait a minute here.
November 21st, the day before the anniversary of JFK's assassination.
Yes.
Yes.
Could they possibly get more obvious?
You know, I think I'm going to call this episode Synchronicity City because there are so many synchronicities that just don't lend themselves to coincidence.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
So, just before that 62nd anniversary of the JFK assassination, they're going to roll it out big.
And Jeff Bezos is back there at Amazon rooting for this thing while he is riding high on Blue Origin.
And he is just going to lay off 600,000 Amazon workers because he replaced them with AI robots.
But hey.
Oh, we know that that's going to work out well, don't we?
Can't wait to go to Whole Foods and have some robots waiting on me.
This should be good.
Trump's Drone Narrative Control00:15:14
So, the upshot is with this documentary, it's really, in my opinion, going to separate the people who are aware of something in independent media versus those that are waiting to be spoon fed by the intel groups about what UFO disclosure, after all, is all about.
Very serious topic, the UFO file.
My question to you is.
With the launch of this thing, what I want to do is connect these three seemingly disparate elements and put them together.
Okay.
One, the launch of the CIA documentary Age of Disclosure with some Spielberg people.
Two, the very unusual thing that you covered, which was about an interesting raid that took place during the UN speeches in September about a room set up.
With intense equipment ready to interfere with every kind of communications network that somehow got raided.
And of course, we remember the famous moment of Trump going up the escalator and it not moving.
Quite an image contrast from his original announcement going into the presidency, coming down the escalator.
And here we have it stuck and he has to walk like anybody else up there.
But that was staged.
That's the second part.
And the third part, I think, is even more interesting because, again, we have.
This drone stuff coming up.
A group took credit for the drone warfare and the drone swarms that were taking place in November and December of 2024.
And this was the biggest in New Jersey.
Yes, overlapping all over the East Coast and centered right there and seen over at Bedminster, which was Trump's, of course, is his New Jersey Mar-a-Lago.
And Trump immediately after that was seen cruising around.
In these SUVs and limos that had drone busters on the top that were ready to take out anything.
That was a new one.
But anyway, during this Alabama event, a group, an unnamed group, aerospace group, covered by Fox News and others, said, Oh, that was us.
We did it.
We were testing it out for the government, so we didn't have to say what we were doing.
Now, here's the question.
Immediately afterwards, that same unnamed group said, No, it was not.
So it was revealed and then not revealed.
And then we had all the drone sightings over Europe right in during this period in Denmark, in these other major European cities, and nobody was explaining them.
Joseph, how do you link or do you link those three events that started off with a bang this fall?
Well, I certainly think there's a possibility that there's a link between that raid on that server.
Farm that was northwest of New York City and the drone story.
And then, you know, Trump cruising around in his SUVs with the drone jamming equipment.
Because in both cases, what those incidents tell me is that they had some sort of counterintelligence that something was going on.
You don't.
The other thing is, they have been that I found personally very fishy about that.
That story where the Secret Service said, Oh, we found this server farm and we've taken it down.
Normally, counterintelligence is in the hands of the FBI, not the Secret Service.
Right.
So that's the first thing that I thought was kind of peculiar about that whole story.
The second thing is there was never any explanation as to who they thought had erected all of those servers, nor was there even any comment about the fact that for that amount of servers to do that kind of denial of service attack on all of New York City, you know, that's a substantial server farm.
And that in turn requires a lot of money and organization.
And quite frankly, professional intelligence expertise.
So, who is behind it?
And we've not heard.
Was it the Chinese, the Russians, an independent group, a consortium of corporations?
Who?
Nobody knows.
Then, like you say, you have that Alabama group saying, oh, we're responsible for the drones, but no, we're not.
So, what's going on?
My suspicion with the drones, when that drone story first broke, I thought, well, They're going to pin this on somebody.
And shortly after it broke, well, then they attempted to pin it on Iran.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
You know, which, you know, Iran does have a fairly sophisticated drone technology industry.
Yeah.
But I thought, no, that, you know, that's not right.
Somebody's doing this.
And I'm not convinced that it was Iran.
I'm not convinced it's just one group of people either.
It could be several people kind of piggybacking off of each other.
So I definitely think those two stories are linked.
Yes.
And the server story, especially in conjunction with the fact that it occurred right before the UN General Assembly meeting, what that tells me is that somebody was planning to disrupt that whole gathering big time for whatever purpose.
I don't know what.
The third thing, the third element was what again, remind me?
The third piece was the Age of Disclosure CIA documentary with all of the Intel talking heads, the Spielberg influence, and people like Marco Rubio.
In there, and Anna Paulina Luna, of course.
You know, Daniel, you and I have been around the ufology narrative for decades, and we've watched this build up towards disclosure wax and wane for decades.
I mean, this goes back to Donald Kehoe and the 1950s.
You know, I am intensely.
I'm skeptical of anything coming out of Washington, D.C., claiming to come out of whistleblowers or people like that.
Yeah.
These people are professional liars.
They get paid to lie.
So I would urge due caution because what they're trying to do, and you and I saw this at the Bastrop 2015 conference, we saw it in the previous conference the previous year.
I am convinced to this day.
That those two conferences put the intelligence UFO community on their ear.
Because those two conferences, number one, they were grassroots conferences.
There was absolutely no interference from outside quarters.
The second thing about both of those conferences is they did not invite the UFO divas.
Right.
There were not the same people that went to all the UFO conferences and congresses telling the same stories over and over about imminent disclosure.
It was an entirely different ticket.
And most of the speakers were there and backed up what they said.
So, what those two conferences told the intelligence community was they were in serious danger of losing control of the narrative.
And in fact, they had lost control of it.
And now there was emerging another narrative that was building out an entirely different scaffolding of interpretation for understanding these types of things.
And they had to get.
They had to assert control over it once again.
And it's significant to me, Daniel, that they have had to do so now by coming out with quasi official admissions that all of this stuff that for decades they were denying is now real.
So, in other words, this is a limited fallback position.
This is a, if you will, this is a defensive strategy and, and, A counter offensive to get rid of the independent alternative ufology community all together.
Yes.
I do not think it's going to be successful.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It will not be because most of us who have been around the issue for, you know, I don't consider myself a ufologist, first of all.
I've talked about the issue as I've bumped up against it in some of my other researches.
Seems like you know more about it than most of the ufologists.
Well, but this is the problem.
You know, this is the problem.
You know, a Catherine Fitz or a Richard Dolan or me or you or people that are dealing with this issue in the context of other issues that we've come across, such as finances and geopolitics and so on.
We're giving it a context that the old ufology did not have.
So they're scrambling to reassert control over the narrative.
And it's interesting that they're having to do it by bringing in all these other contexts.
Right.
So, that tells me that they can come out with all of the To the Stars project and whistleblowers doing their documentaries and so on and so forth, all under tight control.
This tells me already that they've lost and they're going to lose big time.
It'll be interesting to see what this so called documentary actually says.
I have a feeling, Daniel, that it's going to be raked over the coals.
Wow.
Right now, it's showing the signs of being so promoted.
I can tell you, you know, and I've seen marketing campaigns before.
This one is hardcore because all the government people are saying, oh, you really have to get behind this, you know?
And so you've got people like Luna who are running the task force, supposed to get to the bottom of the UFO issue.
And by the way, the JFK assassination, six months, they haven't gotten to the bottom of anything.
Yeah, I know.
The task force is probably the single most dismal performance.
Of a Senate committee exploring a deep issue.
I haven't seen anything of note come out of there.
The only thing of note were the records that were coming out anyway that they got to disseminate, and that we got the George Jones thing, which every major researcher knew anyway.
Knew anyway.
And has no idea.
But now CBS and NBC can talk about it.
Hey, there you go.
Yeah, well, that's exactly, you know, this is the other thing, and you're raising a good point here because it's kind of like, Watching the replay of the Christopher Columbus episode all over again.
Yeah.
Everybody who was anybody of stature or, you know, part of the medieval deep state, you know, in Europe, knew there was something across the pond.
The Venetians knew, Constantinople knew, the Genoese knew, everybody knew there's something over there.
Okay.
So, what are we going to do to enable us to talk about it?
Stage an expedition of discovery.
That's what we're going to do.
And oh, by the way, I found something over there.
Yes.
Now we can all talk about it.
Well, that's what this is.
Yes.
George Joannidis, you know, if you've been in the JFK assassination research community for any amount of time, you've known about that name for at least 30 years.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
And it's a crucial thing.
They won't link it properly anyway because they leave the Inman part out.
So you just, you know, you just have him like promoting and paying Cuban supporters.
Yeah.
That's why I think this is going to just, Daniel, this is why I think it's going to get absolutely shredded.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, look what happens every time there's a major event.
You know, let's just pick the Charlie Kirk murder, just for an example.
Within 24 hours, what little emerging narrative was being put out there was absolutely being shredded, it was being picked to death.
And, you know, and I'm one of the people that would just love to help pick it to death because it makes no sense.
Right.
So, you know, this attempt that they're trying to control the narrative, I think you put your finger on something else very important was, you know, you said earlier everybody's got to, you know, get on board with this.
My question is why?
And what is it you want me to get on board with?
That the narrative that all these extraterrestrials are inherently hostile or the narrative that they're inherently good and are space brothers and we should trust whatever they say or want to, you know, tell me why.
And they're not doing that.
Well, they're coming in from very interesting angles.
And I'll tell you, the Three Eye Atlas thing with Loeb over here at Harvard is interesting too.
Because he goes on these major shows, such as Rogan and all that other kind of stuff.
And he spills this nonsense about Three Eye Atlas.
Now, but his key role has been to announce that the UFO thing is AI and that it's an AI trying to communicate with us.
And that if we can get our AI up to snuff, we can have this alien communication.
That's a very interesting sidebar op, which is different.
From the Elizondo Mellon UFO threat thing, totally different.
It's like a science nuance thing, but he's been at it and they've been letting him fly by, uh, in Fox and Rogan and stuff.
No challenges here to him saying, Oh, that's an alien ship coming in and all the rest of it.
When you know, uh, it could be anything, of course, it's a comet, it might be unusual size, it might have some unusual traits, it's very interesting in any case.
But he always has to be putting in this whole thing.
If you go into Loeb, of course, he's straight out of Talpiot.
You know, he's Israeli intelligence.
So instantly, when he got Galileo, he piled it high with CIA people.
But you see these different ops coming in from different angles.
And what I see is what they're trying to do with Age of Disclosure is give this whole thing an umbrella of credibility from the intelligence community.
Clever Ops Promote Independent Thought00:02:04
They're the ones who now are going to be the sole authority.
If you get around the UFO file, forget about all those people, all those researchers, and everything else.
This is, oh, it's a human story brought to you by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Yeah, they're trying.
You put your finger right on it.
They are trying to establish themselves as the authoritative magisterium for interpretation of the UFO phenomena.
And I've got news for them.
They long ago lost that race.
I mean, you know, they were trying this in the 1950s.
And what happened was you had the Donald Kehoes and the Morris Jessopes and the Cornelius Van Tassels, you know, the whole 1950s UFO explosion.
They simply couldn't control all those people.
And the same thing is going to happen here, big time.
And, you know, if they were clever, and I don't think they are, so I'm not advancing another version of a conspiracy here, folks, but if they were clever, they would try and do all this for the precise purpose of promoting much more independent thought about the UFO issue.
But I don't think they're that clever.
In other words, this kind of reverse psychology, I think.
In terms of this issue, it is beyond them.
They've been trying to assert control over it ever since World War II, and they have not been able to succeed at doing so because there's no way to assert a universal magisterium over the issue.
There's too many researchers that are independently minded out there.
Their attempts to assert that kind of magisterium collapsed when J. Allen Hynek went on Johnny Carson and said, Yeah, I came up with the swamp gas explanation.
And now, in retrospect, I think, you know, well, Right.
That kind of gives away the game, you know.
Decade after decade.
Decade after decade.
Christian Circles Reverse Psychology00:05:52
Yes, exactly.
It's very interesting you mentioned that because Yuri Geller came out very recently talking about Three Eye Atlas as an alien thing.
And I was thinking, you know, 50 years of Geller, he really has shown up in some very unusual ways.
And at times he's shown up remote viewing and legit and all the rest.
And at other times, you know, the wild predictions off the charts, but nonetheless, always a voice in the mix of the whole thing.
What I want to ask you, and this is touchy ground around because what they're trying to do now also, and it happened just today with Vice President Vance, who was on a program and they asked him about the UFO file.
And out of the blue, he just comes out as Tucker Carlson did a couple of months ago and others.
Suddenly, the new buzz is those aliens are demons.
Now, Vance, I just want to say, you know, is somebody who is in that interesting interface between the teal forces and an appeal to the Christian right.
So, you know, he's a strange interface.
So when he says something like that, I listen even closer and think, oh, they're going to try this.
But the aliens as demons thing, and, you know, and again, using.
Factual basis in some regard, but using it to in order to coerce a particular type of community.
How do you see that in terms of the Christian side, you knowing both sides so well?
Well, I think it's very dangerous, and this is an issue that's bothered me for some time because there is this tendency within traditional Christian circles, and by traditional, I mean.
Circles that adhere to a confessional orthodoxy.
In other words, you know, if you're talking to a Lutheran, make sure they're a real Lutheran.
If you're talking to a Roman Catholic, make sure they're a real Roman Catholic.
In other words, they take their confessional faith seriously and they adhere to it.
All right.
Within that crowd, there is a kind of, I'll call it what it is, there's a kind of knee jerk reaction that any type of manifestation of this sort must be ipso facto demonic.
Right.
And the real problem is, I believe that the Lord that we serve said, You shall know them by their fruits.
So the real question is, Let's assume you're having contact.
Well, are they telling you abandon your faith because it's all messed up and you go out and kill people?
Well, then, yeah, if they're telling you something like that, then you have to be skeptical.
If, on the other hand, they're saying, Hey, by the way, Mary, The Holy Spirit's going to overshadow you and you're going to bear the Son of God.
Is that a demonic contact?
Clearly not.
Right.
What is it that they're up to?
Yeah.
What is it?
Who are you in contact with?
And my point here is that the ancient records and traditions tell you all the time there's angels and there's demons.
So how do you tell the two apart?
Right.
And what I'm hearing from so many people with these, well, I think they're demons.
Well, tell me why you think that.
Rather than just popping out with an assertion that they are.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Give me a reason for why you're saying that and coming to that evaluation.
And, you know, I, like I say, angels and demons.
So I'm open to both possibilities.
Right, right.
You know, let's, you know, it depends on the contact that you're having and the message you're getting.
Now, that said, I do happen to think that most of the messages of contactees and so on that I'm familiar with and have.
Bumped into over the years convinced me that these things are minimally of a character of the kind of character of a Loki or an Enki.
You know, if you study those gods in Norse mythology or Babylonian mythology, they're kind of impish.
They're kind of tricksters.
They might be good, but they are always up to tricks.
They're always playing these little jokes and so on.
Almost like the elemental kingdom.
They're almost like elementals.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, you're dealing with this is my point I'm trying to get clumsily across.
You're dealing with such a vast array and continuum of life forms, if you believe the ancient texts, and I do, that any contact with them is going to be an affront to our binary way of thinking.
Right.
So, with all due respect, Vice President, Advance, give us some reasons for why you come to that conclusion before you just come out that, you know, these things are automatically demonic.
If you get your guess wrong, if you guess wrongly that they are all our loving space brothers and they're here to raise our consciousness and bring in a new era of paradise, if we just forget our outmoded ways of thinking and doing things and blah, blah, blah, and you get that.
Hollywood Brain Trust Narratives00:03:04
Conclusion wrong, you're in for a lot of trouble.
By the same token, if you think that they're here and they are here to create mischief, mayhem, madness, and murder, and you get that conclusion wrong and you enact policies based on that conclusion, you might be letting yourself in for a world of hurt.
Yes.
So, you know, let's exercise a little caution.
Right.
Let's exercise a little common sense and a little reason.
And maybe, just maybe, we might get it.
Right.
Absolutely.
Well, let's connect the dots here between the CIA UFO threat, Age of Disclosure, Hollywood push documentary, which they're, by the way, they've made David Grush a Hollywood consultant.
They had Lou Elizondo as a Hollywood consultant on Spielberg's UFO movie, which comes out in May 2026.
So all those guys are getting rolled.
Now they went through the congressional thing.
I'm a whistleblower.
I'm at risk.
I'm risking my job.
And then You know, we found out they still work for the government.
So, no risk there to them.
Those guys all become Hollywood consultants.
But if we put together now this Hollywood edge around Age of Disclosure, Dan Farah, all the money that is going into this thing, the fact that he represents the whistleblowers and that whole bit.
And then this other thing going on over here with people like Vance, with people like Luna, who are like, oh, those aliens are demons.
And that's what it says.
And they're really spreading this.
If you put those two together, are we seeing in the back room a brain trust group?
Yes, I think you need this group, that group, and this group.
Then we have a majority.
I think you're seeing them try to put together not only a brain trust, Daniel, but I think what you're seeing is they're trying to put together a narrative.
Yeah.
And the narrative is this stuff is a threat.
We got to prepare.
Yes.
All right.
Now let's look at that for a minute.
Again, let's go back and try and reason through this.
This is what worried me way back in the 2014 Space Program Conference.
And I alluded to this in my talk that they were confronted at the end of World War II with a strategic problem.
And they actually had three different strategic problems.
And they had to figure out a way to deal with all three of them in a way that was cost effective over a multi generational long term project.
So, one of the things I mentioned in that talk was the book of Robert Hastings, UFOs and Nukes.
It's a wonderful book because this idea that they're putting out now, well, they're visiting our nuclear sites, and that's a national security.
Well, we've known that they've been visiting our nuclear sites again for decades if you bother to do some research.
Early Strategic Problems Post-War00:15:26
Now, here's the problem.
Oh, no, they just discovered this in the last year.
They just discovered this.
Oh, really?
Oh, no.
Well, come on.
You know, I grew up in South Dakota.
I remember stories in the Sioux Falls Argus leader of UFOs over the missile silos in the western part of the state.
So, you know, this is not new.
Guys, guys, don't you know Candace Owens read a book last night?
She's found out all about nukes and UFOs.
All right.
Yeah, it's like that.
Here's the problem in these UFO encounters with nuclear weapons sites in both this country and in the Soviet Union.
We're confronted by events that again lend themselves to several different kinds of interpretation.
For example, at various missile sites in this country, UFOs have appeared and they turn off the flight of missiles or they reconfigure the targeting of the flight of missiles.
Right.
Just remotely.
That's what happened.
In the Soviet Union in 1982, this is probably being the most famous example, at Byelokorovich in the Ukraine, incidentally, the.
UFO actually started a countdown in that flight of ballistic missiles.
And the Soviet technicians were absolutely terrified, and as they would naturally be, trying to shut down the countdown because the missiles were on the launch.
They were on the launch countdown.
And at the very last minute, the countdown stopped again by the UFO.
So, what's the issue here?
Well, You can interpret that activity in both cases, in the American and Soviet cases, as hostile action.
Or you might interpret it as sending a message that we are not going to let you destroy yourselves and we have the capability to do it.
Or it might be sending the message, we've got this capability, you better knuckle under.
Right.
So, again, what's the message?
And depending on how you interpret the message and Formulate policy.
This is the key thing here.
If you get the message wrong, the policy that you formulate will be wrong.
And because this is the key point here, especially with regards to this documentary and all these other things that you're bringing up, if you respond to activity that can be interpreted in a variety of ways by advocating only one kind of attitude and policy response to it,
You're again letting yourself in for a whole world of hurt, yes.
So, in other words, to say that it's a threat, well, that is not the only accurate measure of how to interpret these events, and that's my problem with this.
They're advocating only one type of attitude and therefore narrowing the choices of policy by dint of that, and that concerns me immensely.
There's no question.
Absolutely.
You know, when you think about this, when an astronaut like Gordon Cooper describes doing maneuvers while they're training in Germany in the early 50s, that they get up there and then craft get behind them and imitate them in their movements and in their formations, but do it better and then bow by them.
You know, in a way, that's not even evil or good.
It just represents a technical capability.
Right.
Flat out.
And then the other questions.
Are added onto it, but really on a blackboard, straight up, this is somebody technically can imitate everything that you're doing and do it better and do it better and do it faster and more fit.
Yeah, this is the problem I'm having with this whole approach that we've got to come to one or another of a binary conclusion on a binary set of available choices when in fact we might be dealing with a continuum of different responses.
And motivations behind whoever's doing this.
We simply don't know.
Right.
And to, you know, let's take another famous example that I've talked about in my books here, Daniel, since we're talking about UFOs and policy and so on.
Yes.
In the wake of the UFO flap in 1952 over Washington, D.C., what happened?
Well, President Truman gave the U.S. Air Force a shoot down order.
Yes.
Okay.
He did.
Shoot him down.
Now, let's stop and think about that.
And this is early in the game.
This is early in the game.
Do we honestly think that President Truman would have been so harebrained and stupid as to issue a shoot down order if he thought that what they were shooting at were extraterrestrial interplanetary visitors with a technological capability that we simply could not produce?
Right.
Definitely.
Do you think he would have risked?
A war of that nature.
Absolutely not.
No, I don't either.
So, in other words, the very fact that you have him doing something like that is an indicator that he knew more information than the general public about what they were dealing with, and that a shoot down order in that case may have been the appropriate response.
Now, does that mean I think that he knew that it was a human technology?
Well, I think that's the strongest case, but.
You can make the argument that he may have had intelligence, that whatever they were dealing with, if it was interplanetary, it wasn't that far ahead of where we were capable at that time.
So, in other words, my point is he would not have acted in the blind, he would not have formulated a policy without some sort of rational thought that this response would be the appropriate response to what was going on.
That's, you know, this is what I find so disturbing about all this whistleblower stuff that's going on now.
They're asking us to accept their conclusions without having argued them, reasoned them, and presented all the information to us.
And they're arguing for only one narrow set of possible interpretations and therefore only one possible set of policies.
This bothers me immensely.
But they saw it in The SCIF.
You can't see it in The SCIF, but trust them because they've seen it.
Yeah, trust us.
We've seen it.
Well, you know, I'm sorry, but private Gnosticism is not any basis for public policy.
This is the problem.
Absolutely.
It's the problem of all Gnostic systems.
So, you know, if you're going to tell us that, you know, we've got to trust, well, give us reasons why we should.
You have lied to us about everything else.
From the JFK murder on down to Waco and Ruby Ridge and the savings and loans, why should we believe anything you say?
Right, right.
You know, it's interesting mentioning that part of your book where you covered, and that book I think is Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations.
Yes.
I have it right here.
The fantastic, incredible book, but one of the things that you cover in there is the Kinross incident.
And refresh my memory.
That's the one in Michigan?
It is.
Okay.
It's the one in Michigan.
But I think that that is the overlap for where the shoot down order is in place.
And then they look at that and they're like, oh, I might have to call it off.
Back off of that.
Yes.
Yeah.
I found that interesting.
And what you were saying there about your various lectures dealing with the idea of the UFO file immediately after World War II, the powers that be have those three problems.
And the three problems are.
The three problems are the communist bloc, the post war Nazi international, and the UFO.
You've got three very different problems that you're dealing with.
Now, the way I'm thinking, and I'm glad you brought up the Kinross incident and the fact that they had to rethink the shoot down order, is because what I've been arguing is that up to a certain period, Most of those UFO encounters that we think are extraterrestrial, according to the standard ufology narrative, I don't think that at all.
I think they were Nazi and human technologies.
Okay.
However, I have never said I think all UFO activity is Nazi or human technology.
I have said over and over until I'm blue in the face that with the UFO phenomena, you're dealing with several phenomena, plural, not a universal, homogenous.
Uh, monotype phenomenon.
So, with Kinross, yeah, if you all of a sudden are enacting policy on the basis of, oh, well, this is human technology and it's the Soviets or the Nazis or somebody doing this, yeah, we'll shoot them down.
And then all of a sudden, you encounter the real thing in terms of an actual UFO that is not human in its technological basis.
And all of a sudden, you decide, oh, well, we better watch our step here.
And rethink this whole shoot down order.
That's exactly what I'm arguing here.
We've got to get it out of our heads, first of all, that the UFO phenomenon is one phenomenon.
It's several.
Yeah.
It's several.
And they're of a different nature in almost every type of pattern case.
You've got technology.
Is it human?
Some of it is.
Is it non human?
Probably some of it is.
Is some of it even of a technological nature?
I don't think so.
And on and on we could go.
Oh, it's an excellent point.
If you were to look at this through the lens of 80 years of this information, there's a very intriguing period, I'd say from 1961 to about 2001, and that is the abduction phenomena.
Right, yes.
The people who came forward to deal with that from a high prestigious level, like Professor John Mack, got thoroughly lambasted in popular media.
On the cover of Time, saying, like, what a shame, you know, all this kind of thing.
So hardly embraced, like, the 2017 New York Times article with all that Leslie Kane and, you know, all of her CIA friends.
So when we look at that era and we think about the things that somebody like Mack was bringing forward, what is that period all about and why did it stop, whatever it was?
Well, I think that period is precisely about what I'm trying to get at here.
John Mack, the professor, what's his name?
Jacobs at Temple, Dr. Jacques Vallee.
Yes.
People, you know, Whitley Street, yeah.
Yeah.
That popularized, you know, in the 1980s the abduction phenomenon with his book Communion.
Right.
The thing that I think that whole movement is about was first of all, the contactee, the Van Tassels and the Adamskys of the 1950s, that whole thing kind of morphed in.
From contactee into the abduction phenomenon, Betty and Barney Hill kind of kicking that off.
Yeah.
What that tells me, and the fact that you had academics, Valet, Jacobs, Mack, taking this seriously, was that again, they realized that you could not pigeonhole the UFO phenomenon into a phenomenon.
It was several different, discrete things that they were having to deal with.
And that was a major one.
And I think the biggest clue there, Daniel, that the narrative was beginning to shift with that whole phenomenon into a, let's call it a kind of quasi philosophical or metaphysical area, was the fact that Vallee himself wrote a book called Passport to Magonia, in which he made, I think, a very good argument.
That much of the abduction phenomenon was very, very similar to the medieval stories of succubus, incubus, you know, so on, the elementals, and so on.
He was drawing explicit parallels to this old area of medieval and ancient lore that had been around for centuries of people having these types of experiences.
Right.
And what he was trying to say is, well, this is not new.
It's just kind of updated a bit, but it's not new.
So let's look at it from that standpoint.
And I think, to his credit, What he did there was he was showing people again that you cannot pigeonhole the UFO and boil it down to one type of phenomenon and one type only.
It's just impossible.
You can't do it.
And if you do try and do it and then formulate policy on the basis of what you've boiled it down to, you're going to end up committing egregious errors in your policy.
It's not going to be able to work.
So, that I think is part of the problem.
And I forgot, I had another point here, and I just forgot where it was going to go with all of this.
So I'm going to quit yapping and I'll remember it eventually.
Strange Sky Events and Patterns00:03:23
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, it's an excellent point that what they had there was a different, completely different approach based on abductions.
And the abductions seem to suddenly halt almost like right after 9 11.
Well, that's interesting that you say that because I have not, that's one of those obvious things.
That you don't think about, and you're right, they did seem to halt.
Now, the question is, did they really halt, or did the stories just kind of get pushed away from center stage?
Yeah, you followed, I don't know, but I have, I think you're on to something there.
We're kind of back to the classical UFO, you know, light starting around in the sky and doing all of this strange stuff.
We're kind of back to that narrative.
Absolutely.
I hadn't thought about that.
And maybe, you know, maybe there's a UFO connection to the whole 9 11 thing we haven't thought about.
The other, you know, the other thing that is so weird in this respect that we're talking about, you know, the shift to the abduction narrative and then the sudden shift away from it is we're seeing another kind of thing, if you look very carefully, another kind of pattern emerge in the last, I'd say, the last.
10 to 15 years, and that's the pattern of strange stuff in the skies.
And by that, I don't mean UFOs.
We've had the narrative of let's go out and mine asteroids.
Okay.
That's been one of the huge things I've noticed that they started talking about.
Then we have the strange comets, Oumuah, and then now Three Eye Atlas.
Yes.
These strange objects that, strangely, even more strangely, appear to be slowing down as they get closer to the sun.
You know, okay, how does that work?
Yeah, explain that one to me.
But anyway, um, yeah, how do things slow down as they're getting further into a gravity well?
You know, it's like the moon.
How does the moon slow down as it enters the earth's gravity well when it's captured so that it forms a nearly perfectly circular orbit around the earth?
How does that work?
Please explain it to me.
You know, it's fascinating.
Yeah, the answer is somebody's putting on the brakes.
That's what the answer is.
Okay.
Like it or not.
By the way, NASA announced that for a short time, we're going to have two moons for the next couple of months because, you know, this asteroid got caught in our gravitational field.
And hey, isn't that nice?
Yeah.
Moon number two.
Moon number two.
Along with Artemis launch, of course, in 2027.
Guess what?
We're going to the moon.
Yeah, we're going to the moon.
Yeah.
Nothing strange happening here, folks.
Everything's normal.
Go about your daily business.
Ignore that thing in the sky that wasn't there yesterday.
Yeah, you know, there's all this strange stuff.
And then the other strange one that people keep forgetting is the Chelyabinsk meteor in Russia.
Oh, yeah.
That whole flap that emerged on Russian television that no one in the West paid attention to.
Bizarre Nation State Deep States00:09:16
Unbelievable.
Yeah.
Yeah, that was on, you know, talk about a weird event in the skies.
So, yeah, we've got a definite pattern that, that, They've been moving back to away from the abduction narrative and back to strange things in the sky.
And in the middle of all that, Daniel, now they're interjecting and injecting this marketing scheme, as you pointed out, this marketing scheme that, oh, well, UFOs are demonic and get on board here and we're going to tell you all about them now.
Okay.
Yeah.
Fund our anti demon defense.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yes.
How are you going to do that here, folks?
Are you going to be drawing.
Symbols on the floor with blue chalk.
Is this your Star Wars defense plan?
Peter Thiel's going to be in the middle, holding the lecturing us about Antichrist.
Yes.
Come on.
Daniel, I'm amazed that all this insanity, and these are the people that are going to save the world from an extraterrestrial invasion.
Right.
Yeah.
It is fascinating.
It is.
You know, I couldn't.
When I think about just to kind of round out the abduction aspect of this, one of the crucial things we'll use the most classic case, the Betty and Barney Hill case.
Okay.
That element of missing time is interesting.
The anomalies, magnetic anomalies of the car, the Air Force wanted the car after the fact.
And after their examinations, the disintegration of Of Barney Hill over a few years, lost his job, had a nervous condition, finally dies of a cerebral hemorrhage.
The nature of the abductions themselves work differently with different people.
And maybe one of the reasons they got rid of the reporting of the abductions is because it gives away too much of the detail of something that they, in the national security state, are studying.
That is the effect of the interaction of these things.
With average people, yeah, it very well could be.
I, you know, I think that's a very plausible scenario because, again, I don't think with the abduction phenomenon itself that you're dealing with again a homogenous unified phenomenon.
I think there are several different little subsets of things going on because some of those abduction cases are just very bizarre, yeah.
And in, you know, they're so bizarre, they're not even in the same category as Betty and Barney Hill.
Betty and Barney Hill are interesting because some of the technologies that they're describing were used in their abduction during their, you know, their examinations are actually technologies that emerged about 10 to 15 years later in the public arena, you know, the amniotic fluid examination of a woman's uterus and so on.
There are aspects of that particular abduction case that suggest that they may have been abducted by some sort of black project.
And that was the reason for the interest in the cover up.
And then there are some abduction cases.
I forget what the one up in New York was, besides Betty and Barney Hill.
There's been another famous one in New York.
It's just bizarre.
Or, you know, the Randalls and Forest business in the United Kingdom.
Which isn't an abduction case, but it's a contactee case.
Again, it's very bizarre.
Yes.
When you probe the details of it.
Absolutely.
You have one guy saying he's feeling the hieroglyphs on the cover and he gets all these images in his mind that they're time travelers and all that.
Yeah.
It's just bizarre.
And, you know, how do you rationalize all these different phenomena?
Again, I don't know.
But the danger is.
Viewing them as a homogenous phenomenon and then trying to formulate policy on that basis.
It reminds me of when people take something like the deep state and they're like, oh, China's the deep state or Israel's the deep state, or they grab one group and they're like, that's the deep state.
That's a total misappropriation.
First of all, the deep state can't have a nation state.
It has members of nation states.
And that's the whole point behind the deep state, which is it doesn't operate, it's not the actual.
Nation state.
Yeah, it's exactly as you say.
It's, you know, I'm the same way.
That's the reason I keep telling people, quit thinking of this in terms of, oh, it's the Jews that are responsible, or the Zionists, or the Freemasons, or the Jesuits, you know, on and on and on.
You know, all these groups go.
Well, they're all involved, and you can make strong cases that each of them, at some point in the history of the last 200 years, has had their fingers in some pretty malicious goings on.
Right.
The point is, as I've tried to tell people over and over, you're dealing with a mafia, and these are the dons at the table.
Yes, absolutely.
That applies to so much that we're dealing with now because there's always this overemphasis whenever something happens, and it's become the great distraction to say, oh, it's some nation state doing it over there.
That takes you off the deep state, it takes you off the trail of the intel.
It gets you away from the NSA and the CIA and all those groups that intermingle.
And form a foundation with that deep state.
That's after all, Professor Scott termed it it was organized crime on the bottom.
Yep.
It was the intel groups above that.
And then it was the contracting groups like the Booz Allen Hamiltons.
Yes.
Above that.
And then above that, extreme wealth and then the management of extreme wealth.
That's your deep state picture.
Yep.
And the only thing I think from our conversation today that we add when we're doing this kind of research and certainly you and your books.
Is that the exotic technology in the aerospace side is the piece that's often overlooked in the middle of it.
And right in the heart of that is the UFO file.
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
You cannot be dealing with the vast sums of money just on a qualitative appraisal.
I mean, you don't even have to sit down and crunch numbers.
Just take a qualitative analysis of the vast sums of money.
That have been invested in this country alone.
Forget about the European countries, forget about China, Japan, India, just this country alone.
Look at the vast sums of money that have been spent on the development of these types of technologies since the end of World War II.
Yes.
Just the black budget.
Yeah, that's the wow.
Yeah.
This has been going on now for decades.
And that means, in turn, That you're dealing with a deep state that, for whatever reason, after World War II,
and I think those three things that I mentioned earlier are precisely the things that they were afraid of, they had to take the decision of a massive investment of capital because they were scared and they knew they had to play a technological catch up game very, very quickly.
Or face a potential intervention.
Now, that was a sound policy because it was not based on, in two of the cases, it was not based on unknown factors.
We knew what the Soviet Union was, we knew what the Nazis were.
So the response to them was appropriate, but they had to formulate that response in terms of also making sure that they were responding to the third and Potentially most dangerous one.
So they always were dealing with a potential threat, but they never came to the conclusion that it must be a threat and we must deal with it.
It may be a threat and we should be prepared to deal with it.
That's a different kind of response than saying it's a demon.
Kennedy Administration LeMay Threats00:06:55
Yes.
You know, sorry, you've abandoned your reason at that point.
Yes, absolutely.
But I, yeah, my point is the sheer amount of money should tell us that there was more going on in their political calculus than just the Soviet Union or the Cold War.
The sheer scale of it.
And, you know, The last people that we were listening to at the time were the Soviets that were just like, why are they doing this?
You know, are they trying to ruin our account?
Well, yeah, we're trying to do that until the UFO starts showing up over the Soviet Union.
Oh, that's why they're doing it.
You know, yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, now we get it.
Not that they didn't get it before that, but you take my point.
Yes.
Well, this makes me think actually, when we get into.
This area of the cases, it's quite fascinating because just to round out that whole Betty and Barney Hill case after the fact, it happens at the beginning of the Kennedy administration.
Yes.
Now, when I put some things on the record with Doug Caddy about the reasons Kennedy was assassinated, you know, and Caddy was the Watergate lawyer, that entire UFO field didn't know how to deal with him or his revelation.
And it sat out there.
But Caddy said, E. Howard Hunt told him his best friend before he went to prison.
Caddy was representing him.
He said Kennedy was assassinated over the UFO file.
Interesting threads have emerged since then.
One of them was a guy I was able to contact before he died, and he gave other interviews.
And his daughter is part of these different foreign policy think tanks, Pippa Malmgren.
His name was Harold Malmgren.
And Harold was a foreign policy staffer.
In the Kennedy administration.
And he said when these incidents happened, particularly in relation to nuclear tests, there was one incident where we kind of knocked out of the sky one of these things by accident, as it were.
And then the sighting over a nuclear site.
In both cases, he claims that Kennedy brought himself, in one of those cases, to White Sands to review the entire incident.
And that the person who was most vehemently disagreeing with his policy in relation to it was Curtis LeMay.
Oh boy.
So that's another piece from the official foreign policy team of the Kennedy administration opening us up again to the idea of the UFO file in the Kennedy administration and his urgency around dealing with it.
Well, I am not surprised to find LeMay being injected into the mix because of that very famous incident that you know very well that involved General LeMay.
And that was Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater, yes.
Yeah, wanting to.
To visit in his status as a U.S. Air Force Reserve General and going to Wright Patterson at Dayton, Ohio, and wanting to see the UFO.
And LeMay, you know, if you read Goldwater's account of LeMay's reaction, LeMay apparently just launched, you know, and blew up.
And, you know, don't ever mention that.
Don't ever ask about, you know, seeing that again and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, I'm not surprised that LeMay would be.
Front and center in this Kennedy UFO dilemma because he's the man in control of that file at that time.
You know, and it's we forget that during the Roswell incident, what do we have?
Well, we have the Air Technical Intelligence Command at Wright Patterson.
The lead general in charge of that, General Twining, is where, well, he's down in Mexico right during the time of the Roswell incident.
Yeah.
And, you know, which I find very peculiar, especially given what Senator McCarthy has to say.
What's going on down there?
I was thinking of that last night, just as I was putting together notes for this episode.
I was thinking about your McCarthy connection with the UFO file.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, it's clear.
I mean, once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Right.
And once you see that, then you can't unsee the fact that this is what the Army McCarthy hearings were really all about.
And that none of them could ever talk about on TV.
Right, right.
Yeah.
You know, it's crystal clear.
And the Kennedys in the thick.
And Bobby Kennedy was assistant counsel to McCarthy's committee.
It's kind of hard to ignore here.
He's helping press the case, as it were.
He's helping press these cases, you know, and you know, the Kennedys and McCarthy were rather close.
You know, they were very friendly with each other.
So, you.
The idea that they're not going to be talking about this over their scotches and cigars at Hyannisport, well, no, that doesn't wash.
So, yeah, you know, the UFO connection is there and it's going back with the Kennedys, it's going back to the McCarthy era and to his committee.
So, I'm to find Curtis LeMay involved in all this, that shouldn't shock anybody.
Yes.
But, LeMay, you know, let us remember, LeMay was not friendly with the Kennedys at all.
Exactly.
And my impression of the man, Daniel, is that he would not hesitate in order to protect the UFO secret.
He would not hesitate to be involved in shutting John Kennedy down, you know, because to LeMay, this is the national security issue.
Right.
And we can use that Goldwater conversation as a foundation.
Oh, absolutely.
He reveals his attitude to the UFO issue to a fellow Republican and a fellow general officer, no less.
He reveals his whole attitude with how he responds to Goldwater.
So, to me, that's mens rea.
That's fodder for a lawyer in a trial.
Nuclear Propulsion and Secrets00:11:58
Yes.
Yeah, absolutely.
This is fascinating because.
There are a number of things coming up that remind me of the clash that was taking place there.
And of course, what you're alluding to, which I think goes right to the heart of it, is that Kennedy was assumed as a national security threat for his activities with the U.S.
Yeah.
Well, I think you can expand that, Daniel, because you've pointed out that plan that he was involved with Dr. Berkner in Dallas.
Yes.
We did a show about the ripple thing and all of that and how that may or may not have played into it.
Well, Kennedy, I think the national security concerns go further than just the UFO.
You know, that's that I think is certainly included.
But I also think that his whole approach to nuclear weapons became a national security concern.
After all, it was Kennedy that ordered the ripple test.
Right.
Personally.
Yes.
And that means that he's got his finger on the pulse of.
Some very advanced scientific technological development in terms of weaponry.
He's not doing this as a lark.
Absolutely.
That's a concern.
It's the height of our nuclear.
It's the height of our nuclear technology.
And I can say that with confidence because I don't know of any nuclear test since then that has been recorded as having a 99.9% clean reaction.
I mean, You might as well say that it wasn't a nuclear reaction at all, in a certain sense.
Oh, wow.
Getting that kind of cleanliness from it.
Yeah.
It's so amazing to me because we did that episode.
There's been so many demands for us to do Ripple 2, by the way, because we have so much on the cutting room floor about that.
But essentially, what you brought forward with it through various sources and things is that they performed this test as part of Operation Dominic that Kennedy ordered.
And they got a number of unusual responses from a few of the tests.
And then that last test had such a low fallout rate, it was practically no fallout, but pure nuclear activity.
It was as close as you can get to an almost pure fusion explosion.
And that rewrites the entire history.
That rewrites the entire history and that rewrites policy.
Yeah.
That's the key thing to take away from it.
If you can set off a hydrogen bomb with a very minimal.
Fission bomb, and that bomb achieves a burn rate that has a 99.9% efficiency, then you have remade, in a fundamental way, you have remade the chemistry of thermonuclear and nuclear reactions.
That's, I don't know how to be more breathtaking than that.
You know, and if that is the case, here's the other thing that's spilling out from that ripple test.
If that be the case, then all of those stories from the 1990s about red mercury being a substance capable of detonating a hydrogen bomb without the necessity of an atom bomb as the fuse, right?
That throws all of those stories into a very, very different light.
And let's remember there was only one American bomb expert.
That came from within the Black Projects community that believed that those red mercury stories were true.
Remember who it was?
Sam Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb.
Right.
Now, that right there tells me that he knew something.
He's coming out of that ripple mentality.
So, for him to say that he believed in the red mercury stories and that, yeah, the Soviets would probably have done such a thing.
And by the way, now, did you notice that Vladimir Putin?
Just announced, yeah, we've got a nuclear rocket.
Meaning, yes, I was going to ask you about that.
Yeah, they've got a rocket that's based on nuclear propulsion.
Well, now, wait a minute here again, folks.
Stop.
Think this one through.
He even used the term doomsday weapon.
Yeah.
Well, that's what it would be.
They had the doomsday weapon in 1961.
Well, here's the problem nuclear rockets, you know, Stanton Friedman worked on nuclear propulsion, the famous ufologist.
So, nuclear propulsion has been around for a long time.
And Stanton Friedman even wrote about his involvement in.
I forget in which of his books, but he pointed out that the project was dropped because there was an obvious problem with nuclear propulsion.
And guess what it was?
Well, it's all that fallout that you're spitting out of the back end of the rocket.
You know, you're literally using the rocket as a radiation spreader.
You know, think of cloud seeding only with gamma rays and alpha particles, you know, all of that stuff.
So, yeah, this probably is not a good idea for a rocket.
Mm hmm.
So, all of a sudden, Russia announces, and they were working on nuclear propulsion in the 50s and 60s.
By the way, so were the Nazis.
That's a little giveaway.
Oh, yes, they were.
Yeah, Okay.
So, what's this really saying?
Well, maybe they found a way to make a nuclear propulsion, fission propulsion rocket feasible by minimizing or perhaps even getting rid of entirely the radioactive output.
Now, again, Everything that you and I know about fission from our junior high school and high school physics will tell us that's impossible.
Right.
Okay.
But maybe they figured out a way to do it.
Who knows?
Fascinating.
Who knows?
Yeah.
If they did, then those nuclear rockets forget about Elon Musk.
You might as well pack up shop and go home because if you ain't got a clean nuclear rocket, you're just kind of.
Flying a Model T around up there.
Wow.
Yeah.
Well, this is incredible because if we take it now, it's physicist John Knuckles.
Yes, John Knuckles was the original.
He does the original, and his information about Ripple is still kept classified, but we got to learn more about it as of 2021, somewhere in there.
Yeah.
There's only one article about it, and that was the article that I was reading when we did that.
Talk and it's clear from the article that Knuckles was thinking precisely in terms and for the goal of achieving a nuclear thermonuclear fusion explosion without the use of a fission bomb to set it off.
That was his goal, or at the very minimum, minimalizing the amount of fission bomb that you needed to set off a fusion reaction.
This is the parallel development of the Two programs.
And it could be that Russia is at this point where they're like, we've developed it.
Here it comes.
We have it.
And the Americans on our side have been so good at the black projects and hiding everything from the UFO file to their nuclear programs have hidden the fact that they have this clean fallout since 1962.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let's put it, let's put it, let's draw an analogy.
Okay.
We're hearing a lot, and I'm sure you've been following these stories.
We're hearing a lot about how the American military wants to put miniature nuclear reactors on various bases in order to provide electrical power.
Okay.
Now, stop and think about that.
Your local National Guard Air Force Base or whatever is going to have a nuclear reactor at the base to provide power all over.
Okay.
Forget about the big, huge nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island or Kerr McGee or wherever or China Station in California.
Forget about the whole big nuclear power plant thing.
You got a nice little cute reactor that will fit in the bed of your pickup truck.
Okay.
Now, here's the problem.
A portable nuclear reactor, yeah.
So, what happens if it melts down, goes critical, and starts spewing all sorts of radiation all over the place?
You're going to have gazillions of these around the countryside.
So, that's problem number one.
So, what's the analogy?
Well, do you remember back when Edison and Tesla were competing with each other about direct current or alternating current?
Yes.
And Edison, of course, was backing the direct current and trying to supply direct current electricity.
Throughout New York City.
Okay.
The problem that he ran into that every electrician will tell you with direct current is that it drops off very significantly with distance.
Okay.
So you would have, had we followed Edison's direct current route, you would have had a power plant every three miles or so.
And when I say power plant, I'm talking power plant.
Okay.
With chimneys and smokestacks and trainfuls of Coal coming in to power the dang thing.
Okay.
So you would have had an environmental nightmare had Tommy Edison been able to persuade the country that his was the way to go.
Tesla, on the other hand, was alternating current and it does not drop off over distance.
And so we have a relatively environmentally friendly electrical technology.
You don't need a coal plant every three miles.
So, yeah, this is my problem with these nuclear reactors.
If they're talking like that, what it's suggesting to me is we're not talking about any sort of conventional nuclear reactor anymore.
Because a conventional fission based nuclear reactor still has that nasty danger of nuclear waste, of radioactive leak, of the potential, you know, think of Chernobyl, you know, of potential meltdown.
And then you've got a problem Fukushima.
Fukushima.
Yeah, exactly.
Something else is going on here.
Unless these people really are that insane and they want to create little Chernobyls and Fukushimas all over the country.
When you said this originally, I thought you were going to allude to the nuclear reactor on the moon proposal, which is what they've laid out.
Oh, yeah.
This also is part of that strange hey, we're going to have nuclear power plants everywhere.
Yeah, including the moon.
Yeah, where we're going to, by the way, we're going to build out a 5G network.
Fukushima AI Disaster Scenarios00:02:31
What did the Germans say?
4G network.
The Germans came out with about 10 years ago.
Yeah, we're going to put a 4G network up there.
You know, again, why?
Yeah, right.
Who are you calling up there, you know?
So, yeah, all the signs are that they know something that they're not telling us.
You know, and that gives me concern.
And they better start telling us because sooner or later, if they don't tell us, we're going to figure it out.
Or it's going to be revealed in spite of them.
And at that point, their capital goes down.
They're in a very, very messy situation and it's of their own making.
Oh, interesting.
And it could take the entire financial system down, the productivity system down.
They're relying already too heavily on AI.
Amazon just announced 600,000 cuts of personnel.
To replace with AI robots, uh, you know, and it's going down the line with all these major industries.
That's the type of disaster that they've rolled us into a scenario for, yeah.
And AI is working so well if you've been following all the stories about it, you know.
So I'm just waiting for a bunch of stuff to arrive on my front lawn that I haven't ordered from Amazon, you know.
Um, I these people are nuts, and the demand, the demand, uh, Water wise, energy wise?
Water.
And I was just about to say the demand of these AI data centers for electrical power and water is off the charts.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, do we really want to exchange our lifestyle so that Mr. Billionaire can have his data centers?
I don't think so.
Yeah.
This is the real clash.
This is the real coming clash.
And it's going to be a big one.
Joseph, just amazing.
Stay right.
There and we'll record another hour for subscribers only, going even deeper on the key X Protect groups with Breakaway Tech data mining the public reaction for our Sky event.
Subscribers will get the episode in their inbox shortly.
If you're not a member, go to darkjournalist.com and join us now.
The link is in the description of this video.
Of course, all Dr. Farrell's work is available at GizaDeathStar.com.
Please join us Fridays at 8 p.m. Eastern for the X Series.