REAL DEAL SPECIAL (11 March 2026): Bill Binney & Katherine Horton UNDER FIRE!
Bill Binney and Katherine Horton dissect the Middle East conflict, challenging Pentagon claims about Iran's military status while debating the petro-dollar's stability. Binney recounts his NSA innovations in automated bomb assessment and spectrum monitoring, which were blocked by bureaucratic inertia, alongside critiques of intelligence failures regarding RussiaGate and Seth Rich. He proposes drug legalization to combat cartels and alleges the Russia-Ukraine war was a manufactured pretext for NATO expansion and military budget inflation, culminating in accusations that current US leadership are imposters facilitating global instability. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to another real deal special with Bill Biddy and Catherine Horton under fire today being the 11th of March 2026.
The war goes on.
Bill, I'm so pleased.
This Chinese professor seemed to me to have a gift, not just for lecture and delivery, but for content.
I mean, he seemed to me to size up the situation exactly from the point of view of the real issues that are at stake here, which are, of course, humongous in terms of the standing of America and the world.
Your thought.
Well, I looked at his videos and I had a problem with the first one when he started off saying this is World War III has started.
I thought that, and then in the end, he tried to say this is World War III starting.
It's like begging the question.
I guess it goes to a definition of what he defines as a world war.
If he means three countries, you know, U.S., Israel, and Iran, that's still not a world war.
You know, even the firing of even when Iran tried to get other countries involved by firing missiles at them, that's still not a world war.
It's localized in the Middle East.
Yeah.
I just wouldn't, I wouldn't have called it a world war.
I say here, you know, it's not a world war.
Not a problem.
Call it a regional if you want.
I mean, it does point out a lot of things that are relevant.
I mean, and things that could happen.
But like, for example, water is scarce in the Middle East, and that could be a target.
But according to the Pentagon, they're not targeting water.
And as far as I know, they've not hit anything that has anything to do with water preservation or water production.
You know, it's de-Stalinization and stuff like that.
Go ahead, George.
I just think there's a bunch of confusing stuff going on.
The Pentagon saying one thing, Iranians saying another thing.
I look at 2C TV, an Iranian guy who's broadcasting videos from people who are doing videos on their cell phones and then getting them out of the country.
He shows those things.
And I look at that.
And what is it?
It's the chaos of war, I would say.
You don't really know what's going to happen.
And predicting what's going to happen is pretty difficult because things change on a battlefield one way or the other.
As far as I know, the vast majority of the Navy of the Iranian Navy is sunk.
The vast majority of their air force is gone.
And the vast majority of their air defense is gone.
And when he talked about them shooting things at ships in the strait there, why you still have to target them.
You have to find them and then target them.
So that takes radar and things like that.
And when they turn those things on, they get killed.
So, you know, I mean, I know what the military does with that from the Iraqi war and so on.
They did it stuff back then, too.
So, you know, I think there's a lot of confusing thing going on there.
It's really hard to tell what the truth is in any one of those issues.
You know, I grant you there are a lot of issues, but I don't think that guy's got the, has his finger on the truth.
I think it's somewhere in between.
You know?
That fascinated me because of those I think who are the very best, Colonel McGregor or Scott Brown.
I know those guys too.
They said the same thing about Russia Gates.
So Some of them.
I mean, I know, but you know, the truth of it is going to take time to find out the real truth.
That's what I see.
I just, you can't take anybody's word for it.
I looked at the videos, and even those are still confusing, you know.
So tell me about the petro dollar.
Is the petro dollar at stake here or not?
Well, I assure I'm sure it is.
And it looks like because the Iranians attacked all their neighbors, they've joined us on our side.
You know, they're saying that at least they are joining the defense against the Iranian attacks at least.
So, you know, I don't think the petro dollar is in danger at all because all he did was force everybody else in the Gulf to our side.
That was a big mistake from my perspective, from what's being said, at least on the that I've seen on TV and with different like the 2C TV and other non-mainstream media.
Okay.
I just don't have any faith in anything the mainstream media says.
I don't, I look at other things like bloggers and people who are forwarding, you know, videos from inside the country and things like that, and people who are commenting and their comments are heard on the videos and so on.
And I just don't think that anybody knows the real truth yet.
So I think we'll just have to wait and see as this thing proceeds down for the next few weeks, what's really going to happen.
So you think it's going to endure for additional weeks?
Oh, yeah.
I think it's going to, because now, see, I know when they brought in the B-52s, what that meant was: if you remember the Vietnam War, Nixon sent the B-52s against the North Vietnamese capital, and they got shot down, a lot of them.
And they got shot down by the missiles that were less capable than the ones they got now.
So the point is, these are big-ass targets that set up a big ass radar return that are big ass targets.
Yeah.
And you can't send them into places where there's air defense that's effective.
If you do, you lose them.
So what they're doing now is that tells me their air defense is basically gone.
The air dominance is in place over the whole country, basically, to send those B-52s in.
And they're now going after massive targets like whole ground army bases and stuff like that, because that's what they can blow up.
They can blow up the whole base, you know.
Or they can drop individual 72,000-pound guided bombs individually.
They can do that too.
But that's a hell of a big, big bomber with a big payload.
So that tells me they're now in the midst of destroying the ground forces of the IRGC and the military.
That's my impression.
Now, we have to wait and see.
It's just fascinating.
Mine is pretty close to the office.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
They may have.
Hey, I have no problem being the opposite of anything.
Yeah, I can't.
The whole world can say something and I'll be the opposite of that.
I don't care.
I got chastised for being the only one that was saying it was a fake.
And I did that starting in August of 2016.
You know, right from the beginning, I knew that was a fraud, just by the way, they phrased it and by what they said.
And then I forensically proved it by the transmission transmission rates across the network and also by the fact that the DNC mail emails through the fat file transfer formats were obviously downloaded to a thumb drive or a storage device and physically transported.
So we had and then and then the other guys that and in spite of that people still believe that Jim.
It's just the craziness of repetitive approach of the and that's the that's the that's the uh the fallacy from the sophist studies in ancient Greece, right?
Where they said, you know, repetition makes right or repetition will, if you keep repeating it over and over again and repeat it from several different directions over and over again, people eventually will just believe it, right?
Yeah, that's the office technique.
Yeah, it's not a function of rationality, it's a function of psychology.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's the mental must be right.
Everybody's saying it.
You know, hey, I want to be with everybody.
I don't want to be out there alone.
I don't care.
See, I've been alone in a lot of stuff that I've done.
Everything I've done at NSA, I was basically alone.
I got shot at from so many different directions.
It's not funny.
I had so many dents in my armor, if you will, that next debt came along didn't matter.
You know, I just didn't.
They didn't, they didn't, nobody mattered anymore.
So do you think Trump could come out of this melting like a rose?
I mean, I think, I think, well, if, first of all, there's a couple of assumptions, okay?
Let's assume the Pentagon is telling us everything correctly.
If we do, and they continue for weeks and weeks and weeks, whatever it takes, then that regime is going to fall.
And most of the IRGC and the military is going to be dead.
Okay.
If they're still, if that's, if that's, if they're telling the truth, and then that, that to me is what's going to happen.
At that point, that regime falls and the whole Middle East changes.
No longer do we have a sponsor of the terrorism, the Hezbollah terrorists or the, you know, the Hamas or the Houthis or any other terrorism group anywhere around the world that is being supported by Iran.
Because they're gone, their source of support, money, and what have you is gone.
So I think it will make a major change if that's really the truth.
If that's true, then I think, yeah, it's all going to be for the good and the world's going to benefit.
And as a friend of mine used to say, one man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter.
See, I'm all for the Houthis and Hezbollah and Hamas.
I think they're on the rocks.
I champion Iran.
I've been to Iran.
I believe in Iran.
See, the problem is, I'm not a champion of those guys who killed all the Marines and military guys in Beirut at 2000.
Well, I wouldn't either if I thought the Iranians had anything to do with that.
They didn't.
Also, well, they've been bombing and rocketing our bases around the area there for the last couple of years.
And they've been doing that since they took over.
And I had all the evidence with CBP.
I picked it out of the using Google on the web.
All the companies in Dubai that were Iranian companies that moved out of Iran and moved to Dubai so they could import parts to make IEDs to send up to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I found that out and put it in there.
And BIST, the Bureau of Industrial Security, published it, added it to what they'd already published about it and tried to say you can't do business with this.
But I also caught them when they republished everything.
This is the one I think we talked about before.
The Iranians said they noticed that this was saying that nobody was doing business with them anymore.
So they couldn't be sold the equipment to make IED.
See?
So what they did was they changed the names of those companies and took them off the web, right?
And then came back with new names and saw that they were still publishing stuff about the old names.
So they put the old names back out, but they didn't put them on the same sites.
They moved them around a little bit and they made a mistake.
They put some of the new numbers out there with the old ones, and that gave us the new group.
So we could show the new group, you know, the new group of names that they were using.
They just changed names and put the old ones back out there so they can let us stupid Americans look at the new one, the old ones, and they're over here doing business on the new ones, you know?
So, but I caught them, and so did Kirk Weby, and we sent all that stuff in to them to CBP, and this didn't even publish any of it.
Plus, I had 55 other Iranian groupings in Dubai, companies in Dubai, 223 total companies in 55 groups, and they were involved in some kind of skullduggery.
I don't know what it was.
I passed that into them, too, and they didn't do a damn thing about it.
Well, these stupid idiots, and I tried to get it up to Secret Service up here to get it, pass it into the administration, and those dumb shits don't know what they're doing either.
You know, this thing could solve all kinds of stuff around the world, and these assholes are doing nothing about it.
And they're letting that's a gift horse, you know?
And these idiots are just running around fat, dumb, and stupid, trying to say everything's money, and you have to have more money to solve a problem.
Those blithering idiots think it takes money.
This doesn't take money, just takes brains and some ability to put some smart program together and do it, you know?
And they don't have that.
Anyhow, they still have good weapons.
I want more.
I want your complete critique, Bill.
This is utterly wonderful, fascinating.
Well, you want to know something else I had planned to do inside NSA?
I mean, I wanted to do bomb damage assessment instantaneous, and I saw they were still taking, it's taking some time to do bomb damage.
This is from the Pentagon.
It's taking some time to do bomb damage.
I wanted to do it electronically automatically so they know almost immediately, you know, within seconds, you know, or within at least minutes, no more than an hour.
Sounds like a real smart move.
Why wouldn't they do it?
Because I had, you know, who I had as a subcontractor to help me get into SAC to make them, to try to get them to do it.
General Clapper.
The DNI Clapper.
Automating Instant Bomb Damage Assessment00:03:03
Yeah.
I had him in there for a three-day contract for $10,000.
It took me two and a half days to explain to him that I wanted to automate the whole process of attack and monitor and bomb damage assessment in return.
I wanted to automate that whole process.
It took me two and a half of the three days to get to explain to that dense head what I wanted to do.
And you know what he said in the last half day of the last day?
He said, oh, you want to make real change.
What a brickhead.
Yes.
Stop.
The guy was dense, okay?
But he obviously didn't want to make real change, Bill.
No, you didn't.
Because they still don't have an instantaneous bomb damage assessment.
What the hell's wrong with them?
The sensors are electronic, you know, for God's sake.
Well, I guess they're saying, well, we have to have a human look at it.
No, we don't.
Bill, it's got to be so they can distort it however they want.
I mean, it could be done by the truth.
Well, and plus, it takes people to do what they want to do.
So it's a job thing, you know, building an empire, keeping your empire, keeping everything and resisting change, basically.
Maybe you don't want to, maybe you don't understand how the change works and you can't, so you don't want to trust it.
That's what happened with the military in the Tet Offensive in 1968.
Because we knew in the Army Security Agency, which I was in, we knew that attack was coming and it was going to run from the Delta to the DMZ.
And it was going to run up and down the whole damn country.
We knew that two months in advance.
And we reported that to the military generals in Vietnam, too.
Did those guys, what did they do?
Virtually nothing.
It was what I called at the time the arrogance of power.
You know, we have so much power, if they ever show their face, we'll just blow them away.
You know, that's the point.
That was my interpretation of the military's view of, and plus everybody over there, all the friends I had over there and everybody I knew over there, they were just sitting there as meat on the line.
Well, they weren't meat on the line to me.
You do the best job you can.
They weren't.
Those people should have been fired.
All those damn generals.
We did it in World War II.
We should have done it in Vietnam.
Get rid of them.
They were incompetent, irresponsible.
I think you're in a position to give a critique of modern American warfare and its inadequacies.
I mean.
Yeah, well, it is.
Yeah.
Do it, Bill.
Give us that critique.
I think it was invaluable.
Well, also, I was trying to do some other stuff for Jim.
You might find this very interesting.
Capturing Every Global Signal00:13:57
I wanted to, first of all, I wanted to capture every signal in the environment in the world.
Okay.
Everyone, in every spectrum.
So I was going through looking at different things that would capture and digitize large-scale spectrum, sections of the spectrum.
And the question was, how could I get all of these, separate all the noise out from real signals from humans?
Right?
Well, there was a little trick.
Every signal that's generated by a human generates a sine wave.
Okay.
Every signal has an oscillating power source and everything, and it generates a sine wave, and you get a sine wave out of any energy you throw out there.
Well, I said, okay, I want to be able to look at the entire spectrum and find sine waves.
So once I find a sine wave, I want to put filters on the whole, on those sine waves, and then look at it and have a process behind it in parallel, running by the thousands of processes in hundreds of places and monitor everything coming through.
Is it something we want or something we don't want?
And we can make that distinction, okay?
That wasn't a problem either.
So, but then I also wanted to do one other thing.
I wanted to say, if I look at a signal, can I tell just from that signal whether or not that thing is moving or stationary?
Because it makes a difference.
Is it a ship, a plane, a tank, you know, or is it a building or some fixed facility somewhere?
Well, what's the difference?
Well, the difference is things that are moving have a mobile generator, signal, energy generator, power generator.
On the web, if you're a fixed facility, you're tied into the web, basically.
You have plug into the wall socket, right?
Well, that's that's in Europe or in the United States, that's either a 50-cycle or a 60-cycle generator, right?
So you can see, if you looked at any signal, you could see on that signal envelope, the power ripple is either 50 cycles a second or greater.
If it's greater, it's a moving target.
Okay, so that and they run from they run from 200 to 500 cycles a second.
So you can really pretty quickly tell a moving one from a fixed one within fractions of a second on the signal envelope.
Okay, and I wanted to, and I had to set people down in front of an oscilloscope and say, see there, that's what I want to measure.
You know, I actually sat them down and said, look, see that?
That measured that sucker.
You know, when I put a sine wave in there in a filter and I look at the filter, have that filter do that kind of calculation and tell me whether it's fixed or moving.
So then I can look around and say, well, now I want to locate this thing, right?
So how can I do that?
Well, in different environments, you know, you're bouncing things off the ionosphere and the HF or VHF or LBHF ranges.
And you need to know the mapping of the ionosphere to be able to figure it out.
And I said, no, you don't.
You don't need to do that because there are so many existing signals in that range of the environment that you know are commercial or fixed around the world.
So if you're listening and you're time stamping all these sine waves, you're time stamping these other sine waves at the same time.
And you can calculate based on the known positions of the known signals that you know what the effects of the ionosphere is to those particular positions from various points on the earth.
And you can use that as a kind of a grid, if you will, a multi-dimensional scaling technique, a scaling issue, a scaling way to calculate any other signal popping up in the environment by time differencing from your known positions and time and the known time difference variance by the other known positions.
You can use that as a scaling technique to locate the unknowns.
So then you get them located, right?
And is it fixed or is it mobile?
If it's fixed, it's fine.
You've located, maybe you have an idea what it is then.
If it's mobile and it's a ship using a ship, communications in the naval in the naval forces, you know, it's a Navy ship, right?
Or if it's moving quickly, it's an airplane, you know, and when you get the properties of their cycle generators, you know which ones.
So that's the kind of thing I wanted to do.
I wanted to be able to map everything in the world in the universe.
I mean, if we had first contact, I would get it too.
Okay.
But and so by the way, SETI adopted that technique a few years after we started using it in the SARC.
They adopted the sine wave detection technique to map large sections of the universe to see if there's sine waves out there, to detect whether or not there might be an organized civilization.
So that was there.
That was one of the spin-offs.
But my idea was mapping everything, capturing everything, knowing what you want, and selecting everything out, just like it was on the internet with fiber optics and everything else.
There were techniques, deductive, inductive, abductive techniques to use in all those environments to figure out what the hell you want and where it is and what it is and get everything.
And these assholes wouldn't let me do it.
What do you think was the source of blockage?
Okay, here is the source.
It's very simple.
Everything I was doing was fully automatic.
There were no people involved.
No people.
So nobody wanted to do anything without any people.
They wanted people in there to try to understand, you know, what this whole business.
First of all, I don't know.
It was like I was talking to a brick wall with most of them, okay?
They couldn't understand what the hell I was saying.
And I tried to make it as simple as possible.
I didn't know any other way.
I have to think of different ways of saying, you know, I tried different ways of saying it didn't make any difference.
Still a brick wall.
I hate a brick wall.
Because when it came to totally automating things, they couldn't conceive of it.
I guess they're trying to say, well, this is AGI, right?
What is it?
It's not AI, artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence, where it thinks for itself.
I guess they're trying to say that is, but they don't understand the danger and what they're doing there.
Because I did.
I experienced some of that and some of the stuff I was doing.
That's how I was able to do things and make them fully automatic without people because I understood what the pitfalls were and I knew them all at every step of the way.
They don't.
And they think you can just do this.
Well, you know, we discussed this before.
When they start doing this kind of thing and it starts generating its own software to run and incorporate that software, that's going to create and affect everything else that's involved in one way or another eventually and cause changes in that.
So that's going to ripple through the whole system.
And as one does it, so do the others.
And multiples begin to ripple.
And then you get mistakes coming in and those mistakes, and they'ren't verified.
So when you do that, let that thing go.
It's going to generate all kinds of errors in the system.
And it's going to be imagine trying to take a dump of the software of all of that and try to figure out where the problem is and fix it.
You can't.
It's just not possible.
You know, there's just too much going on and too many ways it could affect other components.
And you have to go search and try to find out where they affected that component was and figure out what it did.
And was that any good or yes or no?
You know, that's just insane.
They need to have a process where anything that does is generated that's new by an AGI or process.
Why it needs to be validated before it's incorporated in anything.
That's that all processes should be validated before they move it into any online process.
And they have to keep monitoring it when it's online.
Every process I had, every step of the way, and I laid this out in, I even did it in DOD, you know, what did they call it?
DOD engineering speculate engineering of an enterprise with the, and what they do is have different boxes.
Each box was a function and coming in with inputs from the top, outputs from the bottom, restrictions from one side and enablers from another.
And then the process goes to another process and so on.
I even laid out all the processes in this step and every point of them had to be continuously monitored as to whether or not they were effectively processing things.
You can't let something like that run without monitoring to ensure its validity.
But there you have people involved in the system, Bill.
Yes, exactly.
You can't take people out of it.
They have to be in the validating process.
And if they have a creative insight after that, then they could add stuff too.
It's a process of how taking, capturing everything that really works and get keep it running, you know.
And then And when you develop something or it develops something new, or you think of something new, you put it on the side, test it, and then as you're testing it and validate it, then you move it in.
And you keep anything that's going along is always monitored for valid output.
And if anything perks up in any one of the processes, that is an alert back to the people that something's wrong, you know?
And that was the whole thing I laid out for them.
I even did it in their own diagramming technique that they used for the USID 5000 kind of contracting.
They required that, I think, for we call it USID 5000 contracting, as I recall, you know.
But this is like talking to the wall.
I mean, like I say, maybe I was more than 40 years ahead of the time, but you know, to me, this was pretty straightforward stuff.
I didn't have any problem doing these things, you know.
But I can still see they're not picking up on it.
Do you think today they'd be more receptive?
I haven't been able to get through so far.
You know, I even took copies of that IED work up there to show them one simple technique of how to figure out bad guys.
And they photographed it.
Now, whether or not they're doing something, this we developed in 2006, okay?
That's 20 years ago.
And we gave it to the CBP and customs and ICE.
And nobody, and by the way, at the time, we did not trust our government to do the right thing.
So we passed a copy of it up to our friends up in Canada, some guys we knew at the Canadian intelligence agencies.
Okay.
We passed it up there in the hopes that they would, because they were getting people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan too.
So, but nobody seems to have done that.
That's just stupid.
I mean, the density is amazing.
You're really talking about a way of surveying a battlefield.
It could be any environment whatsoever and knowing what the hell is going on in that environment based on the sine waves.
Exactly.
And I also had another effort.
The Army was going to scrap, mind you, scrap 10 track wolf vehicles.
If you go on the web and Google U.S. Army Track Wolf, you'll see the devices they had.
They were just going to sell them to anybody that wanted to use them to scrap, get the scrap out of them, iron and metal and what have you.
And when I heard that, I had some money given to me by Congress to do wild and crazy things.
So I said, hey, I know it costs you a fraction of a million bucks to sustain them.
I've got that money to keep those things sustained for quite some time.
Why don't you give those to me and I'll take care of them, pay for the maintenance and everything.
Because they were the antennas and I could put all this processing right in those mobile things, run them around the world, set them up, and have a major site there collecting everything in the environment.
I was going to connect it up to drones putting or balloons with receivers high in the air.
And I was looking at acousta optical receivers that could capture and digitize 20 megahertz at a time of that lower spectrum.
With a few of those, I could get the entire HF, LVHF, VHF network in that environment.
And, you know, I was thinking of the tactical things like they wouldn't sell them to you.
No, Army, initially, they did, but when they heard about it, they took them back.
They wouldn't give them to me then.
You mean when they heard what you planned to do with them?
I never told them what I was planning to do with them.
They just heard that I was getting them.
And they knew that I was a dangerous person because I did wild and crazy things.
Managing Overloaded Data Streams00:03:59
Yeah.
Listen, this is the mentality of the military.
Okay.
They have no understanding of creativity and intelligence and innovation and problem solving.
Problem solving.
Exactly.
I mean, that's all I wanted.
I wanted to solve the problem, you know?
That's me.
That's what I do too.
Conceptual problem solving.
That's my area of specialization.
Well, I mean, you know, that's not hard to follow if you can just follow a few principles, but there are pitfalls at every step.
Now, you know what they I told them what that was with the two degrees principle, you know, where you were, you were looking at communications and context, A calls B, D calls C. That's two degrees.
Okay.
You don't go through, you don't go to the second degree through any kind of business or a department of a government, any government.
Because if you do, then you just pull in masses of unrelated people.
And I use the example: okay, if your first hop is from the bad guy is to Google, then you can't go through Google to anybody else because Google goes to the rest of the world.
You know?
So what do you?
It's a pointless thing to go through and those kinds of things.
If you eliminated that, now you have people going through people, individuals, not companies or agencies of governments.
And that makes all the difference in the world.
And it limits and makes your management of content a finite problem, not an infinite one.
It's not infinite anyway.
Nothing's infinite, okay?
Yeah, but you make it manageable rather than make it manageable.
Yeah, that's the point.
It becomes manageable, and people can actually succeed now.
Yeah.
They can accomplish tasks, otherwise, it would be hopeless.
Yeah, I mean, and even the memos, I gave this to the House of Lords when I testified against they were doing, I forget what they called it.
They wanted to capture every transaction everybody did on the network in England.
I said, well, if you took that as a case, say of the 60 million people there, say 40 million people or 30 million people get on the web once a day, right?
Say 30 million.
And each of them does goes to 10 different sites or does 10 different things.
Well, right away, you're at 30 times 10.
That's what, 300 million transactions every day.
And you expect your analysts to go through 300 million transactions every day?
I said, you've got to be crazy.
Listen, even your MI5, they have internal memos from their analysts saying we are totally buried and unable to do anything by overload.
We're overloaded with too much data.
And I even gave them the copies of the memos of the internal memos from MI5.
It was released by Edward Snowden.
And also by GCHQ and NSA, overburdened by overload, totally dysfunctional and in the dark by data, too much data, you know?
And it's, I mean, all the attacks are happening and nobody's stopping them, you know?
And yet every one of them, by the techniques of deductive, inductive, ectub, all of them could have been caught, all of them, because they all evidence one or more of those concepts.
And I just thought it was absolutely insane.
All these people getting killed.
Why?
Because we have so much castle protection, I would call it.
They want to build castles and, you know, or empires, people, money, all that kind of stuff.
And they want to defend it no matter what.
You know?
Correcting Military Radar Blips00:10:44
You know, Bill, I had a, I have a friend who was an advisor to DOD on equipment.
Yeah.
And what the Iraq war planning was taking blaze, he explained, you got to use track vehicles or otherwise you're going to have a whole lot of missing arms and legs from these improvised explosive devices, the kind that you can exoverlessly based on sine waves and all that.
And he was overruled by a general who wanted to do research on prosthetics.
So he wanted to have a bunch of missing arms and legs so they could do his research project for, I don't know, the bionic man.
I mean, this is the kind of thinking that is making a difference and killing a lot of people for.
Yeah, a lot of them getting hurt.
I mean, that's insane.
But that's that, by the way, is why I got out of the military.
I was in from 1965 to 1969.
And after the Ted Offensive, I just said, we were nothing more than meat on the line to these guys and I'm getting out.
You know?
Were you actually in one of the branches?
Yeah, the U.S. Army.
I was regular Army for four years.
Well, what was your rank at the time?
Huh?
Sorry?
What was your rank at the time?
Staff Sergeant.
Really?
Yeah.
You're the smartest staff sergeant in the history of the U.S. Army, Bill.
Yeah, then I did that.
NSA staff sergeants run the military.
Staff sergeants.
That's an important position.
Yep.
That's it, basically.
Yeah, basically, it's a platoon sergeant.
Yeah.
But yeah.
But anyway, I did some crazy, wild and crazy things with codes and data and systems over in Turkey.
I was stationed in Turkey looking at the Soviets.
And so when I did those things that nobody else had done back in NSA, NSA thought, gee, we ought to get this guy back here.
So they requested me to come back.
And I think I told you I had about I had the opportunities to take a boat ride in the Mediterranean on the Liberty ship.
Oh, did on the Liberty.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because, yeah, it was June of 67 when I came back to and the fortuitous you weren't aboard.
Well, yeah, I, well, you know, they came and asked me if I wanted to take a boat ride in the Mediterranean.
You know?
Yeah, right.
Israeli fighter jets torpedoing and strafing the ship.
Well, I gave them three reasons I wasn't prepared to do that.
Number one, I didn't, I wasn't in the Navy, so I'm not on boats.
Number two, I do not tread water very well.
Yeah.
And number three, I have orders to go back to NSA.
Thank you, but no, thank you.
Yeah, yeah.
Wise decision.
Yeah, I missed the bullet there.
At any rate, there were several bullets.
Yeah.
At any rate.
Thousands, actually.
Yep.
And when I got back to NSA, I just ran into more of the same kind of stuff.
But I started solving things.
So most of the people I was, what I was basically doing was I was called the, but the British called me the bottom line on the Soviet problem because I saw so many, so many codes and so many data systems and so many we find weaknesses in ciphers and stuff like that and I'd done so much of that that they, uh they, they referred to me that way.
So basically I was and I had the S3 in in the Pentagon.
Call me once and I can't tell you how, why they called.
But yeah, they asked.
They asked whether or not we were getting, they were getting ready to be attacked and I said nope, you're not.
You're being being monitored and probably played against.
But you know, you play your game, they've been watching you.
You play your game, they'll play their game and everybody will go home, you know, because none of my five warning indicators were on, none of them yeah.
So I knew that this was this just a game, but I don't know anybody there understands that anymore.
I really don't.
I left it, all that stuff I documented in writing and with the people there, but I don't.
I don't.
I just don't have any confidence that these people actually know or remember any of that I guarantee you, they don't, they haven't, they never did.
You were it.
You were a blip on the radar screen.
Yeah well, I'm gone now.
So you were a sine wave they wanted to ignore.
I can't even understand.
I can't even understand how to, how they couldn't really imagine how to do this stuff.
Because your reassurance, the S3 though, may have been sufficient to avoid an international incident.
You know maybe yeah yeah well, at any rate, when I was at NSA, I rose up to be a what they called a dissol four, the defense, a senior level executive, step four.
Okay, it's like uh, it's the technical track general, general grade technical track.
So I was like a a one to two star general in the technical track, nice.
So I was a senior executive in the US military and you would think that they would have uh, paid attention.
Yeah, but the problem was people were too scared of what I was doing out loud.
You were the only one who understood what the hell was going on and how to do it, how to manage it, for Christ's sake.
You were the guy who should have been leading the pack.
Yeah well, I was for a while, but when the Russian Russian bear fell apart, I said well, they couldn't hold up their end of the bargain, you know, which was to keep it stable, you know.
So the whole world started disintegrating into different problems and at that point that was no longer the emphasis and that's when they really didn't see me as that kind of valuable person anymore.
That was, I was expendable.
At that time you were helpful managing the bear, but after 91, well then I had to go into the be the technical director of the world, which include everybody else anyway.
So then I looked at the internet and the digital, digital universe, and that's when I did the digital stuff, which was no more than it was simpler.
It was easier than the Soviet problem.
It was easier.
These people thought this was harder.
For God's sake hell no, this was infinitely easier.
Why?
Because it's world standards.
You solve the standard, you have the world.
You know if you can get into the standard of the world and have the standard of the world TCPIP, all that stuff.
You know the world.
So once you solve it, you have it solved.
It was, it was one of the things I can do, meaning the universality of the technical languages like CPIP, X.25.
We had like 12 protocols we were managing and attacking the remaining ones in an order of hierarchy of use.
In other words, the most used one was TCPIP, you know, and then from there on down.
And then it was, well, how do you figure out the, how do you figure out the two-degree principle?
Well, that's straight from the hierarchy of Russian military.
It's a two-archy.
It's a hierarchy thing.
It comes down on certain levels, and you go through certain levels, and you only go through certain things.
You don't go through other things that aren't related.
And that's where you get into companies and government agencies and things like that that have massive numbers of contacts.
You don't get into them because they're not relevant to the chain of command that you're trying to follow.
And there's a simple principle from that.
But there's other pitfalls in it too.
And I'm sure they can't even correct data.
I mean, they asked me to help them correct the data back in 2007, six.
Back in 2006, they had this big database.
I was doing another contract where we were correcting data, and they wondered how the hell it happened.
And they asked me if I would, if I would get the other customer to give them the code I was working on to help them correct their data.
And I said, well, I talked to them.
Well, I didn't.
Okay.
Because I didn't care to help them violate the Constitution like they were doing.
And I was because you have to correct the data.
Even CBP.
And we had these guys, these programmers say, the data is the data.
No, the data is not the data.
NCBP has data coming in from all countries in the world, you know, imports and exports, stuff like that.
They go on the manifests and stuff like that.
Who puts that data in?
People from all over the world.
Well, these people don't speak English as a primary language, but it all comes in in English, right?
So, and they type things, they spell things wrong, they type things wrong, they get things in error, you know, and they don't recognize it.
And they put addresses wrong.
All kinds of things are wrong in the database.
And these guys are saying the data is the data.
No.
You got to figure out what is the data under that circumstances.
Well, I mean, you got to morass.
Well, and there are techniques and ways to do that.
I even tried to explain it to them.
Here's how you can correct the data.
And it was like talking to a brick wall.
You know, you don't change the data.
I said, you index the changes you make.
You don't throw the old shit away, but you index it, but you correct it.
So that when you process it, you get the right answer.
You know?
Yeah.
Idiots.
You know, I just don't know.
I mean, listen, Jim, half these guys are a good number of the guys I've been talking to.
They were PhDs, mathematicians, and so on.
Yeah, I get it.
Idiots.
I've never had come against such a pack of bents.
Bill, can you imagine how much worse it is today?
Ethics in Mathematics Departments00:07:02
Yeah.
Yes.
I don't know.
So we're engaged in a war we cannot win that's going to destroy the American economy because it's going to cost us a petrol dollar status because the Gulf Coast countries no longer believe us when they claim they're going to protect us because they're only interested in protecting Israel.
I really think that's the bottom line coming out here of the Middle East.
Well, it could be, but so far from the reporting from the Pentagon, they are joining us.
I will guarantee you 100%.
The Pentagon reporting is bullshit.
Absolutely 100%.
Just saying they're saying what Donald Trump wants to hear, Bill.
Okay, okay, but why I can't even say that I could say the same thing about the other side, too.
That's why I say this is the fog of war.
We're in the middle of it, and what's really true is somewhere in between.
And so I think we're gonna have to wait some more couple of weeks to see what's really happening.
Somewhere in between, but I'll tell you, it's like 90% on the Iranian side and 10%.
I think it's 90% the other way, but you know, we'll find out.
Yeah, we'll find out.
Time will tell.
Well, I think the country has needed you, and it's been a clause always so you were set to one side and not regarded.
You should have been given all the power and authority that would have made a difference.
I mean, it would have made a difference.
Well, I was, I guess I have the distinction of being funded directly by Congress by name.
I don't know anybody else that was done that.
Yeah.
They always follow folly.
I was given money directly by name from Congress to spend any way I wanted just to do wild and crazy things, which I was quite willing to do.
Well, but they were making a wise investment.
I mean, you were the guy.
You were the right person to entrust that fashion.
Well, they spent thousands of times more than the money I did on Trailblazer and follow-on programs, tens of thousands of dollars more on that than I did on the program I was doing.
That was wasteful spending versus what you were doing.
Yeah.
Well, but it didn't build an empire, you know.
The spending, the money, the money coming into the empire, the maintenance of the stuff, the contracts, all of that, the people that you had to hire, they had people.
I was doing things without people.
Well, you're a one-man band, I mean, for Torina Loud.
You know, you remind me of the story JFK told about the Nobel laureates, you know, gathered in the White House.
And he said, this is the greatest collection of intelligence ability ever assembled in the White House, save when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
Yeah.
Yep.
Could be.
It's also quite possible.
I'm told they didn't like it, but I think he was speaking the truth.
Well, you know, hey, I, you know, I guess when you get up in the academia, where you're at the higher levels up there.
I mean, even when I went to give a talk at Cambridge, I gave one at Cambridge, you know, in the math department there.
And I was invited there by people in the professors in the math department.
And I, because we were talking about ethics and mathematics, and some of the stuff I was inventing was mathematically based and so on.
So I said, fine, I'll come over there and give a talk.
I gave a talk there, but the deans and so on, the leaders of the math colleges of math there in Cambridge, all of them said there's no ethics in mathematics.
And, you know, to me, that was how stupid can you be?
Well, they're talking about abstract math addition, subtraction.
You were talking about the use of mathematics.
They were really talking pure.
You were talking applied.
I think that was probably.
But that's the point.
When you're a mathematician and you go out there and start doing things, you have to have some ethics in what you're doing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So they were not appreciating what you were offering, which ought to have been obvious, but well, even in teaching mathematics, you have to have some ethics in what you do.
I've had some really bad math teachers, you know.
See, the ethics is in the mathematicians as opposed to mathematics per se.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, that's right.
The ethical application of mathematics.
Yep.
Plus, I had argued when I talked at Yale to the math department in Yale.
They asked me, I had a lunch with the dean and debuting there in the department.
And they said, how much of calculus did you use in your work?
Calculus.
Yes.
Zero.
I said, zero.
I said, number theory, set theory, matrix, algebra, strings, you know, rings, fields, groups, you know, all kinds of mathematics.
Calculus, no, I wasn't working with the engineers building something, you know.
I mean, I did a little bit with worked with them to set up the things like the scanning for sine waves and measuring, you know, but I didn't do it.
They did it.
See, so because I only directed them on what I wanted done, you know.
But when it came to the rest of mathematics, and I had a case, I said, I case in point was one of the engineers came to a mathematician, a PhD mathematician in NSA, there were a lot of them, and asked him about, he had a problem and he asked him how he could solve it.
Well, the mathematician showed him how to solve it, and he went away, solved it, and got a cash award for solving it.
And the mathematician was complaining that he got nothing.
And I said, well, you stupid shit, you should have spoke up.
You know, stand up and say, I solved it.
Here's the solution.
Here's the publication showing the solution.
Do that.
What the hell's wrong with you?
You know?
Idiots.
Stupid.
They just trip on this most obvious shit.
It's a formula.
I mean, I'm ashamed to say that about a mathematician because I am one, okay?
Philosophers Tripping on Obvious Formulas00:02:31
Sure.
Of course.
I hate to say that about them.
About philosophers, because I am one.
Well, you know, mathematicians, they like to look at their own shoes and pencil things out on their desk and never look up and, you know, stuff like that.
Introverts.
Anyhow.
I'm going to suggest that Catherine, she should do your biography, a man ahead of his time, or maybe a man ahead of time, because the world still hasn't caught up with you, Bill.
The world still hasn't caught up with you.
First of all, you know, what is time?
Well, I adhere to the causal theory of time.
It's measured by processes that have a periodicity about them.
You know, just dependent on motion, too.
Well, sure, sure, sure.
The point is, you look for the most regular repetitive processes.
You know, it turns out then, you know, take, for example, Einstein's space and time combined.
Yeah.
Well, what is space?
You know, well, space is expanding, right?
It's roughly distances between objects, yeah.
Yeah, but it's expanding.
So, what is any measurable quantity of space?
It expands so much.
That's why we're losing sight of the most distant galaxies because they're going beyond the light that they emit after they get to that distance and speed.
Yeah, it's not going to reach us.
It's just never going to reach us.
So, yeah.
So, I mean, you know, stunning stuff.
Those very simple things of what is space and what is time.
I just still don't know what that is.
Bill, it's appalling, but I have friends who still think Earth is flat.
I don't know what to do with them.
I just don't know what to do with them.
It just drives me crazy.
I mean, these are people I like, very smart.
Well, they may be right.
You know, we'll find out.
They're not right.
Time will tell, right?
But the point is, they believe it sincerely.
I know.
Crazy.
How many people in this country still believe Russia gates sincerely?
Ah, you're right.
You're absolutely right.
You're right.
You're absolutely right.
Exploiting Spoils of Anti-Soviet Union00:04:39
And you, you poor Seth Rich.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This guy is trying to do the right thing.
And I still got, and by the way, you know, have you seen they found a new treasure trove of very, very privately viewed data inside the FBI?
Have you heard that?
Yeah, yep.
Which I think I had a report about the burn bags, not the burned bags in the secret room.
This is another stash that was only held for the director and deputy director to read.
Are you talking about Epstein?
I think that's all it's Epstein, it's Rich, and it's any number of other things.
Oh, Bill, this stuff is so awful.
I know it is.
They released the millions of pages that were relatively conventional sexual abuse of young children, boys and girls.
But the other stuff, the horrific, the torture, the murder, the dragon, the cannibalism, that's what they haven't given us.
Bill, it's so awful.
That's why they're not releasing it, I think.
But they should release it.
Of course.
Of course.
You got to face up to it.
You got to.
And you know, Jim, all those people, you know, the techniques and the stuff I left them, they can get it all out of that stuff and the data and the program that I left them when I left it 20, 35 years ago.
Right, Bill, right, right, right, right.
They ought to bring you back as a special advisory or a special counsel to handle all this properly.
They're never going to do that because it won't ever happen, but you could do it.
Yeah, there's no problem doing that.
Even all the cartels, everything, dope smuggling worldwide, no problem.
Not really a problem.
Yeah.
Is this cartel thing going to blow up in our face?
Is it going to become worse and worse?
I think it is.
I think they're trying to arrange this unified governments of the set of the hemisphere, right?
South and Northern Hemisphere to go at the cartels.
So I think they're going to try to get the militaries of all these countries to go at all these drug dealers and stuff.
What you do is you legalize drugs.
That would do it too.
Get rid of the whole problem.
Yeah, I know.
Yep.
Really?
That's all it takes.
The situation is we're handling complex, difficult problems in the dumbest possible ways, the least cost-effective, the most consumptive of resources.
Yeah.
Well, and look, look at the way, and we could never have, we should never have had the war between Russia and Ukraine if we'd have simply invited Ukraine and Russia in jointly into NATO at the same time.
You know?
Yeah.
You know what I mean?
You know, Russia always thought it was going to be invited into NATO, but no, NATO was created to be anti-Russia.
That's all reasonable anti-Soviet Union.
And I pointed it back to the damn military and the need for a trillion-dollar budget.
You need to have an enemy that justifies a trillion-dollar budget.
A real threat.
Yeah.
They're ain't such an enemy.
You know, Europe now, they want to continue to prosecute the war because they really want to divide Russia up.
They want to exploit the spoils.
They want to destroy Russia.
They want to.
Yeah, I think that's what I think that's their program.
That is.
That is.
And I can see how it's being fermented, and the war is agitating the different groups in the east of the Urals, especially because the Russians are drawing most of the human wave people from the east of the Urals, the groups east of the Urals.
And that's not, you know, they're the ones the most likely to do.
If Russia can defeat the entire West and the United States combined, Russia can do it.
So it's colossally stupid, Bill.
Colossally stupid.
I know it is.
I mean, that's what I say.
If they'd invited Russia into NATO, it wouldn't have been a problem.
For granted out loud, Russia has all these natural resources.
Europe has the industrial engine.
It was a match made in heaven.
Then they pulled up the Nord Stream pipeline.
Give me a break.
Just when it's coming to fruition.
A Tip of the Iceberg Ahead00:01:57
But even you had Bush, this phony imposter president.
You had Victoria Newland saying it's not going to happen.
They were saying the Nord Stream would never be allowed to pump a cubic meter of gas.
They were saying it.
Just a disgrace.
Yep.
Even Biden said it.
Yeah.
Did.
He did.
He did.
And this wasn't the real guy, Bill.
He's got a different shape and size, a skull, different handwriting, different signature.
Yeah, but when you put him on there on TV and say they're never going to have it, it's not going to happen.
That was a fake, phony guy.
Four years we had four years we had an imposter president.
Yeah, but it still carried the weight of it, you know?
Yeah, he was the guy in office and he had an autopen.
Bill, you're wonderful.
You're wonderful.
I do want to make that suggestion to Catherine.
Your biography has got to be written.
I mean, we've got to have it.
All of it.
All of it.
This is a little tip of an iceberg.
But it's a monster.
It's huge.
I can't thank you enough for doing these shows with me, Bill.
They mean so much.
Everyone, Jim Fetzer, thanking Bill Binney for being here once again for this ongoing series of Catherine Horton and Bill Binney under fire.
You see how why this guy's been so highly regarded for so long.
So many people have feared him because he was way ahead of the curve ahead of his time and remains so to this day.