transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Dr. James Lacatski was the head of the DNI's program to study UFOs, the largest acknowledged government UFO program ever. The DIA itself is very aware now because of your work that there are close contact to non-humans, is that correct?

Speaker 2:
[00:19] Well, from this study, we are. From this study, we are.

Speaker 1:
[00:24] This is Weaponized.

Speaker 3:
[00:34] This is WEAPONIZED, I'm George Knapp here in Las Vegas, joined by my friend and colleague Jeremy Corbell. Jeremy, how's it going?

Speaker 1:
[00:40] Pretty good, man. How you doing?

Speaker 3:
[00:42] Good. You've been on the road a little bit, huh?

Speaker 1:
[00:44] Yeah, I tried to get off the road, but we got some big things coming up this year.

Speaker 3:
[00:50] We do, including this particular episode. So, you know, as we know all too well, the UFO public constantly demands full disclosure. We want to know everything. We want to know it now. What does the government know about UFOs? We won't settle for anything less. Where's the bodies? Where's the craft? And there are some members of Congress that say they want the same thing. And, you know, expectations are that sort of disclosure is nigh. President Trump has said he's going to release the files. My personal expectations are pretty low, as usual. You're the optimist of the group. You know, the biggest stash of unreleased files, as far as we know, is somewhere in the bowels of the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Information compiled from a program known as Aawsap, under DIA. The man who created and designed and directed that program, the largest known UFO investigation ever funded by the US. Government, is James Lacatski. And it's now been eight years since I first met him and got a download from him about Aawsap. It's now 16 years since that effort ended. And other than some preliminary reports, the dirts had been made public by me and some other people. Not one page of the tens of thousands of pages created by the Aawsap investigation, not one page has been made public. If you ask DIA, they say they can't find them. You can file all the FOIA requests you want. They've utterly failed. So the only things we know about Aawsap, what it investigated, what it found, have come from Jim Lacatski and Collin Kelleher in a series of books. And Lacatski sifted through the official files. He wrote about them along with Dr. Kelleher. And me with some minor contributions. And you know, the fourth and final book about Aawsap is now out. It's called Future Visions by Dr. Lacatski. It took a long time for him to get permission from various government agencies through the DOPSR process. But he's revealed as much as he's been allowed to reveal the work product of this largest UFO program in history. And it'll never be enough, I think, for the public, for some of the UFO public. But as we know from interacting with him on this program, it's likely it could be the closest we ever get to actual disclosure, what the government knows, at least in the Aawsap program. And then, you know, Jeremy, as you know, he doesn't grant many interview requests. This will be our third bite of the apple. But I think no one, other than perhaps Kona Teller, knows as much about that program than James Lacatski. And he's sharing with the public the most information that can be released. He fought a lot of battles to get the permission to do it. You know, people are always demanding actual data. These books are packed with evidence and data, effects on humans, bizarre phenomena. You know, there's never been a story quite like this. Maybe never will be a program like this again. And so being able to speak with him and to read these books, including this latest one, it's like a glimpse behind the curtain. You and he have had some very spirited conversations on this episode, on these episodes, right?

Speaker 1:
[03:58] Yes. Yeah. So I mean, look, he has, bottom line, Dr. Lacatski has done more for modern day disclosure than any other human being that I know of. He ran a UFO program and literally is printing books that are authorized to tell exactly what happened, exactly how it is. But people have to be readers. They have to get in there and they have to read them. He's taken a lot of heat for not directly answering questions. So that's where we get into these spirited debates. And I know you can't go further than certain things. I'm not pressing for national security questions, answers. I'm not pressing for him to break his oath. I want to see where that boundary is because it ends up being that the boundary is usually in a really interesting place. It's what he's not allowed to say, which is what we need to learn. We can read his book, but then we got to learn where is that boundary and why. And so again, Dr. Lacatski has done more for modern day disclosure than I think anybody has. If people read his books, then certainly that is true. But there is a boundary and I respect that. But I need to know where that is with him. What is it he's not allowed to say? Because that's the question that we need to answer.

Speaker 3:
[05:12] Well, we know one place where there is a boundary because we have explored it before. So maybe third time is a charm. So let's jump into it. Dr. Jim Lacatski, it's great to have you back on WEAPONIZED. I can't thank you enough for your time. I was reviewing the conversations that we've had on this program and the conversations that you and I have had over the years not recorded. And there's a big gap in that. And that is about you. We really haven't got into you. And I ask this question in the context of claims that have been made about our books, your books, and about the UFO topic in general that everyone involved in this at an official capacity, everyone involved in Aawsap, AATIP, UAPTF are all part of a cult. And you've been pushing your religion in order to influence Congress and the Pentagon and national policy. So I want to ask about you. What your degrees were in, how you ended up at DIA, and what you did for DIA before you jumped into this subject.

Speaker 2:
[06:14] Well, as to the degrees, they're all in nuclear engineering. That enabled me to gain employment first at a utility and then at Knowles Atomic Power, a DOE facility in New York. Then I transitioned into basically a career of threat analysis as a contractor for DIA and then working at DIA. So most of my time has obviously been spent working at DIA. Now, this was a minor blurb in the first book, Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, and there were so much new stuff in there, people probably didn't even see this point. But this all started when I was working, I distinctly remember working with this huge cathode ray tube monitor in my house. Brand new, but still a huge machine. And I'm looking at it and I say, wait a minute, there's a project at DIA and an associated to my particular group alternate group? I didn't know they were working on such odd things. And then Skinwalker Ranch came up, literally. And this was all unclassified, obviously. And that initiated everything. Basically, I started communicating with those folks who, in my opinion, had a great job. A lot of them just involved themselves with foreign travel to technical conferences. Well, as a result of having all that knowledge, they were working under contract for, I believe it was the National Academy of Sciences, for an unclassified program. And somehow, Skinwalker Ranch came up. Short discussion, and that started it all. I wrote a letter to, with my managers, multiple managers' approval, to request to visit Skinwalker Ranch. I wanted to hear the real details. What is really going on? And that's what DIA was interested in. Now, the study group, it didn't have time to do that. So basically, they just fell off the plate. I had a couple queries after they provided me with the correct addresses and phone numbers as to, are you doing anything? And of course, by that time, the answer became no. And so everything was under, undercover in a sense. Even from within my own group, I just wanted to keep things controlled. And you've seen that up to this day. In the four books, they're a controlled disclosure of the information that we wanted to put for with Pentagon approval.

Speaker 3:
[09:09] The way it's been described to me by your colleague and friend, Jay Stratton, is you two guys were both at DIA at the same time with different sort of specialties and interest areas. And they kept these UFO cases and incidents over sensitive installations would pop up now and then. Eventually you guys compared notes and we know what the rest of the history is. Is that sort of correct? Is that how you remember it?

Speaker 2:
[09:33] Well, it is in a very broad terms. We had, he was part of what we call the air team. He worked on air threats. And he was, I don't know if he was on assignment to DIA from O&I, or if he was a DIA employee at the time. But we also had other members within those teams. He was head of that group. I was head of the missile threat, enemy missile threat to the United States. And we would see these things. In fact, I even overheard a conversation one day of, wow, you know, Skinwalker Ranch, that is the wildest place I've ever heard of. And little did they know, you know, what was going on a few cubicles away from me. But we had to keep that under wraps. It's not that the management didn't know what was going on. It wasn't going sideways. That's your greatest danger there.

Speaker 3:
[10:41] Your job is to look for threats and assess threats. And at some point, you thought, well, maybe this is a threat. That's why it's worth looking into. It's not your religion. You're not part of a UFO cult.

Speaker 2:
[10:52] And none of us were. I don't understand where... Well, a lot of things materialize on the Internet. And I have learned over the years, there's no use in fighting back against them because they spread faster than you could ever keep up. But the false information... I mean, one of the best was the battle between Bigelow's guards with automatic weapons and aliens with lasers. That really caught traction. And I said, where did this come from? But, you know, there's some humorous things in there, too, of course, over the years.

Speaker 3:
[11:30] You had no religious type beliefs about UFOs, aliens, any of that going into this?

Speaker 2:
[11:36] Absolutely not. In fact, I was a complete nuts and bolts person. I didn't see the relationship at first. And then I saw the relationship that UFOs were under the paranormal umbrella, not vise versa or anything like that, or totally dissociated. That disturbs me when I read about people who don't believe in the connection. Because if anything, that's what we proved. Because nothing that we had heard about Skinwalker Ranch originally was false at all. Yeah, we couldn't repeat things, but new cases, as you know, kept popping up all the time.

Speaker 3:
[12:21] Jeremy, take it away.

Speaker 1:
[12:22] Yeah, I just wanted to know kind of a little bit more about your background, because you don't talk about it a lot, but if you do some deep research, you can kind of see that you worked on like academically fusion research, your power, and then utility in the utility sector, kind of nuclear engineering, is that correct?

Speaker 2:
[12:41] Yes, I was in the utility, basically, I was employed for doing startup monitoring and calculations of a new reactor. It had been operating and so what I was doing was refueling. But that only lasted six, seven months, because all that time, let's look back in the old days of security clearance processing. I was going, they did it in steps. I went after a confidential clearance. I believe it was called an L clearance in DOE. And then once I was employed there, I went after the Q clearance. And so in that regard, I was working on naval reactors, specifically shielding of new attack submarines. And then the opportunity, my wife's a nuclear engineer too. And the area we were living in, Schenectady, did not have a lot of jobs other than at NOLS Atomic Power Plant. Well, to open it up, we started to apply extensively to Washington. She got a job as a NASA contractor. And I found my calling at a contractor that supported countermeasures and threat to the missile defense system. And that's where it took off.

Speaker 1:
[14:11] Yeah, well, I just think it's interesting when I go back and really find out where you were working and what you were doing. It looked like from the University of Tennessee, Nuclear Engineering, you did a master's thesis called Plasma Engineering Analysis of Small Torsation, Torsatron Reactor. And when you were there also, you focused on the plasma physics and reactor engineering feasibility, is what I read. And then for a compact torsation design tied to Oak Ridge's Advanced Torridle Facility. Is that correct?

Speaker 2:
[14:48] Well, that's what they called it. Yes, that's all correct. That's all... Everything that's out there is correct. What I have not put out is details further on because I had the clearance at the time and I was doing classified work both with DOE and DOD. And we can't talk about that at all. Because... And I can tell you because it was a very advanced weapon system that I was working on. Very advanced. Wow. And it is... Back then, it was approved for research by DOD, multiple levels, even to the highest. Well, that's not buildable. It was, okay, it's buildable with the technology of the time in the 80s and 90s.

Speaker 1:
[15:40] Right. So it might be now, but... But you're... I just want to make sure so you... I don't want to say anything about it.

Speaker 2:
[15:45] It's still classified. It is buildable now.

Speaker 1:
[15:49] It is buildable now. So, yeah. So you were embedded in Oak Ridge's Fusion Program ecosystem kind of back in the early 80s.

Speaker 2:
[15:58] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[15:59] Yeah. I think that's interesting. You don't talk about that, but you've kind of admitted now that part of that work was a theoretical physics aspect of a weapon system that is classified...

Speaker 2:
[16:09] That was later on for a doctor of engineering. So I can't talk about that. But at Oak Ridge, everything was unclassified. Now, did the Torsatron concept ever come about totally successfully? Well, mine were theoretical calculations, and the theory ultimately did not hold up. It was for startup of a fusion reactor at extremely low power levels. In other words, you wouldn't have to put much money, energy in in order to go to the ignition state.

Speaker 1:
[16:47] So George, I just want to make sure we kind of know who we're talking with. So here's a man who's highly trained in energy and turns out weaponry and in theoretical weaponry, he's kind of looking far ahead, which leads us to kind of maybe a little bit more how I know him, which is through his defense intelligence work.

Speaker 2:
[17:05] Yeah. And that's why I felt quite comfortable handling all of the 38 special studies that we did, because I understood them all. Right. And I had to understand him. I was the editor because we got 38 different styles coming in that we had to convert to one. So there was an effort. I had to read every line and make the corrections.

Speaker 3:
[17:35] Your latest book, the last book that you intend to write about Aawsap, you've told me that taken together, they in essence are the equivalent of disclosure. Am I overstating it?

Speaker 2:
[17:49] No, I believe that that was our intent. Now, as to having four books, we thought one would suffice. Then it apparently had three more were needed. And actually, what you said as a putting a period on all of this is a final. No, I mentioned last time on your program, the foundation of Kona Blue. Actually, now, your readers can do this. I think both of you are doing it. But if you go through all four of the books, you can see the structure that we first put in in Skinwalkers in the Pentagon as a future program. You can see that matches up almost exactly with the program that DHS and DOD released on what Kona Blue was to be. Everything they released on Kona Blue was correct. All I'm saying is it was incomplete.

Speaker 1:
[18:50] Or omission.

Speaker 2:
[18:53] In fact, we were very diligent in doing our threat analysis because we had access to the highest levels of threat intelligence. But you had to release it at the secret level so everyone could use it. We were very, very specific and very clear that none of us were to just make up story out of thin air at the secret level. It had to be supported by the higher level intelligence. It was the truth. And we did the same thing throughout Aawsap. It was untrue that it was an unclassified program. It was highly classified. But everything you got out here and checked by the Pentagon is unclassified. But the story is in there. I can't emphasize that anymore. You're going through it bit by bit. One thing that does upset me is when I see things on the internet of people diligently going through the books. Diligently. And they're going in the wrong direction. And I can't say anything. It's just the way it is.

Speaker 1:
[20:07] They're filling in the blanks with things that aren't true. So George, the deepest move of this book as I'm reading through it, it's not like one sensational claim. Dr. Lacatski, you're like building an institutional argument, kind of, that the US. Government ran a serious, medically aware, broad spectrum, technically framed program that found the phenomenon to be stranger, more interactive, and more consequential than like the simple aircraft identification problem we used to call UFOs. Is that fair to say that, you know, you followed the data into the taboo?

Speaker 2:
[20:46] That's correct. Right from the beginning. And we've, if people thought that the request for proposal was obscure, well, it was meant to be. But is there an untrue statement in there? No, that's what we wanted. And, but we were very specific of going with the small contractors because we knew that with a small contractor like Bigelow Aerospace and an even smaller one, Bass, their specialized study for this, for this contract, they could form it from the ground up. We weren't inheriting a structure from a big aerospace company. We were sure they had the personnel. But the thing is, is were they going to go down the direction that DIA wanted? And the answer is, of course, no. So everything is above board. We did the proper contracting. We just did everything. And we were all insistent on that. And so Senator Reid and Inouye, et cetera. And they monitored the contract closely to see that DIA did not veer off. We weren't. We weren't. But that's why also we weren't telling everybody and their brother what we were doing. We were keeping it low key. We were doing it in the correct place. And we knew a lot was being produced. It just. We didn't plan to release it. But I do remember the meeting in 2016. It was after I retired, 2017, with Senator Reid out in Las Vegas, where I came. I just made the statement and you were there, George, I made the statement. I'm going to have to write a book. Now, did I realize it would. I look at the stack over here and I'm going to see another book. But this book may or may not be necessary. It's, I think it is because I'd like to see if the public comes to the same structure for Kona Blue as we did based upon an examination over a year of the data in these four books and who feel that certain portions of the work that are done in here either doesn't need to be done again or needs to be done by private organizations and not necessarily involve government or government funds. But some areas need a lot more involvement by the government and funding, either from the government or external. At this point, it's, I always think back it's like a Ph.D. thesis. A dissertation could be like the Wild West. You just, you go off on something new and innovative, but you're moving ahead. That's what needs to be done now with Kona Blue. We need to move ahead. We're not, collecting information on lights in the sky isn't going to cut it anymore and possibly even not close landings. But, you know, we're going to have to involve ourselves in some real detail here and acquire that. Medical cases were kind of limited right there, but not totally. We know there's an, a medical impact. In fact, it's quite significant. And I'm surprised we were able to release, legally, what we, we put in Pentagon. So that the DIA is aware, Pentagon.

Speaker 1:
[24:35] That the DIA itself is very aware now because of your work, that there are close contact to non-humans. Is that correct?

Speaker 2:
[24:45] Well, from this study, we are. From this study, we are. You know, not everything's in here, but everything's in here. It's just that how you read this is very important, and it was done that way so we could release it.

Speaker 1:
[25:01] How do you read it?

Speaker 2:
[25:02] There's some big stories in here that no one is pursuing. They're in the four books.

Speaker 1:
[25:08] Well, how do you read it?

Speaker 2:
[25:11] Just like you're doing. You read, but you have to think, too. And you're doing it. I have no problem, but I'm not sure a lot do. A lot think they can discuss these books on the internet, and they're getting the gist of it all. No way are you.

Speaker 3:
[25:31] The four books, again, I mean, it seems like it's the equivalent of disclosure, given that these cases that are in there, and the specifics, and the incidents that happened, were investigated by an official governmentally authorized and finance program. They're real. They really did happen. Things did happen. What you don't do in the books is sort of draw conclusions. Hey, these are aliens. These are ETs. These are not us. Do you have conclusions from before, or is it something that you purposely want us to arrive at on our own?

Speaker 2:
[26:05] Not at George. You need to arrive at it on our own, because we can't give you a final answer. Say if I told you, and I'm correct, just say I told you that you know 5 percent of what you need to know, and the government doesn't know much more. There are people that think they know more, but they don't. That this is wide open, and that's why these books are structured that way. You didn't like the term textbook. It's been used on reviews of these books. But guidebooks. Let's use that term guidebooks. Do you remember the old days when you could open, buy at the store maps? You had to draw a paper map, and heaven help if you took your eyes off the steering wheel, because you had to read the map. But the iPhones weren't providing you anything. The early days of the iPhones providing you things, I even knew people that went down dead ends where there was a road, or they came to a water barrier. Now it's much better, and people have forgotten they need a guidebook. And that's what these are. Do we have all the answers? No. But the younger folks will develop those answers. And they'll raise more questions too as they move forward. It's a great field to be in. It's great.

Speaker 3:
[27:38] Does anyone you know know the answers to the big questions? Who are they? Is it non-human intelligence? If so, where are they from? Why they're here? What their interest is in us? Do you know the answers to those? And does anyone else in the government, intelligence community know?

Speaker 2:
[27:52] I don't and I don't know anyone that does. And I would seriously question their claim that they do. The fact you're not wasting your time doing research as you're doing it, the both of you and anyone in the public who decides to if it comes to it. I mean, you can't say I'm going to work on flying saucers. By the way, no one has ever raised the question in these books where whatever happened, you know this George, whatever happened to the plans of the university program. Those went, there was a firm plan there for university programs and those talks went extensively. They became like what happened with Kona Blue at DHS, at least part of it. They just died on the vine. Something got in the way and I don't know, I guess people were scared in the universities to form what would have been a paranormal research or, and it would have been funded. It wasn't an issue of money. It was an issue of committing to it. And I think enrollment would have been through the roof. If you thought it was just one or two courses. Okay.

Speaker 3:
[29:16] Everything that's in these books was thoroughly investigated. All the cases, all the incidents, all the locations. And you know, you've got some general themes throughout. These are craft, many of them. They have effects, physical, physiological, psychological on humans. It's real, it's happening, it's happening all over the world. And everything that you've written in these four books is approved in a sense. You had to get permission to publish it, including some pretty controversial elements of it. So the reaction, of course, from the naysayers is, this is drip, drip, drip. You know, it's government propaganda. It's preparing us for a false flag. Are you happy now that the four books are done with what you've been able to share? And are you frustrated at all by things that you were not able to share?

Speaker 2:
[30:07] Well, no, I'm hopeful that I'm going to be able to share in one form or another everything from Aawsap and Kona Blue. I expect to be able to do that. Can we have all the details? Probably not. And is it important to have all the details? Are we skewing people's minds in a small but still significant wrong? Wrong directions. But I don't think anything has been skewed in the wrong direction with what's in here. We've just opened up the door by saying, hey, this is real. You need to do your research, your due diligence. If you expect the government to carry the ball on this, I wouldn't. But that it's wide open. Now, as I was saying before, the university business, you can't say, I'm going to research UFOs and have a medical degree. You can't do that in advance. If it comes to you while you've had your medical degree, and people are claiming they've seen flying saucers or seen aliens or whatever, at least you're open to that. These books, I expect young folks, if they read them, and you've given me another idea, George, should we do a young person's book? Something that's much smaller and not as detailed. I mean, this was written for a cross-section of people, of the general public all the way to the Ph.D. level. The thing is, is there something we can encourage younger people to go on? I thought a university course, but maybe it even needs to be mentioned in high schools. We are looking at and all of it to all of that.

Speaker 1:
[32:05] You often say this and this is something a lot of people say to me is Dr. Lacatski is the only one that's out there saying, hey, the intelligence community needs to pass this information forward to the next generation or we're going to lose it. It's so compartmentalized that there's nobody new coming in and really getting informed on the UAP issue. Do you feel that way? Because you push for that a lot.

Speaker 2:
[32:29] I feel that way and I think it's happening on many other topics, many others, that there's so much information coming in that's really important in all aspects of intelligence and there simply isn't the personnel perhaps with how I have seen AI develop. The advanced systems. That it can be better handled. But Jeremy, you're correct. The history is being lost. As we speak, it's being lost. It's being tossed out. It can't... nothing's being loaded to the degree it has not been. Maybe now it is.

Speaker 1:
[33:16] Well, George, our last interview with a representative, and I want to get Dr. Lacatski's opinion on this, but our last interview, George, with Rep Burleson. So maybe this is round three of Frasier Versailles. Got a direct question. You know, Rep Burleson is kind of like the people's champ of UFOs right now. He has admitted publicly that he has visited a base that was constructed to hold, allegedly, a very important UAP hardware program. Or at least that's what it could have. It could have held that. He went to Pa... I'm telling you, George and I, as journalists, like he went to Pax River. We're sure of it. Now, he's going to be visiting other facilities that have been historically said to hold non-human intelligence craft, like the one that you admitted to, that we breached the hull of. So, my question is, have you ever been to the Pax River facility, and is there a craft there? Was there ever a craft there?

Speaker 2:
[34:17] Well, I can answer part of the question. I can say, yes, I've been there. Yes, I've seen the facility. But it was just built. So, I can't say what was going to go in there. It was big enough. You know, there's memories fade like that when you're looking at a big building. And sometimes when I look at big buildings, they don't seem quite as big when you're there. But this could have held our probably our largest aircraft in that building. Now, why would it need to at a naval facility? I don't know, because they wouldn't have a need for that, I would think.

Speaker 1:
[35:01] Did they build the facility at Pax to hold a UAP or a non-human atoll?

Speaker 2:
[35:06] Oh, I don't know what the purpose was, but it was, they were finishing construction when I first saw it.

Speaker 3:
[35:16] A lot of the things that are really interesting in this new book, Future Visions, deal with Skinwalker. So we've heard a lot of stories about Skinwalker. I've helped share them with the world to a degree. You really break down specific effects that were measurable, physical effects, strange signals. You give data concerning the number of sightings of creatures, presumably prehistoric creatures that shouldn't exist, dogman-type creatures that shouldn't exist, and others. And you, it's not just based on the ranch itself. You guys, for Aawsap, you had this increasingly large concentric circles around the ranch. You went out there, talked people into sharing their stories. And inevitably, you heard these stories, though people were reluctant to share them initially, that seemed to confirm something really weird was going on there, is going on there. It's not just myth. It's not just made up stories or fantastical dreams that people had. These things are real and measurable and did happen, right?

Speaker 2:
[36:21] Yes. And we were very... In regard to Dr. Kelleher, he had set up a system where he was cross-referencing information to make sure that there wasn't someone who was giving us things that, you know, we wanted to hear. That these cases were... Many of the cases or many of the sightings were seen by multiple people. Some may have been in the same family, but it would be generally... Some of these prehistoric creatures were seen by a number of people at the same time. How to explain that? How to explain the fact that... They seemed to ignore what was going on around them. In other words, there was a creature that was tolling by, twiddling by, and... It just ignored a crowd of people watching it. How do you explain that? I mean, it's almost like there were two different realities. But that's one of the reasons we didn't try to explain. It was tough enough just gathering this information. Because by the way, you just didn't walk up to the neighbor of Skinwalker Ranch and ask them strange questions. They would have thrown you off their property. That's the one really interesting man in black case where he came. Was it a black escalade or a black suburban? Who out there? You know, George, who out there dust their shoes off and rose dress shoes? It's almost humorous some of the stuff we collected, and it's all been verified. It's just odd.

Speaker 3:
[38:09] It's sort of the brilliance of Aawsap that you were willing to follow the evidence wherever it led, and were willing to share the information, no matter how crazy it sounds, because let's say that was a government program. You think those reports would have bubbled to the surface or they would have heard them?

Speaker 2:
[38:26] No, they would never. In fact, they bubbled off the ranch a bit, but I wouldn't say extensively. There are always people saying, we've heard rumors about what goes on in the ranch, the government has moved in there, these strange things occur. But the first statements aren't, well let me tell you what's happening around our house or our property. That has to slowly be pulled out. And you were involved in some of those discussions, George. It has to be slowly pulled out, because they're thinking there, well these are contractors for the government, we don't want them to think we're a nut.

Speaker 1:
[39:15] Do you ever feel like you're working against our own government in this way? That it's so compartmentalized, this UAP thing, that you found that the license plates tied to some of these men in black were from Department of Homeland Security. Is that part correct? And then I want to ask a second question.

Speaker 2:
[39:33] Oh, that's that. That part was correct. It took some effort on our government people that didn't work for Aawsap directly, but who were involved with it to gather that information. But I think that's one of the... I think perhaps, Jeremy, you're not looking at that in the right way. Have I mentioned in the books, we were suspicious that there was a leak at MUFON, that someone from the government in some organization, not us, we were having them gather information directly for us, and we got it directly, the good cases directly from MUFON, but had penetrated their database and were able to outrace us. I mean, we could respond quickly, but we couldn't respond instantly, nor did we have people on site across the country. They had a fly-out of Las Vegas. So there was a day or two delay, mainly a day, day and a half. That was our suspicion that, yeah, maybe this is a government car, but we don't know what agency was looking at it and why were they looking at it. It's a completely legitimate reason and it's not working against the government. They're doing their job to see that another classified program was being protected. But what we were seeing was not a government classified.

Speaker 1:
[41:08] Was there another government classified program out at the ranch ever?

Speaker 2:
[41:13] Not to my knowledge. So there could be around it, but I was only concerned with our contract and that we kept our stuff on the straight and narrow. We didn't want to go off on the Primrose Path this direction or other direction. When people would send their little remote-controlled vehicles, thank heavens the drones were just under development 10, 15 years ago. When they send them in, it's well, let's just chase this stuff off. We know who's doing it. We know others are trying it. When people would come to the front gate, the Guard Force had their hands full right at the front gate. Now, I will say at the front gate was where money was materializing out of thin air. So to be there was probably a while.

Speaker 1:
[42:10] Everybody's going to go there like it's Las Vegas. Can you explain that?

Speaker 2:
[42:14] It wasn't outside the gate.

Speaker 3:
[42:16] Money materialized.

Speaker 1:
[42:18] Is that why Brandon bought the ranch?

Speaker 2:
[42:22] Well, unfortunately, it was coins. It was not $100 bills.

Speaker 3:
[42:28] Well, a $50 gold piece from 100 years ago.

Speaker 1:
[42:33] George, just real quick. So you and I were approached by a naval intelligence individual and we're given, I mean, I got an earful with the promise of documents about something called Project Javelin. I've never said it out loud because at this point, there's nowhere to follow through on this. But there's so much either passage material or disinformation that we were, as journalists, George, I were approached by somebody being like there was a program out there that predated Aawsap. You've never heard of Project Javelin, have you? No. Dr. Lacatski?

Speaker 2:
[43:04] No.

Speaker 1:
[43:05] Okay. So it's probably BS, but that helps me.

Speaker 2:
[43:08] I guess if it's counterintelligence, I couldn't say if I did, but honestly, I haven't heard of it.

Speaker 1:
[43:15] Back to the money.

Speaker 3:
[43:16] Sorry. At the ranch. So one of the things that's in this new book, Future Visions, is you verify that there were unusual electromagnetic signals that seem to be emanating from the mesa at the ranch, which is very consistent with what the TV show is pursuing these days. And at the same time, in the same section of the book, you say that there were countermeasures taken by Aawsap, Bass, to see if you could figure out if somebody, some human agency was messing with you. Can you share with us the nature of the signals that you detected and whether the countermeasures that were taken, how they worked, and were they related to that signal coming from the mesa?

Speaker 2:
[43:57] Well, we didn't have to take countermeasures against the signal. It was intermittent. But basically, it all started. We became concerned about security, as you probably know, George, pretty early. And that had to do with the placement of transmitting phones. By the way, government GSA-approved phones. I'm not sure where these particular units came from. They must have been modified. But they had a transmission radius of about 1 to 1.5 kilometers. They were not installed at the ranch, but back in Las Vegas. They were discovered by professionals looking for them. There were suspected tracking devices. They were looked at on vehicles that were back in Vegas. And there were scrapes on the underneath of the vehicles where was the standard place to put these tracking devices. So, they had been removed by people. But the phones themselves had been found. One of those phones was submitted to us, to me, and through one of our people who was assigned and worked with me on the Aawsap project. That was early on. Well, we're thinking if they're doing this back in Vegas, they might be doing this up at the ranch. You mean the sidearm. Yes. We brought in professional organizations that were recognized by DIA to check and see and there were, there wasn't anything of, I think the bottom line is to say, there wasn't anything significant there. There was a hint that something might be going on, but they were intermittent and that was about it. We were comfortable there. Now, there were also attempts back at BASS by individuals, and why they would do this, when they're asked to, they're employed there, asked to do this, to transmit all the database that we were gathering from around the world, to transmit that off-site to parties unknown. And they continue after notified. So, that's when I said, hey, look, we need to really find out who's being employed here. Let's get everyone a secret clearance. That's, there's no rush on that. We had the special processing done on the TSSCIs, but that was management and team lead level. Let's find out who everybody is. Now, everything went well. We didn't find out any problems on anyone. But, perhaps those people had departed because...

Speaker 1:
[47:00] You were being spied on, though. You were trying to study UFOs for the government, government official program, and somebody, some entity was employing people to put trackers on cars and bug the phones in a secure facility back at Bigelow Aerospace, right?

Speaker 2:
[47:14] And we had, we had counterintelligence, you know, who's in charge of it in this country is the FBI. We had them come in and do briefings, and what's the current status at both locations? And so, you know, we did our due diligence. So we were fairly confident that we weren't being spied on. I can't speak to the ranch right now. I know Brandon Fugal is doing a great job up there of furthering the research. And with the problem...

Speaker 1:
[47:46] Who was trying to spy on you? Who was trying to spy on you?

Speaker 2:
[47:53] We've had the usual parties, we think.

Speaker 1:
[47:58] Russia, China, Israel.

Speaker 2:
[48:02] Well, some are all of the above, I mean, or none of the above, but that's the only conclusion you could come to, because we never traced it back to the source. The main thing is in counterintelligence is to get them to break connection. And so we were confident we did that. And as you noted in the books, Being Complete, what were they really learning, other than the fact that, hey, this is legit? Well, I've admitted this is all legit. You know, there's, we didn't keep secret documents at the ranch. That was all back in Vegas, so.

Speaker 3:
[48:45] There were some amazing experiments that were undertaken and questions that remained at the ranch. And we've talked about some of them before, but I started this part of the conversation by asking about the electromagnetic signals that seemed to be coming from the Mesa. Did you ever figure out what those were? And why was it worth pursuing? Was it because they're transitory? They're there one day and gone the next?

Speaker 2:
[49:08] Well, that was the, that's the key answer, transitory. We certainly had that during our time there. I mean, there was a case which I think I can describe in the upcoming that happened during Kona Blue there. There was a levitation of a human being. And you know, that was by a reliable person. Now, you already know about the levitating objects, you know, there at the ranch. I'm talking about an actual person in the air. So, we didn't try to explain, as you've commented before, and certain events that were clearly off the property itself, because the mesa wasn't on the property. And I remember Bob Bigelow taking me up there to check the mesa. And he went up the most to me and me to him to go up this route. I had no idea why we were going up straight up. Well, he wanted to know, to get me the full impact. And that was after I saw what I saw inside the ranch house, which is kind of a repetitive, as I now understand it, a repetitive in the area I was sitting. I wasn't the only one to see something in that location.

Speaker 3:
[50:49] You did experiments attempting communication with whatever it is. How did they work out? Did you find anything substantive? And in general, would you say that communication is possible with whatever it is, whoever they are?

Speaker 2:
[51:06] Well, Bob Bigelow directed Column, and Column handled the legitimacy of the experiments of moving objects, moving the patterns on a board, things like that, which were sealed cases. The odd time discrepancies in plants that would grow too fast, not grow at all, versus being in Las Vegas, the exact same plants. And there were, you know, I guess I haven't really mentioned in the book what we would have to assume to be time anomalies there, too. You know, with certainly the plant growth, I mean, if a plant is growing at double the rate it should be, that's noticeable. Or not growing at all. Still alive but not growing, that needs to be noted too. We were very heavy on the experimentation, but that's very typical for how the intelligence community thinks. Gathering information, that's how the acquisition community works too, gathering information and data is very important, especially on experiments. The problem is having the time and the money to analyze it. And we were doing the best we could.

Speaker 1:
[52:36] We interrupt this program to bring you a special report.

Speaker 2:
[52:52] AATIP was exactly as I described it here. Now, the day they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their... What would you describe that? It's more lunchtime get-togethers? That's... And George is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it. Well, it's a big issue in people's... What do you describe it as? But, no, AATIP was... The name was created for use in Senator Reid's letter for our first attempt for material transfer. It came and went. The next time I really saw AATIP was in the... The New York Times are in it.

Speaker 1:
[53:46] Right. Exactly. So, we've just... We've kind of got it wrong and we've kind of beaten the dead horse about this. But, you know, you talk about that name coming up in the Reid letter for a material transfer. You are talking about a UFO, the transfer of a UFO or UFO hardware, right?

Speaker 2:
[54:04] Well, it'll be material transfer, yes.

Speaker 1:
[54:07] Because you can't say more or you don't know more. Because when you say it like that, it feels like you're diminishing what a reality and a truth is. If you can't say it, you can't say it. But we're talking about a material transfer related to UAP hardware, yes or no? I mean...

Speaker 2:
[54:25] Well, Jeremy, what would you think the answer would be?

Speaker 1:
[54:28] Well, I know what the answer is. I'm just curious if you can say it.

Speaker 2:
[54:33] I don't think that I should. I think that the letter needs to stand on its own merits. It's been brought up even recently, the letter. What does it really mean? Well, DHS answered the question right there.

Speaker 1:
[54:49] Yeah, you get accused of talking in circles, and I understand why. I understand why. But I think it's done been said. George went up in Congress and he testified to a material transfer from Lockheed Martin of what they assumed to be an NHI craft. And I think it's like, you know, if you're ever going to say it, it's now. When you're talking about a material transfer, you think...

Speaker 2:
[55:11] I will stick with, I have been not authorized to say those words, those exact words. Well, that's an answer. And I'm surprised they're being said. You know, there's... I saw something on TV, a new edition of one of these shows that is describing what is still a compartmented program.

Speaker 1:
[55:33] Like at Papoose Lake?

Speaker 2:
[55:35] Different topic, but one of great mystery. And I was happy that I said, thank heavens, they don't know what they're talking about on this show. They're describing all the details. So I am very... I try to be very cautious. I can't say anything more about Reed's letter, but what do the both of you think?

Speaker 1:
[55:57] I think they were moving a UFO from Lockheed Martin, you know, to trying to move a UFO from Lockheed Martin to the Aawsap program. Am I an idiot, Dr. Lacatski?

Speaker 2:
[56:06] Well, no, but the thing is, there's... Let's go back baby steps here. What would be the first thing you would do, then a transfer? You'd want to see. What are you getting yourself involved with? So that's... Let's not put too many words to that letter. You would... You know, it could be an inspection. It could be... We were looking for a list. That's the first step. That's an even further baby step. We were looking for a list that was known to exist.

Speaker 1:
[56:52] A list of what? Where UFO craft, like Hal Putoff said, we have ten or more, where they're being held and what materials they are.

Speaker 2:
[56:59] Well, I don't know if it would have been where they're held, but we were looking for a list. So you shouldn't put too much into that letter other than it was a broad request for us. Now, we were able to look for the list. Let's jump off that for a moment. And guess what? It had disappeared.

Speaker 1:
[57:18] List of what? A list of what?

Speaker 2:
[57:21] Recovered materials.

Speaker 1:
[57:23] Recovered materials. Huh.

Speaker 2:
[57:27] It was a list, but it had... And we were given the exact location, and it was gone from there. And it couldn't be gone by any normal means. So someone removed it. But let's go baby steps. Just about... And that's what I'm trying to teach in the book. Go baby steps. If people want to get 100% answer, no one has that to give you. So plan out how you're going to research and verify. And don't dismiss deception. Well, is the word deception from, let us say, suspected aliens. Let's say, let's use that. Don't dismiss deception on broad terms, their part.

Speaker 1:
[58:17] Oh, the messengers of deception, meaning the visitors themselves could be deceiving humanity?

Speaker 2:
[58:23] Haven't you and both you and George encountered professors in school? And I certainly did in engineering and science. They were game players. They wanted to make you think by playing games. Sometimes they went too far. They just plain weren't doing their job as an instructor. So I don't want to be like that. But they wanted to have you come to your own conclusions. The dad is there. There's a lot of stuff in these books. And I'm not pitching, pitching, selling these things, because remember, their hard copies are, no, I guess we sell a fair amount of those, but the electronic copies are fine. Forgetting the gist, the Virgo copies, well, I'm a person where words go in one ear and out the other.

Speaker 1:
[59:13] Well, hold on, George, George, is Dr. Lacatski saying that we can't dismiss deception from the visitors themselves?

Speaker 2:
[59:20] That's what I'm saying. You see it throughout your life.

Speaker 1:
[59:24] I've seen it throughout my life.

Speaker 2:
[59:26] Yes, in school.

Speaker 1:
[59:28] Okay, gotcha.

Speaker 2:
[59:29] It's a standard technique.

Speaker 1:
[59:30] I'm handing it over to George. I'm doing my best.

Speaker 3:
[59:34] I'd like to return to sort of the origins of Aawsap. You know, you've covered different threads through the four books. But, you know, the first, very first incident, case, investigated by Aawsap was Tic Tac. Maybe the most consequential UFO series of events ever, given the effects of when it came out. And your colleague Jay Stratton did the first form of the investigation, put together a report. We're now 22 years later, and, you know, the implication keeps leaking out from We Think We Know Who. Oh, yeah, that's one of ours. We were just testing it and seeing how the Navy would react, which seems preposterous. But if that's one of ours, something we built, we haven't seen it yet. We haven't seen it deployed. We know that the capabilities of that weapon system would be revolutionary, change the world. Maybe you could conquer the world with just one of them if we had it. But take us back to Tic-Tac. What you've learned then, what you've learned since, was that ours or was it somebody else's? And I ask in the context of Aero, which the last time we talked at a conversation here, you basically agreed with us that it looks like a counterintelligence operation, which of course, Aero is like the Roach Motel, the old ads for the Roach Motel. Roaches go in, they never come out. Witnesses go in, testimony goes in, nothing comes out. Now, Aero has yet to formally dismiss, explain, discourage interest in the Tic-Tac. Is Tic-Tac still legit? Is it ours? Do we have anything like it? And if we did, why the hell don't we use it? What do you think?

Speaker 2:
[61:14] Well, I think you're asking the right questions. I'm not the right one to answer on some of them, others I am, but what do you think? Do you think that such a machine from 25 years ago was when it was seen? Not 25, it was a 22. You think we wouldn't see some evidence of that machine now?

Speaker 3:
[61:43] Come in handy.

Speaker 2:
[61:45] It would come in handy. I mean, we saw some unusual craft that have come out that are stealth craft, drones, but nothing like that. And there are indicators, when we were doing Aawsap, of high-performance drones with battery lives much longer than were even postulated at the time, that we're certainly seeing now. Now we're talking about drones that fly from one country to another. But the answer to your question is, there were some things that still haven't been released that were classified on the Tic-Tac incident. So I think if I was just Jim of the street, Jim Public, I wouldn't believe it if anyone told me that that was a classified program of the US. I just can't believe that. But the thing is, there's classified programs that are your developments, and you know, crumbs that you've picked up in the forest, you know, that would be quite the crumb, if you know what I mean. If there are crumbs left in the forest for you to follow, that would be a big crumb. But I just don't believe it. That was an unusual device. As you saw in some of the specialized studies here, which weren't much of a study, because there were more inquiries into other observations of tic-tac-like objects. There's a couple of few cases in here, and there are others reported in other states. I know one in Florida and one out west. In addition to these. So, you know, are these just mundane objects?

Speaker 3:
[64:03] You have a couple of sections in this new book about the Russian files, the Thread 3 files and where it led. Can you give us a summary of what you learned from those, what was learned, and the significant conclusions that you could draw from the documents that came back from the USSR, former USSR?

Speaker 2:
[64:20] Well, as you know, we translated them. We got a distribution and discussion approved by DIA because they were all marked highly secret in Soviet marquees, Russian marquees. I would say that we, this is contrary to what's out there on the Internet, that we patterned our program after these. Well, we received them too late in the program to actually pattern anything after the Thread 3 documents. We were in the process of studying them, and that's when we were running into rough waters with the program continuing beyond. And actually, we hadn't planned to do research on them anyway. That would have been in the third year, fourth year of the program. So, contrary to what people say, we were duplicating the Russian program, no, we had no knowledge of it at the time. So, I mean, other than the word Thread 3, we certainly didn't have any translated documents. It's interesting that both countries were following a similar path using different languages. I felt they committed to a technology too early, but that's Jim's opinion having read over the Thread 3 documents.

Speaker 3:
[65:54] Of course, that's 30 years difference, though. Both companies were, offensively, were pursuing the same thing. They just had it started 30 years earlier.

Speaker 2:
[66:03] Yes, that's true. But, they didn't do it in the same way. For example, they were, I don't know if they had a, I would call it very organized collection effort by MUFON. MUFON was very smooth organization when we were dealing with them, and they were supplying us the key cases. We were able to really utilize that properly. I didn't see where the Russians were making any attempt to do that. So, and to lock in the certain technology and materials research as early as they did, I feel as there was no way we could have made a similar decision. And besides, remember when we use the term acquire materials, those materials obviously have been looked at before. So, it's another set of eyeballs on the same thing.

Speaker 3:
[67:09] Well, I'll ask you this just as a guess, theoretical question. You know, our mutual friend and colleague, Colm Kelleher, has stated publicly that he suspected that whatever the intelligence was operating at Skinwalker Ranch and then in the Uinta Basin might be a machine intelligence. And it makes me wonder if you're not stating who they are, where they're from. It sounds like it's a non-human intelligence of some sort. Call it aliens, ETs, whatever. Could that non-human intelligence be AI? If it's a machine, a version of a machine?

Speaker 2:
[67:42] Well, we're using our current terminology. I mean, the answer is yes, but not in the way you think. A machine machine. We're not, let's not go back to the old Star Trek and the old Star Wars. I mean, that's, that's our concept, Hollywood's concept. We're, we're dealing with things far beyond that, even in the conceptual role. So the thing is, is what's a machine? What's the human? What's, what's an alien in the future? A combination of all probably.

Speaker 3:
[68:22] Well, let's say a machine intelligence, AI, call it software. That's installed here by someone else from somewhere else.

Speaker 2:
[68:30] Installed? A facility on-site?

Speaker 3:
[68:33] Well, sort of an overarching authority, similar to what Jacques Vallee has postulated, a control system, maybe that keeps us from blowing each other up or modulates you with activity.

Speaker 2:
[68:46] I hope they would do that when Chris comes to show, but the fact is, is that, as you well know, among any of us here, or among your listeners, there are other locations that are just as substantial as the ranch, if not more so. So we're talking about a world-wide overview. I can conceptualize it off-planet origin, I can conceptualize it off-planet origin, but I certainly can't do something that is an over-arching system that is on Earth doing all of this. Now, that is not in contradiction to my cover here. Which looks a bit unusual.

Speaker 3:
[69:41] And it is unusual, too. What you designed for the cover, it didn't turn out that way, correct?

Speaker 2:
[69:48] I let loose on this one. I asked AI to come up with this one, based upon reading the books. What would it show? And this is what it came up with. I haven't changed this at all, except for the fact is I'm constantly asked on these three books, or two of them, the last two. Can you submit a higher resolution cover? And really in both cases, I had to put the star field back in. The high resolution, this is a technical issue, with however Amazon produces these. The entire star field disappears. I have no idea why. But the basic what you see here on the covers, you know, on the previous one, on New Insights, the square was suggested and drawn totally contrary to my request, totally.

Speaker 3:
[70:55] Maybe AI knows something you don't.

Speaker 2:
[70:57] Well, it is or it's better designer than I am and has more thoughts into it. I mean, it put into the the sheeting, if you look real close, there's there's panels on the on the the square. There is more coming in from above other craft and it put it in. So I utilize AI in regard to the cover. But I will tell you that not one word other than suggestions on the index, which is as always confused me as how am I supposed to form an index on these documents when you don't know what's in the document. So I'm having to come up with innovative. I've asked AI its suggestions, but I still have to do it. But not a word, not a word in the rest of the documents is AI generated. There's a law from Official Files.

Speaker 3:
[72:01] You know, Mr. Bigelow, our mutual friend, gave me the green light to go ahead and say to Congress that there was a negotiation going on between Lockheed Martin and Bass to acquire materials, the transfer of materials. And he, you know, that's the first time he's ever said, yeah, you can go ahead and say it publicly under oath. The implication is that there are other materials out there. You have written in a previous book, there was an entire craft of unknown origin. Should we assume that there are more? And was your revelation in that book and in this book, it was authorized by the adopter process. Somebody wanted that to be said. I mean, to go that far. It's astonishing to me that was ever allowed. And it makes us wonder why, why it happened. Given in the context of right now, President Trump has said, I'm going to release the files, which whether or not that actually happens, I don't know what those files would be. But it seems like there is an interest among the public, certainly, to see whatever there is. You and I and Jeremy know they're only going to be satisfied with someone who says, we've got 12 land saucers, we got 18 bodies, and here they are. Anything short of that, people will be pissed off about it. Can you imagine a time when something will be released publicly that goes beyond you being able to say, there's a craft, we got inside of it, we got at least one, and being able to say, yeah, there was a planned transfer of material, unusual material, to Bigelow Aerospace. Would you predict that that will go further at some point? Would you say it's likely to happen now under this administration that says they're going to release the files?

Speaker 2:
[73:49] I can see it happening, but you qualified your questioning there with under this administration and possibly under a near-term administration. The answer to that is I don't believe so. But it will go further in the future. Excuse me. It will go further. A lot of the things, as you can tell, I'm deflecting your questions. Oh, and Jeremy.

Speaker 3:
[74:18] It never happened before here, right?

Speaker 2:
[74:20] No, it's the first time. But the thing is, is I really can't go further. I think that you mentioned, was it the last time I interviewed with you that Congressman Burleson had stated that, you know, my testimony wouldn't be any more insightful than these books. That is a correct statement he's making. I've been approved for these books. It wouldn't be. I could only say, because I'm not answering right now, you're pushing the envelope, you've gone beyond the envelope, and I can't answer that way.

Speaker 1:
[75:01] So you could answer to Congress even if they had you under oath. You wouldn't be allowed to answer them on some of the more sensitive, compartmentalized issues of UAP.

Speaker 2:
[75:12] Okay, you asked a specific question there about Congress. I couldn't answer if other individuals or an individual asked me. Higher level. Equivalent level in the Constitution.

Speaker 1:
[75:30] So you're allowed to protect information even from Congress.

Speaker 2:
[75:35] I've been told that before and I've been, you know, that I'd have to be accompanied throughout my career. So that's, I would say that no one, I would hope that no one is lying to Congress. However, I know differently in these hearings.

Speaker 1:
[75:52] You do know that people have lied during the hearings.

Speaker 2:
[75:55] I've, I know that people have lied and they've raised, now...

Speaker 1:
[76:00] Hold on, who's lied and what did they lie about?

Speaker 2:
[76:02] Oh, I could never say that.

Speaker 1:
[76:04] Why? Are you, are you not allowed to say that?

Speaker 2:
[76:07] No, I wouldn't professionally say that. Okay. I mean, we're, we're talking about people who may not know... There's a lot of this going on in these days, but let me tell you that there's people who don't know the difference between a lie and an exaggeration and pure fantasy.

Speaker 1:
[76:26] Okay. But just as you, you've said it, hold on. You've said it. So let's, let's eliminate who didn't lie, because I think that's important to do to them, because you've just put a target on people. So Dylan Borland, did he lie?

Speaker 2:
[76:41] Oh, I would never say that.

Speaker 1:
[76:43] No, you wouldn't say that because it's not true. He didn't lie.

Speaker 2:
[76:46] No, I wouldn't say that because I don't know.

Speaker 1:
[76:49] Okay. Well, that's different. So you know of somebody that lied, but that is not Dylan Borland, correct?

Speaker 2:
[76:55] I have I don't know him at all. No, no.

Speaker 1:
[76:59] Okay. But that's important because you said somebody lied in Congress and you're aware of it. So you're isolating somebody that lied. And it's important to me that we are very clear that that is not George Knapp, not Dylan Borland. Stop me if I'm wrong. Not Senior Chief Wiggins.

Speaker 2:
[77:13] That is not those two individuals.

Speaker 1:
[77:15] Not Jeff Mnuchateli.

Speaker 2:
[77:18] Oh, here you're going to go through all the people.

Speaker 1:
[77:20] No, I'm not going to do that. I'm just going to make sure that our audience understands that when you've said somebody particularly has lied in Congress and you know it, but you won't elaborate, that we take the bullseye off of people that I know you're not talking about. So that would be...

Speaker 2:
[77:36] There's no bullseye on these people. Well, they've all moved off on the...

Speaker 1:
[77:40] No, no, they haven't.

Speaker 2:
[77:44] They've sworn to their statements and I think you should leave that sleeping dog lying.

Speaker 1:
[77:48] Oh, don't start saying those words, Ned. You don't know what you just did. Sleeping dog, right. I hear you, but it's important to me because I helped bring those people in, that we get very clear that your accusation that somebody lied, that it is not... I'm just going to say four people, George Knapp, Dylan Borland, Senior Chief Wiggins, or Jeff Nusitelli who have testified.

Speaker 2:
[78:12] And those are the people you brought in, you're saying?

Speaker 1:
[78:14] I brought in almost everybody with George, but I'm just saying those four people...

Speaker 2:
[78:18] Okay, now we're going to something I can't answer and I won't answer anymore. The fact is, I made a statement that there was falsehoods made. The source of those falsehoods could be total delusion, I think, otherwise. Other people think otherwise, but it could be that they're just totally deluded.

Speaker 1:
[78:39] Okay, but I mean, I think I know what you're referencing, and I just think it's important to just separate the people so that you don't paint the false target on your back.

Speaker 2:
[78:47] I don't think that's necessary. I think this is part of the research process. And you're doing it, but you can't come to an answer by just getting another bit of information from me. Some of the people I don't even know.

Speaker 1:
[79:02] I know there's a disconnect here because you don't realize what it takes when people go up there and they raise their hand and you're saying somebody lied and I want to make sure to take the false target off of certain people's backs so the public doesn't start creating and filling in nonsense again. But we'll move on. I just wanted to make sure. I know you can't...

Speaker 2:
[79:20] I can't help you with that. And besides that, I wouldn't... When people... It's just like... There's another reason I won't testify at Congress. The boat is sailed on their testimony. They said what they said and I can't go back and correct it even though I have proof that could correct it. I can't do that. It's too late. It can't be undone. It can't be undone. And the people know that in general from experiences in their lives that once it gets going, false stories can't be undone. Poor kids on the Internet kill themselves because of the same reason. False stories about them.

Speaker 3:
[80:07] Back to the idea of disclosure. You know, the public has its ideas of what disclosure should be. The president has issued a directive. It's not an executive authority. He has no authority behind it to declassify what most certainly is classified materials, files and videos and things of that sort, the Aawsap materials. So taken together, these four books are the closest we are to actual disclosure, given that everything you've written has been authorized by the various people and agencies in the adoption process.

Speaker 2:
[80:40] As of this time, it's effectively, as you said, George disclosure.

Speaker 3:
[80:47] Is there concern, if you think forward, in what disclosure and the forms it could take, whatever Trump and his agencies might reveal in the future, and we have no idea what that might be, are you concerned about disruption of human civilization, of religions freaking out, of people rioting in the streets, the stock market crumbling, from anything that you suspect could be released but hasn't yet to be released?

Speaker 2:
[81:15] Well, I think you would be getting an incomplete story, an incomplete narrative if something further was released. And I'm afraid of people going off, society going off in the wrong direction. And that's my only concern, but I won't be around to see that. I don't think something's going to happen tomorrow or in the immediate future.

Speaker 1:
[81:44] Why would we get an incomplete story if disclosure was pushed a little bit further? Can you just elaborate on that?

Speaker 2:
[81:50] Oh, yes, sure. You would be getting an incomplete story, an incomplete story. I mean, if you're satisfied with the fact that they would reveal that there is alien technology being encountered and that there are aliens, if you were be... Really, Jeremy, think about it. If you would be satisfied with just that, would you be?

Speaker 1:
[82:16] Well, you know me and you know I wouldn't be, but you also know that that's a good starting point, what you just said as an acknowledgement of disclosure.

Speaker 2:
[82:25] And it goes on and on and on and on.

Speaker 1:
[82:27] That's okay. That's not your problem.

Speaker 2:
[82:29] Oh, it is my problem if I've contributed to it going on and on in the wrong direction. And I don't want that.

Speaker 1:
[82:38] Well, I don't think you can stop it at this point. If the words you just said were said by our president, and then there was some form of proof that was shown, maybe in Missouri, like the Show Me state, and we could bang hammers on a craft of non-human origin, you know, an extraterrestrial maybe even craft, try to, you know, bring some propane torches, just to get a feel that that is true, that would be a disclosure, you know, disclosure day the movie's coming up. That would be a disclosure that I think people would embrace, and I don't think it is anybody's job to hold back the nature of reality from humankind. So I think that if we got that far...

Speaker 2:
[83:14] Is that going to reveal the nature of reality?

Speaker 1:
[83:18] You know, you tell me, but what it's going to do is stop hiding the nature of reality. And so if we got that part down, because nobody can be the overlord of truth. So if we get that part down, sure, we protect our nuclear secrets, just like we protect how to make a nuclear bomb, but we know nuclear fusion and nuclear reactions exist.

Speaker 2:
[83:34] If everything was revealed to you right now would be so incomplete, it would be useless.

Speaker 3:
[83:41] Meaning because nobody really knows the ultimate answer?

Speaker 2:
[83:45] The correct.

Speaker 1:
[83:47] Not even our government.

Speaker 2:
[83:48] That there are people that might think they do, but they don't.

Speaker 1:
[83:53] Okay, that's all. You know, look, and it's not a personal attack on you. This is something I feel very passionate about, which is that it is nobody's right.

Speaker 2:
[84:01] I'm telling you, Jeremy, it comes across as that, and it comes across to the public as that, is that I'm doing something wrong. George is correct. They've gotten what they've gotten right here. It's complete and it's truthful. And I'm telling you that there's falsehoods out there. They're being led down a wrong path. Congress is being led down a wrong path. The president is being led down the wrong path. There's a problem here. And I'm disturbed by it because I'm not going to live forever and I want the truth to come out. It's like Senator Reid told me. They're kind of on their own because he felt sorry for me by, you know, the way I had to be badgered. And I had people, reinforcements jump up for me. I had other people who just denied me, who denied their association. I had others that jump up and jumped into the pitch battle. And I'm talking about it, the high, I'm talking beyond and outside DIA. The fact is, is there is two forces out there that want people to know and there are those that don't want people to know. And is that religious element out there? Absolutely. Is it effective? Absolutely not. However, the turmoil it creates has been terrible. But I'm not blending that part of it. I'm talking about the more fundamental in human nature. So you've had me say a lot more, I look like I have a calm demeanor all the time, where I actually don't, you know, the fact is when I'm seeing total failure, and I feel that maybe I shouldn't have bothered writing these books, George, disclosing this. And I said the same at Aawsap. And people said, oh no, Jim, that's not true. It's just because it's ending. It was the way it was unceremoniously ended. You know, it was just a couple letters went out, and is we just want to get rid of this attitude in the letters. So did one side win and another side lose? No, because we completed the job. In Kona Blue and what we did in DHS, we completed the job as much as we could. People asked me, no, people haven't asked me, but they should. That transfer of material that DHS said in Kona Blue was denied, didn't exist. Don't you think I already knew that already? This was the third attempt for that transfer under the conditions laid for us. The third attempt. And this was, did I not know it was going to fail? What I didn't know, and the surprise, what I didn't know was something I can't tell you right now. I was very surprised of what they were really focused on. Very surprised. And it wasn't transfer of recovered technology.

Speaker 1:
[87:15] Can you give us a hint?

Speaker 2:
[87:17] Can I give you a hint? No, I can't give you a hint. You're going to have to come to that conclusion. I don't think I'd ever be allowed to reveal that and it would be denied by others. So I'd never have any proof. But I know where they were coming from. And this discussion was by myself and a key individual on the secure line because I was what? You want what? So the thing is, I didn't say that to them because I had to say, I'll try, I'll try, I'll try. But I am upset because people are getting spun up. The government people got spun up. Let me tell you one big spin up. And one real problem we had was the discovery of those phones. That, that brought attention on this project like you wouldn't believe. And it was from the religious element I ultimately found out. They found out about this program by people talking about those secure phones. They weren't concerned about this was leaking. They were concerned that this project even existed. Were those people beaten back? Well, they didn't think they were what they were. They were, and they were beaten back in three different organizations. In fact, one, I believe, one of the proponents was thrown out of the room, literally. So it was, it was, I'm giving you a full story in one sense about the experience that I had at DIA, and with DHS and with DNI. It was a pitch battle. I mean, there were people at DHS that I was warned, you need to keep clear of them. I didn't even work there, and I'm being warned by who did. You know, they're in a, they've got the management here, and I'm talking top level, the directors here. And, you know, don't engage with them. Don't say the slightest word wrong. It was just unbelievable. In fact, it's a story both of you would love to hear, and that's why I'm convinced this will never go forward again. You may find out some pieces that you would like to find out that the counterintelligence people have approved. But, you know, as a comprehensive program that was let loose to do what it needed to do, and we failed at times. We failed at the university. We failed in Brazil. Let's call it what it was. You know, we spent money. We didn't fail on all the documents, the 38. We didn't fail at all there. We didn't fail at all on the research that Bass did. We got everything we needed, the verifications. We got the lowdown, the true story. But the thing is, and it's the important story, Jeremy. That's important to you. It's the important story we got. It leads into the important aspects of this, and which I hope to see keep going. It's going.

Speaker 1:
[90:35] Which is that it's beyond just craft, the important part of the story.

Speaker 2:
[90:39] Oh, it's far beyond just craft. And some of the material we acquired show that it's far beyond. It is about craft. There's certainly something to learn there. I mean, there's a lot to learn. But it's more than just that. But, you know, it's constantly hadn't reading about me. Do I monitor the web? I monitor it very closely because I try to adjust the content of the books to that, still be truthful and try to keep them entertaining. But, you know, it's hard to around fools. And I know what they say about the both of you, too. Let's not be... I know that. But, you know, and I don't say I do... I interview with it despite that. The fact is, I think you're both great guys and you've helped a lot. But, you know, don't become obsessed with this. Don't go to the grave thinking that I will learn everything by the time, you know, I make my flight to heaven. Well, I... maybe you will, but I...

Speaker 1:
[91:42] I just want to learn the next piece, you know, and me pushing is just because I don't have much option here. You know, I really appreciate all that you've done, known and unknown, for the movement that people call disclosure, but really just about telling the truth. I got a bunch of messages yesterday and today. People kind of, you know, I've talked to them, I said, yeah, I'm going to do an interview tomorrow. They knew who George and I were talking about, and they wanted to thank you. People that have raised their hand or not, they want to thank you for everything that you've done, you know, within government and publicly, and put yourself out there.

Speaker 2:
[92:19] I think you were saying that to you, but it doesn't come across on the internet that way. Yeah. It doesn't come across that way at all. In fact, I'm saying if these are the fools we're dealing with, and we might as well, you know, just give up right now. But I tell you, there are the people out there who are going to keep going. There are going to be breakthroughs, but I concern both technology-wise and otherwise. But it all comes down to physics, let's say. So it is technology. I am concerned, and I am saying this right now as an old man, because the crew is getting old, Jeremy. They're going to start dying, too. What we ran into in Northern Tier, I truthfully came across with, but there's a lot more in the documents that say, we can't find out anything. This person's dead. The persons are all gone. Northern Tier has become meaningless. In other words, the saucers coming into the, purported saucers coming into...

Speaker 3:
[93:30] Nuclear missile sites...

Speaker 2:
[93:31] .nases. Yeah. In fact, I was laughingly told to by Air Force Intelligence that the security guards at DIA had blocked them from leaving unless they'd talked to me. Because I was working on, you don't know about this, but another case, and another big case involving the same thing, and corrosion into the missile siloes. But the fact is, is we failed in getting any more information than what's out there. I just hope it's compiled enough that people understand that the Internet also breeds false documents. It has plenty of false information out there, deliberate. But we had our failures too. I don't emphasize them, but I think people can read between the lines and see, well, you went to Brazil, and you went there really to get a blood sample of a particular individual. And you were promised that from the key individuals, both here and in Brazil, that that would be obtained, and it wasn't obtained. You know, because I'm quite used to having the rug pulled out from under me in this project. And sinister forces? No. I don't think so. It's just the way it's done.

Speaker 3:
[94:54] Is the ultimate... You've been optimistic in previous conversations, you know, about where this could lead in terms of human potential, not nuts and bolts.

Speaker 2:
[95:03] I am. I am. But it could be taken another way, too. The same could be... could go in the wrong direction.

Speaker 1:
[95:11] You wrote these books, and these books will resonate through time. And maybe right now, humanity's not ready to really take it on the nose with this stuff, or we're asking the wrong questions. But what you've done will last the test of time, Jim. You realize that, right?

Speaker 2:
[95:26] I don't know. I really don't. I hope it wouldn't. That's my intent. That's why my intent to keep going. But you've got your hands full to convince people even on your WEAPONIZED show. I know that. You've got a bunch of supporters. But I'm wondering how many are here for entertainment.

Speaker 3:
[95:50] And how many are here to dissuade people from believing it, that they're assigned to attack it and cast doubt about it?

Speaker 2:
[95:57] Well, they may be officially assigned to, but there's those who, I could name some names here too, that are considered expert references for these paranormal shows out there that go on. Believe me, they know nothing. They know nothing about what they're talking about. But, as I told you in our last interview, they speak with this knowledge and authority. Based on what? Who assigns them knowledge and authority?

Speaker 1:
[96:28] I gotta say, I don't feel bad. I'm pressing Dr. James Lacatski. Via you, George, has become a friend to a degree in that, you know, I know where his heart's at and know what he's trying to do, and he does get a bad rap. You know, people say, well, you can't say this, and this is, you know, Z. But you've just said A all the way up to Y, but you can't say Z. So, you know, look, I have to press him a little bit, but out of love and out of interest, and because that's what we got to find out, what's underneath the hood there. Man, he is a mystical person when he talks, but I do understand he's protecting national security issues. And I think everybody needs to understand that he's done more than he can. He's done as much as he can. And I just appreciate him. And people of online, man, give the guy a break. He doesn't have a thick skin for online stuff, like maybe you and I have to. Look at what he's done. Look at what he's given you. And it's up to us to take it from there.

Speaker 3:
[97:27] Yeah, I think the interesting thing for him is first, a legal one. He made oaths. It's his honor on the line. He made a promise he would go this far and no further. And there's a legal issue involved. He got authorization because that's the guy he is. Maybe he's like a previous generation type guy who, not previous from my generation, but that he gets permission, legal authority to reveal more and he won't go further. A more important lesson from him, both in this conversation and in others that you and I have had with him, is that ultimately nobody knows the ultimate truth. We don't know where these things are from. We don't know who built these craft. We don't know the long range implications for is there a plan for humanity? How long they've been here? What have they got in mind? As we have spoken many times in our conversations with him and with others, you know, we've long suspected nobody really knows the answers to this. You and I have been pretty far up the food chain asking the same kind of questions and we haven't found a single person who could say, oh yeah, these aliens, they're aliens, they're ETs, they're from the planet Krypton and here's why they're here and this is what they want to do. They genetically engineered us. Bob Lazar read a lot of interesting documents. He doesn't know if they were true or they were a test of some kind. We have yet to find a single person in the US government that knows the ultimate answers. What he has shared with us is as far as he can go, but he doesn't have any knowledge of what the ultimate answers are any more than we do. He certainly knows more information than we do and more information than he's made public, but he doesn't know the ultimate answers to the big questions. People can stomp and yell, stomp their feet and demand the full truth, but they're never going to be satisfied because nobody else really knows the answers to those either. I think the most interesting tidbits in that exchange that we haven't discussed further deal with Kona Blue. He made comments a couple of times, Jeremy, where he's talking about Kona Blue as if it is real. You know, the popular conception is it ended, that DHS kicked it out. Seems to be very tantalizing tidbits that at least an element of Kona Blue went forward and may still be going forward. In a previous conversation with me, he said, he sort of acknowledged that, that elements of Kona Blue did go forward. We may never know any of that, and we don't know which elements of Kona Blue did go forward, but it sounds like maybe he might be pursuing that as a future project that he hopes to make public.

Speaker 1:
[100:06] Yeah, I mean, in his book, I read through it twice, really wanted to make sure I had good questions. Lacatski reveals that he personally briefed two Department of Homeland Security officials in a skiff for three and a half hours in February of 2011, and he said that they left them shell-shocked, that's a quote, with sleepless nights. And his exact words were that Aawsap never ended, but converted to Kona Blue. So he's not like hinting at it. He straight told you that Kona Blue moved into some aspect of working on the phenomena, that it wasn't a dead program, that it's not a dead program.

Speaker 3:
[100:43] Yeah, you're right. And he said something even further in another conversation with me. He said, it has to go forward. He said, it cannot end, it had to go forward to some degree. There will never be another Aawsap, nothing that broad, but at least one element of Kona Blue is going forward. We just don't know what it is. Right.

Speaker 1:
[101:05] He can't say. He probably cannot say for national security reasons.

Speaker 3:
[101:09] Right. Exactly. I mean, we don't want him to go to prison for crossing a line.

Speaker 1:
[101:13] Well, he wouldn't. He's so fastidious about drawing that line. It's got to be frustrating. I think I saw a little bit of that today. It's got to be frustrating for him. He's like standing on a mountaintop, telling it like it is, in the most just specific, direct, you know, order. And it's got to be frustrating that people are out there in UFO land, spreading lies, making things up. It's a fantasist world in UFO land a lot of the time. And it just, it's got to really bother somebody like him, deep down, when they're coming towards looking at the sunset of their life in a way. I mean, he's not getting any younger. And he said that. And we have to transfer this information. And there's so much fantasy out there. And I've given you, like, books that are exact, which you know they are with him.

Speaker 3:
[101:59] Yeah, he is meticulous, for sure. And, you know, obviously, he's also shared with us before that he's dropping some breadcrumbs here. He wants us to fill in the blanks in some of the things that he shared with us. And I think he's discouraged to many times because people are not paying attention. They want data. Here's some. And they don't pay any attention to it. But he's, you know, connecting dots, sometimes subtly. And it goes right over people's heads. And I imagine that it gets frustrating for him. And he wonders, why am I bothering with it?

Speaker 1:
[102:32] Well, we're all frustrated when we talk about, you know, trying to figure out what's going on, especially if you get from a guy like him who says, look, I don't know anybody that knows the full picture. That's got to be kind of scary, too, you know?

Speaker 3:
[102:45] And I think bottom line in other conversations that you and I have had with him is that there is a glimmer of hope in all of this that he's shared with us, that there's something about human potential that gets revealed as a bottom line in all this kind of research that we haven't had him express to us in specific terms, but maybe he'll come back and maybe he'll share that with us in the future. Anyway, it was a great conversation.

Speaker 1:
[103:11] Yeah, thanks so much, man. Oh, I think next week, it's episode, or maybe in a week or week and a half, it'll be episode 115? 115?

Speaker 3:
[103:22] 115. Is there some subtle hidden meaning to that number?

Speaker 1:
[103:26] I don't know, just dropping breadcrumbs, man.