transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Oh, boy, is that Slingshot?

Speaker 2:
[00:26] Welcome to Slingshot Nation, everybody. Thanks for being here. We are glad you're here today. We got a little bit of a dark camera here. I see Jack sees it, so he's gonna be working on it here. But thank you very much for being here. Jack, take your time. They can deal with the shadow of me a little bit here. Just handle your business first. Thanks for being here, everybody. You guys are awesome. We have been really enjoying doing these Slingshot Nation lives as a team. We were originally doing them where it was just me. And though that was fun, it wasn't as fun as doing with you two guys. And so Slingshot Nation since then has really taken off. Jack, thanks for that, by the way. It looks way better. And also, we have our little in-studio mascot.

Speaker 3:
[01:15] Say hi, Oscar.

Speaker 1:
[01:16] Bow bow bow bow bow bow bow.

Speaker 2:
[01:18] He's now 11 weeks old. He's ticking. Today, he had an accident on the floor here in the studio. The rare accident. He's such a good dog. Such a good dog. But we are watching Oscar grow here, and we just wanted to share with you before we get the show going today. Derek, how you doing, brother?

Speaker 3:
[01:36] Good, man. As always, we just thank you all for watching. We appreciate you guys. And if you wanna join, become members, you can get extra episodes on Thursdays, the confessionalspodcast.com. You can go there and search and become a member, or you can also just do it on YouTube and click the link that Jack will probably put up somewhere below. And we thank you guys so much for everything you guys are doing. We also have a sponsor today, Jack Tony, which is so cool. We have Rumble Wallet. Let's talk about something I've just started using, Rumble Wallet. If you've ever been curious about buying and investing into crypto, Bitcoin, stable coins, USAT, or even gold-backed stable coins, but felt like it was too complicated, Rumble Wallet is an easy way to get started. You can buy, sell, and manage your cryptocurrencies all in one place, and the app is super straightforward. What really makes Rumble Wallet unique is that you can use it to tip your favorite creators, like me, or Tony, or Jack, and support the freedom first community we've built here in Rumble. Getting started is simple. Just download Rumble Wallet app. Sign up with your existing Rumble account. No need for a new login. Complete a few security steps and set up in just a few minutes. You can start with just a few dollars, and with MoonPay built into your Rumble Wallet, you can easily buy crypto using your credit card, debit card, or bank wire. So if you've been thinking about the advantages of crypto, download Rumble Wallet now. Click the link in the description or search Rumble Wallet in your App Store. Download Rumble Wallet today and move your assets to where they belong, in your hands, in your control.

Speaker 2:
[03:19] So how did that feel doing your first live read?

Speaker 3:
[03:23] I think I did a horrible job.

Speaker 2:
[03:25] I'm here to tell you, you did not.

Speaker 3:
[03:27] OK, that's good.

Speaker 2:
[03:28] You did fine. Yeah, so we're excited to have this new partnership with Rumble. We are actually live streaming right now on Rumble too. So if you're on Rumble watching us, thanks for being here. Thanks for tuning in. And if you're new to who we are on Rumble, all I can say is you're in for a ride today. We got some interesting stuff here. But I kind of want to tell people a little bit about the idea of this show, because one thing that we kind of hit on a little bit before was the fact that this show started out with just me behind the computer. And what's the point of that? And people were even asking questions of like, what's the difference between this show and the other show? And quite honestly, there is no difference. No, I'm kidding. There's a ton of difference. This show is a live show for first off. So people may be listening on the audio replay. They don't get that aspect. But we are live on YouTube and now Rumble. And it's an opportunity for us three to have more of a banter type show that is topical, sometimes loosely topical. And it gives us a chance to kind of get things off our chest that you don't normally get to have when it's just me sitting down having a one-on-one conversation with somebody that is here for a very specific reason. Like this week we had Jenny Joy in studio. We recorded with her. She'll be coming out down the road here. But we talked about her testimony and how she went from, she has an amazing testimony, but going from the industry of, I would call her more a victim of the sex industry, but that whole industry and her testimony of that, getting into witchcraft and then coming out of that whole thing, it's more of a focus on her. And yesterday we had Joseph Zian in studio. Again, more of a focus on his testimony and his perspective and what he sees coming down the road from the future. This is a show where we get to kind of vent and dump on current events to things that are just on our minds that we wouldn't want to discuss that we think maybe the audience would like. And so the underlying, I guess the motivation behind this was the Confessionals, even the logo is a six-figured handprint. It's us identifying the enemy, identifying the problem. And Slingshot Nation is us attacking and taking down the enemy and taking down the problem. And so we're identifying with the Confessionals and we're going belt to butt on with Slingshot Nation. So do you guys have anything to add to that?

Speaker 3:
[06:06] Yeah. So, I mean, it's just been like we would have great conversations since you brought me on in June about random topics and things that were going on in the news. And I think it was just a great opportunity for us to kind of like put that out there into the Internet space and let people hear us talk and banter in your thoughts and ideas about what's going on in the news. So we've already have some really deep conversations anyway. So now we have to not have our fun conversations. And Tony's like, shut up, don't say it, save it for the show.

Speaker 2:
[06:32] Save it for the show, jerks. No, but this is a lot of fun. And as somebody who last year learned about verbal processing and how some people think that way and realizing that's exactly how I think, this is a great opportunity for me to actually have an hour, two hours of just thinking. So really what people are experiencing is just me thinking out loud. And I hope you enjoy it. If it doesn't make sense, well, it didn't make sense to me either. That's why we're thinking about it. So one thing I want to kind of we're trying to cover some bases here before we get into the meat of things today. Jack, tell people about Remnant Rising, if you could, and what that's all about. Well, if you weren't ready for it, I will not have that up, but I will get it real quick. All right. So I'll just tell people while you're pulling that up. Remnant Rising is a conference I'll be speaking at in August. I don't have the dates off hand. Jack will pull it up here. tonymercel.com would have it, Jack, at the bottom. And it's a prophecy conference that I'll be speaking at in August. It's in Missouri, right, Derek? Is that right? It's in Missouri. And so we'll be in Missouri and possibly at another conference the same week in North Carolina, so people can really have an opportunity to check out maybe some of my more public appearances. Honestly, I tend to try to steer away from them. It's a new thing for me and we'll see how it goes. We'll see how it goes. So Remnant Rising, if you want tickets to that, go to hearthewatchman.com and the link for that will be in the description. If it's not now, it will be at some point during this live or on the replay. And Jack, you're currently working, so if people are on video, YouTube, Rumble, they don't get the same experience, the same consumption experience as the people on audio. The people on audio actually get a show intro, a musical show intro that I made, I mean, like 2018, I think it was, 2017 maybe. And it hasn't changed. Maybe we'll change it for Episode 1000. Maybe we'll remix it, I don't know. But it's a staple of the show, but also the outro. So we usually have music on the outro. And over the last year or so, I've been making some music that's AI-generated music. And people really like it. And so Jack was talking about making a Spotify playlist. I don't know what that's all about, so Jack can fill people in.

Speaker 1:
[09:03] Yeah, we've been seeing the outcry in the comments and just across the board. Plus, it's also good for us to kind of just have something to aggregate every song that we've created. So we're gonna work on getting not just on Spotify, but it's gonna be on Apple Music, YouTube Music, pretty much any distributor that you have to be able to listen to your music on. That's exactly where it's gonna be. And so we're gonna get that up as soon as we can. It takes some time, so as soon as we're able to, as soon as I'm able to upload everything and get it all distributed to you guys, whether it's on Spotify, Apple Music, whatever, it's gonna be there for you to listen to. And we'll make sure that when we do have it public, it's gonna be linked in the comments, it's gonna be linked in the descriptions, and we'll shout it out on the show intros and all these live shows. I'm sure we're gonna pull it up and stuff like that. But we have a lot of them. Do you have like 12 tracks or 13 tracks or something like that?

Speaker 2:
[09:51] Yeah, honestly, I think we have more than that. But we just, I don't know if we've kept track of them over time, and I've had a couple that I've made that I just never released. But anyways, so yeah, that's coming, guys. I know there's been people chomping for that. Also, I have been talking about it on the show here and there about this book that I was asked to write. And that journey started a little bit more than a year ago. And for years, I always said, I wasn't going to write a book because it's just not my thing. Turns out it might be my thing. So I'm not sure. But I did ask the publisher if I could share the book cover today, and they said yes. So if you have that available. Live premiere right now. If you're listening on Audio Replay, you lose. Here is the book cover that is coming. That's sweet. So we're calling it The Confessionals, Exposing Warring Kingdoms, The Hidden Truth Behind UFOs, Cryptids and Spiritual Warfare. And this is basically a book about my journey into coming to understand the supernatural the way I do. I learned that I could not encompass everything into one book. And I decided to really take a 30,000 square foot view and bring it into a thousand square foot view and not go a complete microscopic on it. But it starts in my childhood. As I was writing this book, I had memories come back to me that I was able to confirm with my mother that she experienced with me things that happened as a child. And to the fact that my grandfather had a huge role in my beginning stages of understanding the supernatural through his ministry of healing and just he's had miraculous signs and wonders in his ministry. He's no longer with us and I'll detail all that in the book and how all that came together. But also the call into podcasting and the fact that as I started the podcast, I wasn't totally sure why I was called to do this. And I often felt like I was stumbling through it, not doing it properly the way God wanted me to. In hindsight, I look back and I'm like, oh, this is exactly what he wanted. He wanted me to go through these different stages of the podcast so I could be understanding of what's happening today in 2026. And then we end the book sharing with what is going on in today's world and what you can do about it and what the answer to all that is. It's in one name. Everybody with me says, Jesus. And so, if you're somebody that's a reader and you think, hey, maybe I check that book out. It's coming later this year, probably in the fall. We don't have a date set, but this is the cover pending any changes. But yes, LA. Marzulli is going to be writing the foreword for it. He's very excited and actually LA. Marzulli actually has a very intimate role in my life in a very weird way that we discovered together. And it's not in the book and I'm assuming he's going to write it in the foreword, but I don't want to spoil it yet. So, especially if he doesn't put it in the book. But I did tell him, put that in the book.

Speaker 1:
[13:16] That's funny.

Speaker 2:
[13:18] But yeah, I'm very excited about it. I've been asking some people to write endorsements like Dr. Laura Sanger, Larry Ragland, and different people like that. So, that's coming later this year. And I know I've been talking about it here and there, but it actually is happening apparently. I wasn't, it wasn't real until now it's real.

Speaker 1:
[13:36] So, so cool, man.

Speaker 2:
[13:38] Great achievement. Tell me how awesome I am, guys.

Speaker 1:
[13:43] We're not going to blow smoke up.

Speaker 3:
[13:44] It's a great achievement.

Speaker 2:
[13:46] I just needed to drink some of the hot tea. So I'm learning that hot tea is helping my voice and vocal cords when I do these lives. I've long suffered from this dry voice that I start losing the ability to talk after doing it for a while. And it happens sometimes on recording. It's been happening more. But this week, the hot tea has been helping. So praise God. And hopefully, it continues. So that's the skinny on what's going on, guys. On today's show, we're gonna talk about the missing scientists. There are, if I remember correctly now, we're now up to 12. I think the official narrative is 11, but I think we identified a 12th today. Is that correct, guys? Or is that 12th part of the official narrative?

Speaker 3:
[14:38] Wasn't that the news that came out, that they had rediscovered a new...

Speaker 2:
[14:42] LeBlanc, I'm talking about LeBlanc.

Speaker 3:
[14:43] LeBlanc. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[14:45] Is he officially part of the narrative or... I don't know.

Speaker 3:
[14:48] It's a very interesting story.

Speaker 2:
[14:49] Okay, so...

Speaker 3:
[14:50] It fits the narrative of what we've already uncovered.

Speaker 2:
[14:53] Yeah, yeah. And so, I just saw myself on video. I just wanna give a shout out to the 76ers. That's why I'm wearing that. Yes! They beat the pants off of Boston the other day.

Speaker 1:
[15:00] Yes!

Speaker 2:
[15:01] It might be the only time they beat Boston in this series, but I had to wear my Sixers hat because I love that team so much. So anyways, ADHD. I did take my medicine today, but apparently it's not working. So before we get into the missing scientists, I kinda wanna explore, and I need you guys to help me explore this because I don't have... It's kind of like the scientists. There's something there, but we can't put our finger on it, right? And how many times has somebody watching right now had a situation like that happen in their life where something happened to them or around them and they know something's off? You know it, and you look at it, and you're like, you know this is off, but how? And you have to dig, and it's hard, right? So I feel like that's the case with the missing scientists and the dead scientists, some of them are dead, but there's something else going on that might have something to do with them. I can't totally put my finger on it, and it might, it might, they might be just like a piece of this web and not the actual thing. And so I came across a video, Glenn Beck was talking about space. And he played a clip from, and we don't have this available, it's fine. I'll just, Glenn would probably ding me anyways, I don't know, I don't know the guy. So I just assumed everybody was gonna ding you. But he was talking to Cash Patel before Trump won the election in 24. And they did a tongue in cheek question with him. And I don't think that when you get to that level of media, and I don't know if you guys find it funny, but like, it's weird, I find it weird how conservative media will rant against the media, saying the media this, the media that. I'm like, but you are the media, you know? It's weird, like they don't, in their own house, I don't think they actually look at themselves as media, but they are, and they are mainstream media. They're just the mainstream conservative media, right? And when you see these guys doing their shows, everything's planned, everything. Like, this show is probably the most planned I ever do for shows, and it's not planned. Like, we have general ideas, and we just kind of go with it and see where it goes. And I think maybe that's why people like it, because it's just, it's open banter, we think out loud, we let people, you know, just think with us, you know, and argue with us probably in the comments, you know, how wrong we are on something, which is fine. But when it comes to, like, a Glenn Beck platform to MSNBC, to Fox News, like, they don't waste data. When the cameras are on, it's a planned thing. And they tongue-in-cheek ask about, you know, if Trump wins, will we finally get the answers to, you know, are aliens real? And they're like, oh, yuck, yuck, yuck, yuck. But Cash said, and this is not a quote, this is me recalling from my notes that I wrote down here. He said, our most valuable assets are underwater and in space. And it's easier to talk about space aliens than it is to talk about the Loch Ness Monster. And that started this brain web in my mind of something's there. I'm not putting my finger on it right now, but I know it's there. And the more I started thinking about it, I was like, okay, our most valuable assets are underwater and in space. And from their perspective, and who's the they? The government, maybe whoever's in charge. And at that time, it was Biden, but they were hoping it would be Trump. It would be easier to talk about space aliens in conjunction with their most valuable assets being in space and underwater than it is to talk about the Loch Ness Monster, than it is to tie the Loch Ness Monster into what's going on in space and underwater. And so, it makes you, it does give you this, this. And Jack, I would like for you to see if you can do some quick research here. I just thought of this. It would be good to know, if I recall correctly, disclosure, the first actual disclosure announcement came out in December of 2017, and I believe it was in June of 2018, Trump announced Space Force. So, Trump is inaugurated on, was it January 21st, 2017, I think is when the date is. And then, almost a year later, the first whispers of disclosure comes out, and I forget what exactly it was. It might have been Lou leaving and coming out and saying something. I think Lou left in October. I think Lou quit in October and something came out in December. And then, in June of 2018, I think Trump is when he came out announcing Space Force. And it's like, okay, when that happened, I was like, are these things connected? I was driving a truck. I'm just driving a truck and thinking out loud in my truck. And I'm like, is there something here? Are they starting a Space Force for this disclosure stuff? And I was like, nah, and I brushed it in a carpet, right? But what if this is all working in conjunction? What if there's something else going on? And I wrote down here at the very end of my notes here, what if the UFO conversation is downstream from something much bigger? Could these scientists be some kind of asset or part of that web? And so if you think about space, and what's the need for a Space Force? You know, traditionally, we never had anything like that. And now we have Space Force at the same time as this disclosure is coming out, and you have all these researchers that are getting influence on our politicians, talking about space aliens. And then you have whistleblowers coming out saying, you know, NHI and all this like woo woo stuff connected to it. And it's really muddying these waters and getting people to focus in on disclosure, entities from other planets, other realms. And at the same time, I feel like there's an underlying current with that momentum that it generates to allow for the psyche of the American people to the world to understand and be more willing to greenlight funding for militaristic advancement of space. But as far as I can remember, I don't recall Space Force directly being tied to disclosure, whether it's Trump saying it to... I feel like those have relatively stayed separate even though you would think they would be together. But what if there's something else going on in space that they need to militarize space for that has nothing to do with aliens, UFOs, disclosure? And that is more of the downstream cover story of what's actually going on. This is me playing devil's advocate. I'm not saying UFOs aren't real. I'm not saying people aren't being abducted. I'm not saying these entities aren't real. I 100%, I'm well documented on that. But I'm playing devil's advocate as could there be multiple things going on? Could the government know this stuff is real? Let's use it to hide behind what we actually want to accomplish in space. And so is it that Artemis and this moon mission that we just did Artemis 2, Artemis 3 is supposed to be a moon landing. And the moon landing for Artemis 3 is supposedly a very specific location that provides a strategic advantage militaristically from that vantage point and perspective over not only space but the Earth and what's going on. And from what I understand, you can't, there's certain like international laws and treaties that you can't just claim ownership of something. In space, but if you're the first one there and you occupy it, nobody else can. So there's this like weird race into space again to occupy parts of space. And apparently China is not too far behind us, like at all. And so could we be facing another 1968 or 69 moon landing issue? Because like this is my opinion. I don't think we landed on the moon the first time. This is my running theory. I think that they rushed it to get it done so that everybody else could, it's like, okay, we're here, done. And I think they did eventually land. I'm not trying to go down that road because I know it's a whole bag of worms. But underneath that theory, could Artemis, the Artemis mission be a very similar thing where they're racing and they're going to push an envelope that may be not completely accurate to occupy space. And on that video that Beck was doing, he was even suggesting that could they have robots be the first occupants? So like we send up shuttles and it's robots building a moon lunar base, essentially, that we can then come and have it. And the idea would be that the first one to occupy this location on the moon is such an advantage strategically, militaristically, that it would set up that country for the next hundred years. And there's this whole idea of space economy that doesn't get talked about a lot. I had never heard about it till, again, this video. And there's three drivers of our economy right now in 2026. Do either one of you care to venture a guess of at least one of the drivers of global economy? If you were a country and you wanted to be the driver of economy globally, what would you want to have your hands on?

Speaker 1:
[26:02] Oil.

Speaker 2:
[26:03] Oil, energy would be one for sure. Jack, you got anything?

Speaker 1:
[26:08] Minerals.

Speaker 2:
[26:09] That would probably be a long line of energy. AI. So there's that race of AI that we've been seeing with these different countries. So you have energy, AI, and space, the space economy. And so what does that mean? I think that they're actually looking to, somebody was telling me, I think it was my neighbor told me that there is a TV show on, I think it's on Apple. People watching probably have seen it. It's probably been out for a long time and I just never watched it. But apparently there's a show on Apple where it basically war games or game plans, this idea that I think it's if Kennedy never died, what would the world look like?

Speaker 3:
[26:55] Oh yeah, you mentioned that.

Speaker 2:
[26:56] Well, no, I mentioned the Netflix show that they talked about that. I was talking about that and he brought this in. And it basically shows us getting into space and mining asteroids in space and militarizing space and occupying space in different countries and how this is all working. And he seemed really gung-ho about it. He was like, it's a really good show. And so there's that aspect, though, like that's where we're living right now. Like you can't say that that's far stretched. That is happening now. Like we live in a world right now where they're seriously talking about occupying Mars. They're seriously talking about deploying robots in the space to do work for us so we can just walk in the front door and sit down on the couch, essentially. So like we're living in a futuristic sci-fi world that we, not too long ago, growing up, was just part of the Jetsons. I might have just dated myself, but like it didn't seem possible back then and all of a sudden it's normal. And so in March 2025, the Space Force second in command said that Chinese satellites are actively practicing dog fighting in space. So there's this agenda driven when it comes to militaristic side of things that there are other countries practicing militaristic maneuvering in space with their different satellites. And in 2024, Commander of Space, Chinese satellites stalking US satellites was an issue. And could the goal be that they were tracking high value targets? So there's this possibility of things happening in space that they may not actually want to come out and say, this is what's going on. Because if you think the markets got hit with Operation Fury or it was Epic Fury in Iran, imagine if they came out and said, we are actively doing militaristic positioning and maneuvering in space because China is doing it, because Russia is doing it. And we are in a space race war to occupy space so that we can remain safe here on planet Earth. Can you imagine the chaos that that could create? And so would it be easier for them to generate simultaneously as they build Space Force for this reason, to generate all this buzz around disclosure as strategic? Doesn't it seem like at times they come out with alien stuff and it's almost like strategically placed? And again, you can't put your finger on why they're doing it now, but it seems like they're trying to distract you from something. Could it be that they're taking a very real thing, which is UFOs, things in the sky flying around, entities in the sky flying around, entities abducting people, probing people, taking them into other realms? Could it be that they know this stuff is happening and they don't really care so much to disclose that as much as to disclose it to distract you from what's actually happening in space, but at the same time allowing there to be a real reason for budgeting to allow them to push militaristic funding towards a thing that's a real threat, but they don't want it to actually collapse the system here on Earth. That was an awful, what do you guys have to say?

Speaker 3:
[30:19] I think there's a lot of really interesting aspects. The very beginning of what you talked about is these ocean having multiple aspects of these, instead of extraterrestrial, we're talking about ultra-terrestrial, right? So they're not only within our normal realms, but possibly in the oceans. Birchett mentioned what, like six or seven locations that he knew of in an interview recently, that he knew that these USOs were coming in and out of. When we started researching some of this technology of what these missing scientists were working on, they're able to create magnetic fields that actually can be submersible. So they can go through water. They can go through different planes because of the way science works around these craft. It's just really interesting. I mean, I think that there's a huge distraction for us to look to the stars when it's really here the whole time. So I'm not just trying to disagree with what you're saying, but it is. It's such a cat and mouse game. They're totally messing with our minds and trying to look like it is. It's, look over here, look over here. And we're trying to figure out where to look. But I think they're right around us and below us possibly already. And so that's the truth that they don't want us to know. And they're going to need to push it out and say it's stars and it's Mars and it's the moon. And all these, like exactly you're saying, like Artemis 3 landing on the moon, maybe that'll be a huge disclosure day because we're going to land on the moon with cameras and all this stuff and be like, look, look who's here with us. You know, it's a great opportunity.

Speaker 2:
[31:54] Hello.

Speaker 3:
[31:55] Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2:
[31:56] I help build ship. But I mean, what you're saying about the USOs, and I don't think you would disagree with me at all. I, with what Cash said, he said, let me pull my notes back up here. He said, our most valuable assets are underwater and in space. Now, we have to divorce ourselves from this. I would say we were probably conditioned to believe that if you're a politician in Washington and you're speaking on it from a position of authority, you're speaking from a position of full authority and full knowledge. I personally don't think that any of these congressmen are given full authority of knowledge. Example, a few weeks ago, Matt Gaetz coming out talking about the hybrids. Now, I don't know how far I can go into this, but I can tell you I know that meeting happened. The fact that he has come out after he's a congressman and talking about that, those in the real know of certain things and they're disclosing things to politicians, do know that one day these politicians will not be in office. They will have the ability to say certain things. And so, you're not going to disclose everything, right? That said, the whole underwater thing, I believe Burchette has been given information, has seen things, but I don't know if he's seen the entire picture. Same thing with Eric Burleson. Eric Burleson went, I believe, we'll be talking with him in June, right? Yeah. So we'll be going to DC and sitting down with Eric Burleson in June. I believe he actually went to the location where, it's in another country, and our government built a facility around a UFO that was so large they couldn't move. Okay. So I believe he went to that facility. Even, and this is where it gets so tricky with all this stuff. Even if you are seeing, even if you are seeing it with your own eyes, you're only getting a partial piece of the story. And I'll use the example, Trump walks out on, let's just call it, for lack of other words, on disclosure day, and he walks out to a podium with a great entity. You see him patting it on the back, it scratches his back, it gets on the mic and talks. You have scientists there testing it, showing it's biological. You're only getting a piece of truth, right? And so when it comes to the politicians having any information for this stuff, you take it for what it is, but I don't know if we can say that it's a complete picture. And so this USO stuff, if cash is saying our most valuable assets are underwater and in space, maybe what Burchette is talking about and what he's seen is actually one of our assets, you know? And I think he even said that like there would be outcry if people knew what he knew or what he saw. So, but like think about what's happened just this year with the advanced technology we've seen our own government deploy in military situations. And that's minor, that's minor. Those are things that they want out. The fact that they have a weapon that makes all soldiers bleed from their orifices, fall on their knees and be incapacitated to do anything and they could just walk in, take Maduro. Like that's just something that they let us know. So if they have underwater facilities and they're doing some really alchemical crazy stuff underwater, they're not going to just let that happen come out at 5 o'clock on a Monday on Fox News. Right. And then the ending of that, of him saying, it's easier to talk about space aliens than it is to talk about the Loch Ness Monster. That tells me, if what even he is saying is true, that disclosure, UFOs, UAPs could have been, not was, could have been a very specific targeted topic and avenue to go down to allow for the advancement of our most valuable assets underwater in space without actually telling people what we're doing so that when we see things going in and out of the water, it's now disclosure and it's not, these are our assets. They're now able to operate their assets in front of us with a different cover story. Again, I'm thinking out loud. But I do believe that what I'm talking about, as we go forward in this conversation with the scientists, we need to consider is this part of that web? And could the scientists have been involved in something that either they knew too much or possibly maybe they were... I don't know. I don't want to, I get very uncomfortable theorizing on people's deaths, you know? Like I was uncomfortable about that back in September, but it's concerning as to what's going on. And I know you guys have been looking into a lot of it, so I'll let you guys kind of go ahead, Jay.

Speaker 1:
[37:54] Yeah, so I think to the point of it being easier to believe that there's aliens rather than the Loch Ness Monster, right? Just for paraphrasing. It's the psychology of everyone is that in the natural and what you see, everything seems normal, right? Like there's human beings, there's buildings, there's animals, there's grass, there's trees, all this stuff. And so we see the normal, but we don't see the extranormal, the extraterrestrial, the ultra terrestrial. And we don't think that on the planet Earth that you live on, that those things could be possible because everything else seems regular, seems normal. And so when you conjecture about the Loch Ness Monster, or you conjecture about Bigfoot or Dogman or any of these things, including aliens, like you have to make it seem as though it's not something that could actually take place here. And so something coming from outside of this world to our planet makes more sense to you on a psychological basis. Probably some of that is programming from years and years and millennia of whoever controlled thought would control that aspect of it. But the reality is when you look at these things, you wouldn't think that they could be physical and tangible. But we hear the experiences constantly about Dog Man, Bigfoot, Aliens, all of this stuff being tangible in some aspect and in other aspects, it's not. So we know that there are multiple facets to this. And I think that even with the space race and all of this stuff, there are multiple facets, right? We were gonna talk about at some point, probably, some of the research that I think it was Frank Mywall, Mywall Derrick, am I correct? That he did and another physicist also did in space where they were able to basically scan and read things on a level that would be pretty much like seeing through Earth basically. So it's like, what are they seeing? Are they seeing things into the thought of having theories around deaths and things like that? Were they changing their tune in themselves as to, is it physical or is this actually something spiritual?

Speaker 2:
[40:07] Yeah. And I mean, to one, I haven't looked at this in a while, but if I remember correctly, in the UK, there is, well, at Loch Ness, there is a very, I think it's like a very concentrated or the largest cluster of UFO sightings at that location, which is just interesting in itself. And the fact that he brought up the Loch Ness monster, he could have brought up Bigfoot, you know? And so it's just like, oh, again, it would like, if there was a subtitle of this episode, it would be like, I just can't put my finger on it, like, that's the subtitle of this episode, but.

Speaker 3:
[40:47] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[40:48] And you were talking, Jack, about that stuff, and it reminded me that even just this week, and maybe we can talk about this some other time, apparently a former head over at OpenAI has come out and said that they have built three, or built two, working on a third location where they're actually opening up portals and summoning, he used the word summoning, aliens through portals, with AI, OpenAI. And that is something that he said that OpenAI themselves are doing, not somebody with using AI. He's saying OpenAI, the company themselves, have, I think one was in the US, I forget where the other one was, but in the Middle East, they're building a third one. So what's that about, right?

Speaker 3:
[41:37] In the Middle East, yeah, like in Babylon, ancient temples and stuff.

Speaker 2:
[41:43] And all of a sudden you have, you know, aliens are stopping the war and Bledsoe's prophecy is coming true.

Speaker 3:
[41:51] Oh yeah. So the lady that I think is so interesting is Amy Eskridge. So she was one of the most recently added scientists to the list. But she died back in, what was it Jack, 2022. So what makes her so unique is that...

Speaker 2:
[42:11] Hold on a second, she died in 22? I thought she just died recently.

Speaker 3:
[42:14] No, so they're opening it up more and more. So like there was a cluster of them in the last like 16, 18 months, which is a lot of them fit into this. But Amy's back in 2022.

Speaker 2:
[42:26] Is Amy the one out of Huntsville?

Speaker 3:
[42:27] Yes.

Speaker 2:
[42:29] I feel like we're living in two different timelines.

Speaker 3:
[42:32] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[42:32] That's wild. So, and continue here, but I'm just saying like, I believe Rag... Maybe I'm getting the ladies confused, but I believe Raglan did a show like seven months on Amy because Amy was talking about if I die kind of thing, and then she just died.

Speaker 1:
[42:50] Yes.

Speaker 2:
[42:50] Didn't somebody just die?

Speaker 1:
[42:53] Somebody? Well, I mean, the missing general, the two-star general.

Speaker 2:
[42:58] Oh, I'm so confused. I'll continue. Listen, just you guys roll with this. I'm here to be educated.

Speaker 3:
[43:06] So yeah, what makes Amy just like so crazy is, well, number one, she was officially ruled her death as a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Several factors have contributed in the ongoing public debate and intense scrutiny surrounding the case. In interviews and podcasts recorded prior to her death, notably in 2020 and 2021, Eskridge alleged that she and her team were being subjugated to harassment and psychological warfare, intended to stop her work on anti-gravity and exotic physics at the Institute of Exotic Science. So she starts... She founded the Institute of Exotic Science with her dad, who was also a former Marshall Labs, NASA space like engineer. So what kind of got me to go here, they recently added her to the list, but she has this whole confession of basically like, if something happens to me, I didn't do it to myself. And so, Jack, do you have that clip ready to play?

Speaker 1:
[44:06] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[44:07] So we found it, but so what's really interesting is she's the one that really spills the beans. And so, I mean, like, if you're going to take someone out, wouldn't the last interview she do seem like it would have a lot of plausible viability to what she said? Like there might be some truths that we needed to dig around and find. So what's really, so what I found is that through this interview that she did, is that there's actually, we can start seeing links of, like, these scientists and whatever it is, kind of like you're talking about the economy, how this space economy. And I think that's what makes sense, why these are all in different fields. I think there's different aspects of what's getting pushed out, which is why someone like Jason Thomas, who is just a biologist at Novartis, like doesn't quite fit the mold of all this, but like maybe it does because it's a different aspect of the same. Does that make sense? So this is why her, studying her and what she says is I think is really important to putting a good framework on all the missing scientists altogether. And she's one of the first ones to go missing in the new list that's out.

Speaker 2:
[45:10] Wow, okay.

Speaker 4:
[45:12] More suspicion about the resurfaced death of one of 11 scientists, with ties to America's space and nuclear secrets, who have mysteriously died or disappeared. Anti-gravity researcher Amy Eskridge allegedly died from a self-inflicted gunshot in June of 2022, when she was just 34 years old, according to the Daily Mail. However, Frank Milburn, a retired British paratrooper and intelligence officer, who says he was in contact with Eskridge before her death, shared shocking messages with the outlet. One dated May 13, 2022, read, If you see any report that I killed myself, I most definitely did not. If you see any report that I overdosed myself, I most definitely did not. If you see any report that I killed anyone else, I most definitely did not. Milburn says Eskridge told him that she had been the target of repeated physical and psychological attacks, including from a directed energy weapon, a device said to emit focused energy capable of causing burns or other physical harm. The researcher specializing in anti-gravity, which is a staple topic among UFO enthusiasts, also mysteriously warned in a 2020 interview that her life might be in danger. While discussing her research company, the Institute for Exotic.

Speaker 5:
[46:29] I started the Institute for one reason. One reason, the Institute. I started it as a public facing persona to disclose anti-gravity technology through. Because, I told Mark this, if you stick your neck out in public, at least someone notices if your head gets chopped off.

Speaker 4:
[46:51] Eskridge also revealed that she had been receiving threats and that she had plans to disclose information about UFOs and extraterrestrials to the public.

Speaker 5:
[46:59] Wow.

Speaker 2:
[47:00] And she stuck her head out publicly and people are noticing.

Speaker 3:
[47:04] What's super wild about her interview too, is she goes, in three months before a disclosure, my face will be out and everyone will see your face in her testimony. So in that video, she's saying that she will be out in front three months before disclosure. So now, even though she's deceased, here we are, her face, her name, her interview is back in the threadworks of this.

Speaker 2:
[47:29] And they're talking about releasing the files.

Speaker 3:
[47:30] And they're talking about releasing the files.

Speaker 2:
[47:32] Wow. What does she know?

Speaker 3:
[47:34] So she's, okay. So, man. So what's so crazy, she gets into all kinds of things. So she's talking about anti-gravity. We'll start there. Anti-gravity is real. She says that Tesla actually invented a anti, and it's not anti-gravity. That's like a misnomer. It is actually gravity manipulation. So you're creating like force fields of gravity that can actually manipulate the factual physical force of gravity. Does that make sense?

Speaker 2:
[48:05] So you're creating something that manipulates gravity itself to allow you to be perceived as gravity less?

Speaker 3:
[48:12] Right. So you're manipulating the force of gravity. So it's no longer just like a pull down, but it's actually like able to like express it in any way that it wants to move.

Speaker 2:
[48:22] That sounds almost not exactly similar to what Bob Lazar was talking about too.

Speaker 3:
[48:26] Yeah. Well, Bob Lazar, he built the craft. So like, yeah, it's the same wheelhouse of things. So she's saying they've actually successfully built it like five times. And what happens is they keep building it and then they keep kind of pushing it underneath and then they make the scientists come up with all new ideas all over again and they have to rethink, they have to rethink all of it over and rediscover these things that they've already discovered. Why? Because I think they want to suppress the technology. This is why we get into some of these scientists like Nuno in Boston, the MIT guy who was doing fusion energy, because of the aspect of energy. Again, what is in our physical realm, what is economics, fuel, energy, right? If they have fusion energy that was almost unlimited, what is that going to do to fossil fuels? What is that going to do to everything? It's going to blow up our whole world economy.

Speaker 2:
[49:19] This is going to the space economy.

Speaker 3:
[49:21] The space economy. It's moving to a space economy.

Speaker 2:
[49:23] Energy, AI and space.

Speaker 3:
[49:25] So like all these things have to be suppressed until they're ready to like put it out themselves the way they want to.

Speaker 2:
[49:30] And she's yapping.

Speaker 3:
[49:31] And she was yapping.

Speaker 2:
[49:33] Wow.

Speaker 3:
[49:34] She's saying that they even came up with this all the way back with Tesla. So you're talking about like early 1900s that he was already created.

Speaker 2:
[49:40] That's okay. So if we're going to just tie everything together like a true conspiracy theorist. Like if she's saying that they knew all this back at Tesla, who confiscated Tesla's work? John Trump. Donald Trump's uncle. And where do we have this other conspiracy? Like legend, really. It's not even a conspiracy. It's just more like a legend of Trump being a time traveler in these books. The marvelous journeys of Barron Trump or something like that, right? And that weirdness, again, there's something there. I just can't put my finger on it. The fact that she's saying that they discovered all this back at Tesla. Could they have discovered it back at Tesla because John Trump confiscated Tesla's work and now isn't it funny that Trump is president during all this?

Speaker 3:
[50:24] So in her interview, she actually even mentions time travel. And she mentions them as P-52 and P-57. So people are actually gone for long periods of time. And so she actually mentions in that interview time travel as well as a misnomer. I personally, as a faith believing man, I don't believe in time travel. I think God's ordained all the time.

Speaker 2:
[50:46] Jesus time traveled in the Bible, you know.

Speaker 3:
[50:48] Did he? Tell me about it.

Speaker 2:
[50:49] Well, at the Mountain Transfiguration, I think that was time travel.

Speaker 3:
[50:53] You think it was time travel?

Speaker 2:
[50:54] I think what Moses appearing was Moses seeing God on Mount Sinai. I think it was all outside of time. It happened right there in the garden.

Speaker 3:
[51:02] That's very possible.

Speaker 2:
[51:03] Or on Mount Sinai.

Speaker 3:
[51:05] Well, God is outside. I think God ordains the manifestation perfectly of his will to time itself. So, I don't think we can like intercede or interject anyway, even if we had the ability to manipulate timelines.

Speaker 2:
[51:17] Yeah, the total response, the total perfect response to my thing there was, well, he's gone. He's outside time.

Speaker 3:
[51:27] That's right.

Speaker 2:
[51:27] But so, you don't think that as humans, we could find a way through alchemical technological means to try to time travel?

Speaker 3:
[51:36] There could be the possibility of it, but it would all be through what our God has ordained for us already.

Speaker 2:
[51:42] Interesting.

Speaker 3:
[51:43] So, I don't think it will be outside his purview of allowance.

Speaker 2:
[51:47] Could that be like the flicking of the flea like he did at Babylon? Like, you're getting too close. Get down. Confuse their languages.

Speaker 3:
[51:55] And maybe this is what it all needs to bring forth the end days as we understand it. You know, he's allowing it because this is like the angle that it needs to come through, possibly.

Speaker 2:
[52:02] I'm not trying to derail you.

Speaker 3:
[52:03] No, it's fine. But so, yeah, so she actually mentions time travel as well with her things. So like 20 and backs were a total thing that she understood that they could do. She knew a bunch of people that did 20 and backs, things like that.

Speaker 2:
[52:16] So what do you make of that then if she's talking about it? Do you just not believe her or what from your perspective?

Speaker 3:
[52:20] I mean, so time is just a fundamental construct of our understanding of reality, right? So it's like, can time be bent? Can time be shifted? Can time be manipulated? I think that's true, right? Like can things be maybe like Moses, if he was transfigured, like was he maybe at the holy mountain with God during the book of Exodus, but then also with Jesus, right? Are these things like, is that the same kind of time and moment? Like, I don't know, like I think it's possible. I don't think they can redefine what the end will be. I don't think they can rewrite what God has ordained. And I think that's what they want to do and believe they can do. But they're going up backwards on, you know, like they got no oars on going up a creek. Like they have no chance to stop what God wants to do. That's just my thought about it.

Speaker 2:
[53:12] That's cool.

Speaker 3:
[53:13] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[53:14] Anyways, so carry on.

Speaker 3:
[53:16] No, it's really cool that you bring up Tesla. Didn't Tesla die weird too?

Speaker 2:
[53:21] Now you're putting me on the spot.

Speaker 3:
[53:22] Yeah, I am. I didn't study this one.

Speaker 2:
[53:25] Jack will search it up.

Speaker 3:
[53:26] I thought he, well, because like, how far back does this go though? So like if we're talking about like Forbidden Sciences that she's now linked in that there's five separate parts of this reverse or anti-gravity propulsion systems that have already been discovered and made.

Speaker 2:
[53:42] So they're, for clarification, you're saying that they were making them rediscover something that was already discovered. So basically like you have a Lego set, you build a really complex thing. They're like, all right, tear it all down and rebuild it.

Speaker 3:
[53:56] Yeah, that's why people go, they disappear. Then they make them re, like, so they begin to bring in new scientists and they say, hey, we have this problem, figure it out. And it's a way to kind of control the scientists. So they're stop gapping the advancement of humanity, essentially. And if they're reverse engineering it, which we'll get into too, which I think they're doing that through nefarious occult practices. But they're stop gapping that next thrust of evolution, if you want to say it that way, because they want to control all of it. And so they don't want it just to be out there. They don't want fusion energy just to be out there for you to power your house for eternity and never pay an electric bill again.

Speaker 2:
[54:32] Yeah, it would be a problem for them.

Speaker 3:
[54:33] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[54:34] Yeah. I mean, we hear different stories of people going missing mysteriously that we're working on different types of technologies like that too. I mean, I think back in the 90s, there's a guy who built a car that ran on water and they're like, nope, not this guy, get him out of here. You know? And so I think that's, I mean, this is, I don't think this is beyond the scope of anybody's comprehension. You know, I think people watching right now, they're like, yep, I'm tracking, you know, this is definitely something if they want to make you disappear because you're not convenient for them, they will. And we have plenty of things that we could point to back in throughout history that that has seemingly been the case. I mean, look at the long list of people that have gone missing that have been, you know, the spiderweb ties to the Clintons. And that's just one family group. And now we're talking about this. So this is not something that's, you know, in the past, this is now present and right now it's happening before our eyes. I think within the last week, they added somebody to the list. This is something that's active. And so it's important that we uncover it.

Speaker 3:
[55:36] So yeah, and then she also mentions a lady named Ning Li. So she was a Chinese American physicist. And so she did research on antigravity in the 90s. And so like, they pretty are positive that she actually, again, rediscovered antigravity. So by the way, she goes missing for 14 years. And so the only thing we have about her is that like, randomly, there's like two different, online, there's two separate dates of her death. One is she got hit by a car in like 2017. And another one is like, she just died in like 2021.

Speaker 2:
[56:06] Really?

Speaker 3:
[56:07] Yeah, so there's like this like weird, again, so we don't know if she went back to China. Is this like an espionage thing? Like you said, China is like right on the heels of us. Are they using these scientists and then luring them over for foreign agents to use and to build their own mechanisms with? That's a key player in this whole process as well.

Speaker 1:
[56:28] And Ning Li, she worked at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. She was at the Center for Space Plasma. An aeronomic research in the 90s. So she was working in a very similar field, if not the same field, in the exact same area as Amy was as well.

Speaker 2:
[56:45] Wow. Wow. I mean, that's stunning because now Amy's gone. It was like, was, what's her name? Ling Li?

Speaker 3:
[56:56] Ning Li.

Speaker 2:
[56:57] Ning Li? Was she her predecessor, you know? I mean, they were talking about tearing down the house five times.

Speaker 3:
[57:08] Well, her dad, I forgot, Mr. Eskridge, I forgot his first name, but Amy's dad actually worked for the Marshall Labs with NASA, and they were doing the same reverse engineering or engineering of propulsion labs. So they created an anti-gravity, like he has his own copyrighted patent. And then from that, that's why they started their own company, which was the, what is it? Quantum, do you remember where her company was?

Speaker 1:
[57:37] With her dad?

Speaker 3:
[57:37] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[57:39] Isn't that the, what the heck is it called? Exotic Science, is that what you're talking about?

Speaker 3:
[57:43] Oh yeah, the Institute for Exotic Science. So it's because they had that patent, and then they started the Institute of Exotic Science. So she's, her and her dad were the heads of this whole thing with Exotic Science, which goes all the way back, and when she talks about all this Alabama stuff, that goes to Warner Von Braun. Warner Von Braun, like he started all of Huntsville. Like this is where all of this began. Like he was, he started in Huntsville in the 50s and built up everything that we understand that's there.

Speaker 2:
[58:09] So like, what we know as space research, NASA, like that started in Huntsville?

Speaker 3:
[58:17] Yeah, so much of it's Huntsville. That's why she kept making the case in the interview that Huntsville is the biggest deal that no one knows about. Like this is where all the head science is done. This is where research is done. I mean, she's like possibly extraterrestrial beings, like all of it, it's all in Huntsville.

Speaker 5:
[58:34] Wow, wow.

Speaker 2:
[58:36] This is why Larry is so like plugged in on it.

Speaker 3:
[58:39] Oh yeah.

Speaker 2:
[58:39] I mean, it's in his backyard. Oh yeah. People should definitely, if they're not doing it now, they should go and follow the big picture with Larry Ragland on YouTube. He's going to be covering a lot of this. I was just talking to him today. He's very plugged in and invested, so definitely they should be checking him out.

Speaker 3:
[58:59] Yeah. So then she was actually talking about disclosure, and then she actually moves into extraterrestrial, and she goes, it's not even that they're extraterrestrials, they're ultra terrestrials. And she goes, they look like you and me, but they're better.

Speaker 2:
[59:13] Wow. That's the hybrid program.

Speaker 3:
[59:15] That's the hybrid program. And so, because she was actually beginning to study recombinant protein engineering gene therapy, that was Jason Thomas, right? She was actually also studying deeply into biology and these aspects as well. So, see these tie-ins? See how we're beginning to see these tie-ins? Like, she has so many degrees, and all of a sudden, she also is doing like biology. How like, we're seeing this build up of whatever it is they're trying to make, and that's why it's all different facets of, like you said, their economy that they're building.

Speaker 2:
[59:45] Do you think that, so this is nothing to do with this list, but somebody that's not on this list, like a Bob Lazar, I mean, let's just operate from the foundation of, Bob Lazar is not lying. I know some people don't believe him, I do believe him. But do you think that he was just successful at putting his head out in the public big enough, long enough that he really can't chop that one off? I mean, because I mean, what we know of Amy is based off of that basically that the things that we're discussing is that one podcast interview she did, it's not like it was Joe Rogan. It wasn't even The Confessionals. You know, it was a remote call. They both looked like they were in their closets. And so like if you're talking about putting yourself out publicly, yeah, like maybe she didn't do it large enough.

Speaker 3:
[60:36] With Bob, I mean, Jack may have something to say too, but maybe it's all narrative. Maybe he's saying the right things and not saying too much.

Speaker 2:
[60:46] That's one thing he doesn't even say himself. He doesn't like talking about things that he's never seen. He doesn't venture outside of what he's experienced and what he knows. And that might actually be the safe cocoon that he's in because what he's experienced and what he knows is actually old compared to what's going on now.

Speaker 3:
[61:04] And what's really unique with Amy is that with her dad, she was in this old Alabama Huntsville, like ex-NASA engineering society. Almost like a cult.

Speaker 2:
[61:16] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[61:16] I mean, so she would go, she said she went to these parties where it's all these like big old wigs of old men who've already done all the research. They've already discovered all the things. I mean, like they've like, and they're talking and she's there just listening and understanding the depths of all this as a young child.

Speaker 2:
[61:34] So does she venture into discussing how maybe she was almost like predestined or designed to be what she is?

Speaker 3:
[61:44] Well, she has really weird connections with her homeschooling. So I guess she got taken out of public school and then she says she went and started homeschooling. Her dad took her homeschooling, but it was Bill Dent, Edward Taylor and Jim Ashburn. And I guess she says that those guys were involved with MKUltra and stuff. And they were also like engineers. I guess Bill Dent is someone that actually became her overseer 30 years later and was in charge of her homeschool group.

Speaker 1:
[62:12] Wow.

Speaker 3:
[62:12] So like they were definitely conditioning and working to create a product with her that they wanted.

Speaker 2:
[62:18] It's got MKUltra vibes all over it.

Speaker 3:
[62:20] All over it, dude.

Speaker 1:
[62:21] Yeah, Derek, you should mention about, speaking of MKUltra, what she said about those three individual scientists that were killed on the campus.

Speaker 3:
[62:32] Oh, well, that was later, or the campus?

Speaker 1:
[62:34] Yeah, yeah, but she talked about that specifically.

Speaker 3:
[62:36] Go ahead, Jack.

Speaker 1:
[62:37] No, no, I'm saying, because I don't have the reference to it in front of me or anything, and I didn't look into that.

Speaker 3:
[62:42] I don't have that specific one in my notes.

Speaker 1:
[62:43] So you had mentioned earlier...

Speaker 2:
[62:45] Just openly talk about it, you two.

Speaker 1:
[62:46] Yeah, I am. You mentioned that she said on an article or something like that about the three scientists, Bishop, something else, something else.

Speaker 3:
[62:55] Amy Bishop.

Speaker 1:
[62:56] Yeah, well, those three scientists were killed on that on that premises that she works on. And they were killed in 2010. You said that she specifically stated that if I get killed or if I die, I am not like these people. I didn't do it to myself.

Speaker 3:
[63:13] Do you have that news clip? Because that was actually in that quote from the Australian one that we played, because that quote that was on the text.

Speaker 1:
[63:19] I don't have it, but I can find it.

Speaker 3:
[63:20] That's okay. So it mentions, though, so we looked it up, and so it was a mother of four, Amy Bishop, ends up bringing a 9mm to a conference room and ends up shooting three people dead in the middle of a conference room because they allegedly didn't retenure her at her position. So she makes the case that, and this is her from this podcast, that it's not only the aspect of being killed, but like they will make it look like you killed yourself, or they'll make it look like, or somehow control you to kill other people.

Speaker 2:
[63:56] You know, that is something that probably, and we're probably not equipped to do it today or maybe ever, but it should be dissected. Like something, that case, Bishop, right?

Speaker 3:
[64:07] Amy Bishop.

Speaker 2:
[64:08] Amy Bishop. So she's talking about, or you're talking about the fact that the narrative is that because they didn't tenure her. So we're talking about somebody who's highly intelligent, who probably in this field is going through different evaluations to make sure they're still job capable, all that stuff. And they just so happen to just go off their rocker and kill everybody because of something like that. I mean, I know people who have not gotten tenure. I know people who are in the collegiate realm. I mean, I guess. That's the thing. You just point your finger. I say, there's something here. I just can't put my finger on it. Because it's like, you can say, okay, I guess. But a mother of four, I mean...

Speaker 1:
[64:55] There's a lot to lose.

Speaker 2:
[64:56] There's a lot. There's a real thing called a mother's instinct. And to put that so far down in your belly that you can't feel it and you commit the ultimate crime of taking somebody else's life or multiple people and also lose your children. And did she get arrested or die in this process? Self-harm. How convenient.

Speaker 3:
[65:25] Well, and there's another parallel case to this, which we're going to get into later, that also ties in with this.

Speaker 1:
[65:30] I just want to touch on that real quick though, because it's like, people do really snap. There are people who have legitimate psychotic breaks and they snap, and there are moments that you just can't handle something. But the pressure of not getting tenure, or let's say the pressure of seeing your colleague or your classmate from college generate some sort of new technology, who you knew this guy 20, 25 years ago, those are not typical methods for psychotic break. Tenure is important, but it's not so important that you are losing your job or haven't been able to progress in your field. You still have progressed. You just haven't secured tenure. So the point being, if we also take into account things that other people have said, right, Amy said she was attacked by a DEW, a direct energy weapon, right? And we know that people like Isaac Cappy said that he was hearing things that were being projected into his mind. It's not necessarily that people have to be going through an MKUltra program in order to have these breaks and to go through these situations and commit these heinous acts. They could be targeted by these specific projections into your mind to then tell you, you need to go do this.

Speaker 3:
[66:49] So you're saying like remote MKUltra almost, where there's like a technology to it that they've advanced so far that you don't actually have to sit and be suffered through, but you can like be exposed to waves that will essentially create your...

Speaker 2:
[67:03] The Cappy thing, there were people on both sides of that and they say he's crazy and he wasn't crazy. The thing is like when he said that he was hearing voices in his head, that wasn't crazy talk because he was driving down the highway with somebody and it started happening to him and the person in the car with him verified, I hear those voices too. He was under attack from some kind of direct weapon.

Speaker 3:
[67:28] And he was driving by a military base.

Speaker 2:
[67:30] Yeah. And so, Jack, like what you were just saying, Jack, I mean, that certainly could, and maybe I misheard you, but like, I mean, I think that certainly could be a case where you come under attack of some kind of sci-fi weapon that is not known publicly. And you wind up doing something that is beyond logical comprehension for you as an individual. We also see the idea of these different shooters that we have. I've talked about this years ago and probably sprinkled it throughout the decade of doing the show, that there are people who have been, I think we've all been exposed to mass manipulation through media and there are certain people who are biologically compatible for this manipulation. And it's not like, oh, Derek, say I'm daddy government. I know Derek biologically compatible. We're gonna target him specifically with our manipulation through the media to get him to do what we wanna do. I think what they're doing is they're exposing just the masses to this manipulation through media and they know the odd game, the numbers game. There are people out there biologically susceptible to this specific type of manipulation that will trigger them if we say certain words to get them to go do certain things. And I think that's why when you see one pop off, there's often what they'll call a copycat, but maybe it's just residual from what they just did.

Speaker 1:
[68:54] Yeah, and I mean, the other thing too is like they, it's always somebody with a very minute or linear connection to this person from distance, right? So it's like, in the case of the person that we're gonna talk about, which is, I don't remember who, Nino, right? Nino's the one that was-

Speaker 3:
[69:08] Nuno.

Speaker 1:
[69:09] Nuno, Nuno was killed by Carlos. And the thing with that is like, that was 25 years or 20 years prior that they were classmates. Like, how is that, you're so distantly connected, and at the same time, that's the same person that was the brown shooter. So, it's another way for them to them say, this person had a psychotic break, they went and just killed people. You know what I mean?

Speaker 3:
[69:34] And one last connection before we jump into these other scientists that are missing just a little bit. Because again, I think she's really the key to understanding all these connections, is that she actually says in that interview that there's a connection between MIT and SRI. So like-

Speaker 2:
[69:51] Define SRI, please.

Speaker 3:
[69:52] So SRI is the Stanford Research Institute. That is basically where they got Project Stargate, where they were astral project through the CIA. Those are unclassified documents now. And that was all through the Standard Research Institute. So she's making the connection of MIT and SRI. She's like, all these MIT or SRI guys, like they're all like basically like MKUltra guys.

Speaker 2:
[70:15] You know, a little branch to that, that probably has nothing to do with this specifically, but it just shines more of a light on MIT. So what's the thing that we in this room have said that when this happens, we're not doing it. We don't know what's gonna happen, but you know, we're willing to fall behind, become a caveman, lose everything, then do this one thing. It would be Neuralink's brain chip, right? Like that's something that we talked about. So MIT recently came out with a mouthpiece that connects to your brainwaves. And I guess, I don't know if you control it with your tongue, but it's an alternative to actually getting the implant that you can just pop in a mouthpiece and control computer screen and everything like that. So again, MIT, what's going on there? And is there an agenda there? That's why like, in reality, what's that meme? It's from a TV show. The guy who stands in front of the board and he's acting all crazy.

Speaker 1:
[71:15] Oh yeah, it's from Always Sunny.

Speaker 2:
[71:17] Always Sunny, yeah. Like that's not fake. Like if you really start looking at everything, like this word vomit that we're doing right now, can you imagine the board that what it would look like if just what this conversation is, not to mention everything else that has weird connections to each other?

Speaker 1:
[71:34] I mean, the screen behind you does a pretty good job of that.

Speaker 2:
[71:37] Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

Speaker 3:
[71:40] So yeah, and then mind control with MIT, these connections, I think, are really important. As we move forward to this next, I made a little graph. And so I actually was looking into Jason Thomas because I felt like he didn't quite fit. Like he's from Noverdes, he's an executive director of like biological research, things like that. So the only research that I found that was tied in is they did research on mice with cancer and then like how that would tie in in space, things like that, that was like 10 years ago. But they're also like Luciferase, like all that kind of like is in that wheelhouse of things. But like we were talking about genetic engineering, genetic modifications. It's like where does the truth really underlie? There's a missing piece to the disclosure that I think is biological, that they're not telling us, and I think that's where he kind of fits in. It's kind of in the unknown realm, like you said, of the space economics.

Speaker 2:
[72:41] Wow, that's wild. So even him though, there is a weird loose tie in.

Speaker 3:
[72:48] Okay, so I went in and I was digging around, and I found, and I have this graph that I made.

Speaker 2:
[72:55] Dude, you've done such good work on this.

Speaker 3:
[72:56] I appreciate it. I appreciate it. So check this out though. So I made one, two, three and four points, okay? So the alleged shooter for Nuno was Claudio Valente, okay? So he's the Portuguese. He was a co-student with Nuno in Portugal. And they spent a couple of years studying together, and they both came to MIT together. Claudio ended up leaving, and like he said, it's like 20 years later, and then the motive, which they actually have not actually expressed a motive for the killings or anything like that. There's video recordings of him talking in Portuguese, and he's like, oh, this is the only way people will know, but there's no direct motive in that at all of what he did and why he did what he did. Okay, so I only put these bullet points here because I just want to make it relatable to the first point. So if you look, Jack, I don't know if you can pull that up. Okay, so if we look at this, number one, that's when Jason Thomas goes missing from his home, and it's the same thing that we see. He leaves his wallet, his phone, and all this stuff.

Speaker 2:
[74:08] He goes- Where is this?

Speaker 3:
[74:09] Number one.

Speaker 2:
[74:10] Yeah, I know, but like, where?

Speaker 3:
[74:11] Massachusetts. This is Massachusetts, okay? So this is northern Boston. He goes missing on 12-12, okay? 25. We know from records that Claudio Valente was actually in the Boston area for a few months. He said he waited six semesters to accomplish this or whatever in his tapes. So he's been in the zone for a long time. So 12-12, Jason Thomas goes missing. He's found three months later after a local lake is thawed out and then they find his body in it. Okay? But 12-12, he goes missing. 12-13 is the Brown University shooting. That's number two down in Providence, which is just outside of Massachusetts. Okay? That's linked to Claudio Valente. Two days later on 12-15, and spot number three, is where Nuno Larrero is killed at his house. At the front steps of his house, he is shot dead.

Speaker 2:
[75:11] Wow.

Speaker 3:
[75:12] Okay? So this guy does a mass shooting, national reported, still has two more days to go shoot a scientist in downtown Boston. They can't catch this guy.

Speaker 2:
[75:24] He has very specific targets.

Speaker 3:
[75:25] Yes. And then three days later on 12-18, that's point number four, he drives up just past the border into Rhode Island and he ends up going to his storage unit, does the confession tapes, and then ends up taking his own-

Speaker 1:
[75:45] Yeah, his life.

Speaker 3:
[75:46] His life, yeah. What I can say exactly.

Speaker 1:
[75:49] But-

Speaker 3:
[75:49] Pretty good. So I only say all this because of the coincidence of timing to me, is to me, I would see Jason Thomas as possibly part of this whole little string of violence that has occurred. Wouldn't you? I mean, like, look at where it's located. Look at the timeline of it. The day before the shooting, we have the scientist goes missing. And then two days after the shooting, then we have Nuno being shot at his home. And then three days later, finally, they find him from a Reddit post even, from a homeless guy. Yeah, that's what it is. Some homeless guy on Reddit says, oh, I think I know the car you're looking for or something. It's like great FBI work, guys. You're doing a good job. And that's how they find it with a self-confession of killing Nuno and everything and the shooting. But there's no motive to it at all. So like, what's the motive though? So again, we go into this like MK Ultra aspect of like, was Claudio, was he in somehow engaged in this MK Ultra aspect?

Speaker 2:
[77:01] I wouldn't say it's a far-fetched idea.

Speaker 3:
[77:04] I don't, right. I have no proof. These are just coincidental evidences that we came across.

Speaker 2:
[77:09] Yeah, and I think it's important. Like this isn't a court of law. We don't need to operate a certain way. We can just throw out ideas and, you know, here's open pontifications. And I think that's what we're doing today. We're trying to do it respectfully, too.

Speaker 1:
[77:20] Yeah, and I think, just to clarify, Derrick's, like the way that he tied that in, which is really good, it's like, there may be that level of something that is biological that we don't know that hasn't been disclosed yet. That way, it's all tied together, right? Because this is still an outlier. This case of Jason Thomas is still kind of an outlier because his research and his scientific work isn't necessarily in any of these propulsion systems or energy fields or anything like that. But he still was possibly, on the biologic side, part of maybe the hybrid programs or what he was working on had something to do with that as a generality. So I think that was a fantastic tie in there.

Speaker 3:
[78:00] And I hate to say it, but wouldn't a shooting be a great distraction from the narrative of two separate scientists getting shot by the same guy? You know what I mean? What's all the news going to focus on? It's going to be the school shooting. And rightfully so. So I lay that out there. I mean, maybe there's someone smarter than me with more access to good files. I could actually dig this in a little deeper, but it's really weird that it happens the day before the Brown shooting. The timeline is crazy. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[78:29] I mean, it's less than a week.

Speaker 3:
[78:30] Yeah. It's a day before the shooting and just three days before Nuno gets shot.

Speaker 2:
[78:34] Yeah. That's good work.

Speaker 3:
[78:36] Yeah. So that's just the one aspect. And again, that's why I really am so grateful for Amy's, everything that she just like talked about in that interview, because it helps give us clues and how to connect some of this stuff together.

Speaker 2:
[78:50] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[78:51] Because it seems ridiculous. Like, who is ever going to tie in SRI with MIT, with like secret societies in Huntsville, with ultra terrestrials and biological DNA, and like all this crazy stuff together. Like she's just spilling the beans on it.

Speaker 2:
[79:07] It's so wild that it just, it's every, it's, everything's connected. And we're just trying to figure out. Here's the thing. We're trying to figure out how, but more than likely we're going to be too late to the party. And if we ever figure out how it's too late. Do you, before you go on to the next person, wherever you're going, like, do you guys feel a little weird even doing this show and doing the digging that you, that you're doing and talking about it? Because, like, it makes me a little nervous.

Speaker 3:
[79:38] I get a little nervous, you know?

Speaker 2:
[79:40] Like, golly.

Speaker 3:
[79:42] I love my life.

Speaker 2:
[79:43] What did you get me into?

Speaker 1:
[79:45] Yeah, everybody just say on camera, you're not suicidal.

Speaker 2:
[79:48] One, two, three. I'm not suicidal.

Speaker 1:
[79:51] There you go. I'm not on camera, but that's okay.

Speaker 2:
[79:55] Jack's like, there goes the algorithm. We just said the word.

Speaker 1:
[79:57] That's okay.

Speaker 3:
[79:59] We're an hour in, and we should be okay.

Speaker 1:
[80:00] The other thing I wanted to bring up about Jason, because we're still kind of floating on his scenario, he had active DOD contracts at the moment, and that doesn't necessarily mean that he was working on anything like, like I said, propulsion or anything like that, but he had active contracts. He left his phone, wallet, keys, and didn't feed his dogs either. It's the same exact concept as some of these others that we're gonna talk about as well, who had left without any of these things. So it is still like perplexing, right? It doesn't, and he also said he wasn't suicidal as well. So.

Speaker 2:
[80:35] It's interesting. Could there be an angle where everything that we're talking about here, that these people are being abducted by, you know, foreign agents and, you know, being used to advance other countries' scientific advancements, it's also interesting that the way you're describing, leaving the wallet, the keys, all that stuff. And I'm not saying this is a missing 411 thing. I think we just talked about that last week a little bit, but it is interesting, the similarities.

Speaker 1:
[81:07] Right.

Speaker 3:
[81:07] Patterns, the patterns that are there.

Speaker 2:
[81:11] And could the commonality be abduction, you know? So like maybe, you know, this is an abduction on a natural humanistic level, you know, a foreign agent coming, abducting, but these missing 411 cases is an abduction situation where, you know, something other is abducting, like the local guy. I just, I always think about him, Michael.

Speaker 1:
[81:34] Michael Herron.

Speaker 2:
[81:35] Michael Herron, because it's striking how similar his case is to these things. Now I'm not saying, because he, I don't think he was, I think he's like a local business owner. He didn't have any ties to this kind of stuff, but you know, he left his keys, wallet, phone in his truck, drove down the road and then he's gone.

Speaker 3:
[81:52] He wasn't supposed to go mow the lawn at his cabin.

Speaker 2:
[81:54] He wasn't planning on being gone. He clearly wasn't going to be gone long, because you know, in this day and age, you don't leave your keys, wallet, and phone in the truck if you're going to be gone long. Yeah, he, and they just found his four wheeler in the on position out of fuel, like something just took him. So could we be dealing with an abduction case in both situations? I don't know. Just something to observe.

Speaker 1:
[82:19] Yeah, and so just real quick too, something that came up with General William McCaslin's case. People mentioned that when somebody of that nature, of that level of clearance and everything like that, or people who have connections to DOD, CIA, whatever, when they go missing and they leave behind wallet keys, phone, stuff like that, it's with intention to not be found. Like they, if they're specifically the ones that are going and they're leaving, in his case in particular, it could have been that he stumbled across something or was privy to something that he wasn't supposed to be and was protecting his wife or whoever, because she says that he is, like, there's no strange connections to anything that he was doing and yada, yada, yada. But there is the potential that because of the way that he left, leaving all of his stuff behind, that as well as others being missing, they may have left intentionally to protect others rather than because they were abducted. But I do agree, and I'm not saying that that's not an idea, because some of the things that we might get into with what these people were working on specifically, I think Monica, those are the things that might have completely, they may have made foreign governments or foreign agencies very upset because of the independence then that we would have away from them, so.

Speaker 2:
[83:43] You brought up, what was his name, McCaslin?

Speaker 1:
[83:46] William McCaslin.

Speaker 2:
[83:47] McCaslin. And I just want to revisit this since we did talk about this on a previous week. A local, I do want to be careful how I describe all this, because I got somebody else in trouble once by talking too much. So, there is a connection to McCaslin, the search for him, and Oak Ridge. And there are people, obviously, if there's a connection, there's people involved. There's somebody that is involved, or involved in the case, that was in communication with a mutual person that I know. I'm doing really good right now, I'm spilling it out.

Speaker 3:
[84:39] You're doing pretty good.

Speaker 2:
[84:40] With a mutual person that I know.

Speaker 3:
[84:42] Waiting to stop you.

Speaker 2:
[84:44] If you gotta stop me, just go da-da-da-da-da-da. That said, I'm looking at my text messages here. It would have to, until I saw classified footage this week of something in the Mexico desert that was sent to my department, I had to send a DOE unit there to Albuquerque, and they are currently undergoing psych evaluations due to experiences they had in simply scouring the desert and taking element recordings. So there was some kind of search that is going on for him and it required psych evaluations due to the experience that were had by the crew. And this person has a wife who was present when this was being discussed. And she said, quote, I know the full story and it's demonic. And so like there's with one of these people missing that you just brought up. Could there be, and maybe she's wrong. Maybe she's wrong. Maybe this person who texts me that, you know, wants to have lunch with me soon.

Speaker 1:
[86:05] Like it's worth conjecture, right? I mean, that's the whole point of this is we're not like claiming that anything is in particular, but like, I mean, it's what we, it's what I said at the beginning, or early on when we start talking about this is that maybe they all in their own way stumbled across something that made them start to think and respond to things as though it's supernatural and not physical.

Speaker 2:
[86:27] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[86:27] Right. Because I mean-

Speaker 2:
[86:28] I think that's what caused the disappearance. That's what you're saying. So like if they evolved in their thinking from a scientific mindset to all of a sudden they're actually catching the drift of the supernatural and if that becomes an issue they get disappeared. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[86:43] Exactly. That's where- Interesting. But it also doesn't mean that like they believe in God or anything. It just means that like they were seeing things in a different way. I mean, it's just like CERN and all these portals we're talking about with OpenAI. It's like these people are messing with things that are outside of this realm of understanding. And so like they may see the supernatural with the atheistic or the scientific lens, but they're still seeing it. And if they were going to come out about it, like Amy in particular, said she was going to release UFO information and extra extraterrestrial information, but had quashed that because of, I forget what it was. There was some reason why she didn't release it. I think somebody had basically told her not to. She was going to get, you know, get murked or whatever. Which, you know, but yeah, so I mean like it doesn't mean that they're looking at it as though they believe in God or anything. It's just that they could see it now for what it is, but from their own lens. Kind of like you talk about too with people seeing things from their own lens in the same room in a discussion.

Speaker 2:
[87:41] So, yeah, you definitely don't need to believe in God to want to be a God and to do God like things, right? Like you can be in love and infatuated with the idea of being able to have the capabilities and the ability to perform like a God, essentially becoming a God and not actually believe that God exists, but the idea of a God you want to become.

Speaker 3:
[88:04] Yeah. What if there's even like, we're talking about like foreign agents, like what if there's a extraterrestrial agent, like as the same way, like there's a governance that's calling these scientists to them.

Speaker 2:
[88:17] Intergalactic governance.

Speaker 3:
[88:18] Intergalactic. Yeah, like just an idea. Like you're talking about like this demonic and all this stuff. So like, what if they're actually choosing to like say like, hey, let's go, instead of working for humans, let's go work for these guys. And they're being asked to come, I don't know, maybe that's why they go missing. I don't know. I'm just, again, these are just possibilities, right? Like if they exist and we're close to understanding that they are out there, why aren't they in play as well?

Speaker 2:
[88:50] I think you and me have to have a conversation at the show. I'm just kidding. I think Jack knows where I'm thinking.

Speaker 1:
[88:58] Yeah, that was funny.

Speaker 2:
[89:00] No, you're good. Let's carry on.

Speaker 3:
[89:03] Real quick, I just want to revisit the recombinant protein engineering idea of it, though, because it's really cool. So that is directly related to directed evolution, transforming of host cells, and rapid purification. So whatever they're messing with is like gene changing, it's gene editing, it is morphing of genetics.

Speaker 2:
[89:25] And who's this?

Speaker 3:
[89:26] This is the recombinant protein engineering. So this is kind of like Jason Thomas, this is stuff that Amy was actually mentioning.

Speaker 2:
[89:32] And say again what he's messing with?

Speaker 3:
[89:34] The recombinant protein engineering.

Speaker 2:
[89:36] And what is that?

Speaker 3:
[89:39] It involves with directed evolution, transforming of host cells, and rapid purification.

Speaker 2:
[89:48] That sounds transhumanistic.

Speaker 3:
[89:51] 100%.

Speaker 2:
[89:54] Interesting. I think that transhumanism plays into obviously the future of where we're going, but I do think it has a role in disclosure. Go ahead, we're going to say Jay.

Speaker 1:
[90:04] No, I was going to say it almost kind of sounds like CRISPR, like they're trying to make their own CRISPR technology. Because, I mean, that's not our technology in the US.

Speaker 2:
[90:13] So who has that technology?

Speaker 1:
[90:15] I think it's China, right?

Speaker 2:
[90:16] I'm not sure.

Speaker 1:
[90:17] OK, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I mean, maybe it's advanced.

Speaker 2:
[90:20] It's happened once before.

Speaker 1:
[90:22] Just once.

Speaker 2:
[90:23] Just once.

Speaker 3:
[90:25] But should we get into, since we're talking about like weird occurrences with people leaving stuff, is that the new scientist that we just found out about in Alabama?

Speaker 2:
[90:34] Yeah, LeBlanc.

Speaker 3:
[90:35] LeBlanc. Yeah. Go ahead.

Speaker 2:
[90:37] I don't have that up.

Speaker 3:
[90:38] You don't have it up.

Speaker 2:
[90:39] No. Stalling, stalling, stalling, stalling.

Speaker 1:
[90:43] It's in our chat.

Speaker 2:
[90:44] Is it in our chat?

Speaker 1:
[90:45] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[90:45] OK. Scrolling, scrolling, scrolling. Ah, there it is. OK. Put me on the spot. I'm so sorry. No, I don't think you are. He's like, I'm going to get him. All right. So our brother Larry Ragland sent this over to me this morning. I sent him a voice memo and I said, hey, man, this is what we're doing. I know you're hot on the case. I had one percent chance of this being possible. But if you so happen to be free today and you're just watching grass grow, why don't you get in your truck and drive up here and join us? And he said, unfortunately, I'm not watching grass grow today. But he did send me this article published on April 23rd, 2026. NASA nuclear engineer found dead and burned Tesla after vanishing from his Alabama home last year. Now, Derek, I'm going to want you to make the connection that you made at some point here with what you found with him then. You know what I'm saying, right?

Speaker 3:
[91:45] Oh, that was actually debunked.

Speaker 1:
[91:47] Yep.

Speaker 2:
[91:47] Oh, bomber.

Speaker 3:
[91:49] Same exact name, though.

Speaker 2:
[91:51] You should have just not debunked it. You should have just...

Speaker 1:
[91:53] Is it his dad?

Speaker 2:
[91:54] It would have been... It would have made for such a great show.

Speaker 3:
[91:56] I couldn't find the link. I didn't have enough time to research it.

Speaker 2:
[91:57] It would have made for a good show, Derek. You stop doing research and when you find something that debunked something, just pretend you didn't read it, okay? Just go with it. Gosh. The mysterious death of a high-level Nasa nuclear scientist in rural Alabama has become a focal point for federal investigators looking into a string of disappearances and fatalities within the aerospace and nuclear research communities. Joshua LeBlanc, a 29-year-old aerospace technologies electrical engineer, died on July 22nd, 2025 in a violent single vehicle accident in Huntsville. Man, I really wish he didn't debunk that because that was really good. That was a really good one. According to reports from Alabama... I'm still going to want you to say it and just say it's debunked because... Okay. Golly, that was so fun. According to reports from the Alabama law enforcement agency, LeBlanc's Tesla veered off the road at approximately 2:45 p.m. striking a guardrail in several trees before being consumed by a massive fire. The intensity of the blaze left both the vehicle and LeBlanc's body unrecognizable, requiring forensic experts to confirm his identity three days later. The circumstances preceding the crash immediately raised red flags for LeBlanc's family. He had been reported missing at 4:32 a.m. that same day after failing to report for his duties at NASA. His family noted that he had uncharacteristically left his wallet, and there's that sign again. Three threads. His family noted that he had uncharacteristically left his wallet and cell phone at his residence. Data recovered from the Tesla's Sentry Mode later revealed the car had been taken or had been parked at Huntsville Airport for four hours on the morning of his death. A detour his family insists was not part or not planned, scheduled. So yeah, and then goes into his resume here, unless I'm forgetting something. They make the connection that he's another scientist.

Speaker 1:
[94:08] Space nuclear propulsion. That's what he was working on.

Speaker 2:
[94:11] So carry on, fellas. My wife's texting me. I have to read this because it might be an emergency.

Speaker 3:
[94:16] No, yeah, it's just really interesting, but like where everyone else goes off on foot, typically, like he's in his Tesla and that's where he failed because Teslas are obviously marked with GPS and like body scan and all that other technologies that they have. So like they know who's in the car. They can activate cameras and all that stuff.

Speaker 1:
[94:36] And can be controlled. I mean, they can, you know, that's like that the whole conspiracy around that movie the Obamas made in like 2023 was that one of the opening scenes was like a whole line of Teslas just all crashed because they were controlled. And I mean, like, that's the thing, too, is, you know, whether he was GPS tracked or whatever, leaving behind his phone and his wallet and all this stuff. It's like, you know, how and why was he at the airport? And then also, what was he working on in NASA's propulsion program that would have warranted this scenario, you know what I mean?

Speaker 3:
[95:13] And so, also, I'm just going to tie it in because I don't know, but there's a guy of the same name, Joshua LeBlanc, who was actually at the University of Alabama Huntsville in the 2010 shooting of Amy Bishop, and he was only wounded but not killed. But he's not the right age, so I don't think it has to, it can't be the same person.

Speaker 2:
[95:34] How old is the other Joshua?

Speaker 3:
[95:35] He's 29 right now.

Speaker 2:
[95:36] No, I know this one, but...

Speaker 3:
[95:37] Well, I mean, this was 2010.

Speaker 1:
[95:40] And he was working in that field.

Speaker 3:
[95:41] He was already working, so the one from here that's 29 years old would have been like 13 years old or something.

Speaker 2:
[95:46] Okay.

Speaker 3:
[95:47] But it was just a crazy coincidence.

Speaker 2:
[95:50] When you dropped that, I was like, what? I was like, don't say anything, save her the show.

Speaker 1:
[95:54] We all were.

Speaker 3:
[95:55] I was blown away until it wasn't true.

Speaker 2:
[95:57] Yeah. Well, good job. I mean, at least, you know, we're trying to be ethical here. We're trying to be ethical.

Speaker 1:
[96:04] But he would be the 12th, this Josh LeBlanc, he would be the 12th on the list of the 11 that was previously mentioned. And that's why we said 12 missing scientists, that's why it's starting to get updated to 12 as well, because they're including his, because obviously his death and this tragic occurrence happened in 2025, it was June, right, Derek? So it happened in June of 2025, and they're finding just like, you know, Amy is included now, July. They're finding just like Amy is included now, it's not all recent, it's just that recent spate of many of them going missing or deceased that is starting to open up the floodgates, because, I mean, we talk about, you know, the administration and the FBI starting to look into this. It's like, are they placating the population to say that they're looking into it? Are they seriously looking into it? Are they behind it? Is there a foreign government that's behind it? That's why they're looking into it? Or is this all some type of supernatural situation that's happening?

Speaker 3:
[97:07] I don't know. And there's possibly a 13th that Amy mentions. And that's so that he actually died before Amy. And that's Mark McCandlish. And he died in April 13, 2021. His death is officially ruled a suicide by the Shasta County Coroner. But there are conflicting accounts about the circumstances of his death. SORM sources suggest he left voicemails and letters indicating suicidal intent due to financial troubles and divorce proceedings, while other claims that he was not suicidal and had offered to testify at the Senate Intelligence Committee about his knowledge prior to his death. So he's a prominent aerospace illustrator and UFO researcher who gained attention for his claims about secret government programs involving reverse engineering extraterrestrial technology. McCandlish worked as a aerospace illustrator for major defense contractors, including Rockwell and Boeing, before becoming a well-known UFO research circles. He was particularly recognized for his detailed illustrations and claims about what he termed the Alien Reproduction Vehicle, an ARV or a flux liner, which he asserted was a secret government program involving reverse engineered extraterrestrial technology. So that's what he's coming out. He's supposed to go talk at the Senate Intelligence Committee about what he knew, and then he ends up unaliving himself on April 13th, 2021. So if we go a year before even Amy, then we could add a 13th possible scientists to this.

Speaker 2:
[98:46] Wow. What's your sense of? Do you think you've been going down this this this web? Where are you landing on this? Like, where is your gut? What's your gut telling you?

Speaker 3:
[99:01] There is so the piece like like behind us, we have all these red strings that are connecting things. The truth is eluding us intentionally. The truth we won't really know. We don't have access to the truth of what's really going on. It obviously is clearly something to do with, like you mentioned at the beginning, the space economy. Like, they want to usher in this new economy. They have to get rid of an old economy. They have to manipulate the narratives just right. So, they are on a holding pattern. And so people that know too much, I think, you know, they go missing or they are unalived. So it just depends on what's happening in these circumstances. But, you know, it's, there's something we don't know that connects all this together. And McCasland is, I think, the best example of how he ties in almost all these circles all the way around. Because he's involved at Los Alamos. He's involved at Jet Propulsion Labs in Los Angeles. He's involved at Wright-Patt. There's another incident we haven't even talked about where three people died that's really strange and bizarre. The research station in Wright-Patt. And that's where he's actually from, was Wright-Patterson. Or he ends up in Wright-Patterson. And ends up in New Mexico near Los Alamos when he disappears. So McCasland really ties all this in. And with his level of clearance and where he was position wise, he would be the one that would actually be able to probably put all these things together. Wow.

Speaker 2:
[100:33] Let's talk about Wright-Patt then. So you're talking about McCasland, let's talk about Wright-Patt and his tie in the three deaths.

Speaker 3:
[100:39] Okay. So there is an officer there at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base named Jacob Pritchard. Okay.

Speaker 1:
[100:46] What's up? No, no. You're good.

Speaker 3:
[100:47] Oh, I'm sorry. Jake's doing sign language. Jacob was in...

Speaker 2:
[100:54] Hold on a second. Before we go any further, do we need to do something now, Jack? Because he just already...

Speaker 1:
[100:57] I just wanted you to do your mic.

Speaker 2:
[100:59] Okay. Derek broke the illusion. The illusion. So now it's like, okay, let's just do direction.

Speaker 3:
[101:05] I thought we were in a baseball game and I just wanted to make sure I got the signs right.

Speaker 1:
[101:09] You're fine.

Speaker 3:
[101:12] Jacob was in the Air Force Research Lab and Jamie was a finance specialist for the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. Okay, so we have this guy, Jacob Pritchard. He's at Wright-Patterson. He works for the Air Force Research Lab. Okay, so here's how the story goes. He kills his wife, who works also for Wright-Patterson, likely strangles her to death, puts her in the trunk of his car, leaves his house with three children there or whatever. There's three children at the house that they have together, drives all the way to a first lieutenant, Jamie Sue Gastitis. She worked in the Human Performance Wing, but she's the first lieutenant of the research lab. Okay, breaks into her house. A neighbor actually sees him breaking in and he just basically dismisses her, doesn't kill her, just tells her to go back into her house. He goes into the apartment, shoots Jamie dead, okay? Gets back into his car where his wife is in the trunk, dead, drives the car to the police station with all the videos running, pops the trunk open, and then unalives himself right next to the car, okay? But the connections of this whole thing with Wright-Patt, this looks like mind control. Maybe it's a lover's triangle gone wrong, like that's a huge possibility, okay? But with all this missing and all this going on, we have this crazy, like why would he drive all the evidence, right? Like why would he put his wife in the trunk? Why would he just go and here's the evidence, I did it right to the police office, right to the police station, park the car there. And with cameras running, basically take his own life.

Speaker 2:
[103:22] I mean, it definitely sounds like, I mean, it could be a lover's triangle gone wrong, but with all this other stuff, it definitely feels like there could be, again, advanced technology being used. You mentioned mining control, and it's just like, I mean, how many times do we see these different shooters? And it just seems off. It's almost as if they were controlled.

Speaker 3:
[103:50] And that's what's just so crazy. It's like, so they do advanced military research which includes aerospace systems, space vehicles, directed energy, sensors, materials and manufacturing, munitions, cyber communications and information systems, human performance and aerospace medicine, and basic science for the Air Force. So that's like that lab. That is specifically what they work on, where that lady with Jamie and he was from, Jacob.

Speaker 2:
[104:23] And McCasland was from there too.

Speaker 3:
[104:24] McCasland, he's got a long thing here. Jack, do you remember, was he recently part of the Wright-Patterson?

Speaker 1:
[104:32] Yes.

Speaker 3:
[104:34] Yeah, let me just pull up his profile here. That's what's so hard. There's just so many pieces to all this everywhere. His former leadership of the Air Force Research Laboratory of Wright-Patt Air Force Base, a site frequently associated with Roswell-related UFO theories. So yeah, McCasland's tied into that as well. The Air Force Research Laboratory, which is two of the three people. So maybe the wife found out something she didn't, wasn't supposed to know about possibly. I don't know. I'm just theorizing. I respectfully am very sad for the children and everything else. We also want to like search for truth if there's other threads that we can understand it to be.

Speaker 2:
[105:16] For sure. Jack, what were you going to say?

Speaker 1:
[105:19] He's just so closely tied to Monica Reisa that it's wild too. He was her direct overseer.

Speaker 3:
[105:24] You want to move on to her?

Speaker 1:
[105:26] No, no, you're good. You can keep going. I just wanted to mention that because it was right there.

Speaker 3:
[105:31] Yeah, so again, if we're tying in the other missing people. So remember, McCaslin goes missing. And here's a weird thing that just for a lot of the people that have gone missing as well, is that we have four missing or dead around Los Angeles. We have four missing or dead in New Mexico. And again, they're all centered within a certain 15, 20 miles where these people are gone missing. Most of the jet propulsion labs in LA, three of the four are deceased. And then the one, Monica, let me just pull her name up. Riza?

Speaker 1:
[106:10] Riza.

Speaker 3:
[106:10] Yeah. So she's the one that went missing. Again, she's hiking with a friend and then just magically disappears. Okay. So, and then she's connected. Jack, let's see, it says, investigators have noted that her professional past overlapped with other missing figures in the field, including former colleague, retired Air Force Major General William Neal McCaslin, who oversaw projects involving her research.

Speaker 1:
[106:33] At JPL?

Speaker 3:
[106:35] At Jet Propulsion Labs, yeah. So...

Speaker 1:
[106:39] And like the crazy part about that is that she's also connected to Hicks at JPL as well. Because she was in a quad, I think a quad or whatever with Hicks. So, I mean, there's like that whole scenario with those, that group of people in LA, like there's a lot of connections there. Yeah. Go ahead, Derek. Sorry.

Speaker 3:
[107:00] No, you're fine. And it's just really interesting to me, the connection of these areas, while they're like specific hotspots. So, like we definitely have something going on in Los Alamos. We definitely have something going on with Jet Propulsion Labs. So, like they're getting too close to truth, or they're too close to exposing truth, or like something is occurring in these areas, why people are going MIA.

Speaker 2:
[107:26] It makes you wonder if the people who are going MIA even understand that they're hitting on nerves, or if it's like almost done in ignorance, and when you do it, it's like there's no turning back. As soon as you hit that nerve, you're done. And there's no forewarning. There's no, hey, don't go down this road unless you want to go missing. It's just, they're just playing in the sandbox and they found that one cat turd.

Speaker 3:
[107:54] So Monica Riza, she's also tied in. So we're talking about Jet Propulsion Labs. So she's the only one that wasn't unalived. Michael David Hicks was Jet Propulsion Labs. He died in July 30th of 2023. Frank Maywald died on July 4th of 2024. He's also from Jet Propulsion Labs. And then Carl Gilmour, it was February 16th, 2026. He's in Lancaster, California. It's literally, if it's like Jet Propulsion Labs, then the mountains where Monica went missing are just above Jet Propulsion Labs. And on the other side of the mountains is Edwards Air Force Base. And then Carl Gilmour lives like right in between the mountains and Edwards Air Force Base. And then his story is crazy because they said a guy was there scouring his house like a few weeks before and then like he left. And then that same guy ended up coming back and then killing him in his front porch. So a lot of like assigned intentional things are going on.

Speaker 2:
[108:58] So McCaslin went missing on the 27th of 2026, left his home on foot with only a 38 revolver. What are the odds that, are they suggesting that maybe he is no longer with us? Since he left his house with, left everything at his house and only took a revolver with him? Are there thoughts that maybe he's, he kind of went mad?

Speaker 1:
[109:27] I mean, if anybody would know how to do that and not be found, it would be him. But I mean, if they're searching for him and they're doing what they, I mean, think of his level of clearance and what he's involved with, what he's overseeing, because like he's, he's overseeing some of the most secret programs and divulging information at a drip to, you know, guys like Tom DeLong and To The Stars and all that stuff. Like he is directly involved in so many things that clearly they would want to figure out what happened to him. And so, I mean, if he did do that, if he did, you know, self-eliminate, it wouldn't be surprising that he would be the one to know how to not get found. But what would drive him mad? Like, I mean, again, it's the question that is trying to figure out why any of this is happening. Like, what drove any of these people to go missing? Or if they were under their own volition when they went missing? Was it by their own decision to go out into the desert in his instance? Or was something directing him there? You know, it's just crazy.

Speaker 3:
[110:39] Right, and so then the other cluster in New Mexico, you have Anthony Chavez went missing May 8th of 2025, Melissa Cassius June 26th, 2025 from Taos, New Mexico, Steven Garcia, Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 25th, 2025, and then McCaslin February 27th, 2026 from Albuquerque, New Mexico. So, I don't know. It's weird. I wonder, the missing people, was there somewhere intentional since what? Four of them are from the New Mexico area, the Los Alamos range of things. Was it something intentional they decided to go missing? Were they kidnapped? It seems very intentional they're leaving, right? It's the same motive that we see all the time that we read about, like leaving your wallet, your keys, your cell phone. You have no trackable things. You don't leave your watch. You leave your watch. You just take a gun or something like that. I mean, weirdly enough, could it be the Collins Elite? Like I mentioned to you, like, you know, the Collins Elite is allegedly a Christian group within the government and the military that believes all this stuff is demonic and they, you know, are secretly threatening to work against the exploits of this, like, narrative. And that's been, they've been around for decades and decades. But like, maybe they get so close to it, they know how evil it is and they want it out. And so is there a way for them to be helped, but that's why they go missing?

Speaker 2:
[112:08] Interesting. So your suggestion would be under that theory that the Collins Elite is doing the missing person a favor and taking them out of their situation.

Speaker 3:
[112:16] Yeah, because you're going to go missing before you end up in the dead list, right? Like, if you know you're on the dead list, you might as well go missing.

Speaker 2:
[112:23] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[112:23] You're better off.

Speaker 2:
[112:25] And just for the audience sake, the Collins Elite is a fish. It's something that, how do I say it? Like, I guess it's a group that is thought to exist, but nobody really has been able to prove that the Collins Elite exists.

Speaker 3:
[112:42] It's just rumors. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[112:45] But they operate in the shadows. And that's the whole part of it is like, well, they operate in the shadows, so you wouldn't be able to prove it.

Speaker 3:
[112:51] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[112:52] That's interesting. That's an interesting thought, though, for sure.

Speaker 3:
[112:55] Yeah. Well, because, so Amy Eskridge also mentions something really interesting. It's the Mansfield Amendment. And basically she was saying that they made it illegal for the military to research anti-gravity.

Speaker 2:
[113:09] Really?

Speaker 3:
[113:09] Yeah. So what they had to do is they had to move it to private contracting. So they had to move it to non-governmental organizations, the NGOs. So like, you can't forget how the NGOs are all tied to this as well in their search for more knowledge, more technology, all this stuff too. So it's like, we're looking at it very governmentally, but like there's also like non-governmental agencies and organizations that are involved in this as well. That really make it very difficult to understand all of this.

Speaker 2:
[113:38] I really hope that anybody who is in the know on this isn't watching this right now. Because if we're hitting the nail on the head, just keep scrolling, my friend, just let us be.

Speaker 3:
[113:53] We're just having a fun conversation.

Speaker 2:
[113:55] He said it, though. He said it, so, you know, his address is...

Speaker 3:
[113:59] Yeah, thanks. But yeah, when it all comes, and I think, honestly, if we kept digging back in time, like we talked about, like, looking up Tesla. Like, if they've had this technology now five times and if we go back in time and probably, like, skim through it, I bet you we will find dozens and dozens of people that fit this protocol. And we're only recognizing it now. Really, something super crazy, Amy, in her last YouTube video, even says, my face will be the one you see three months before disclosure. She said it, like, prophetically. And like, here it is, she's coming back to the front of all of this right before disclosure. And she says, you're gonna see me three months before disclosure.

Speaker 2:
[114:44] Isn't it just like last week, Trump said, you know, kind of like doubling down, we're gonna bring the files, this, that and the other. And that's a whole other topic to discuss.

Speaker 3:
[114:51] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[114:52] But that's interesting.

Speaker 3:
[114:54] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[114:55] And what's three months from now? Fourth? Well, we were talking about July 8th is when the original speech was planned.

Speaker 3:
[115:05] Oh, yeah.

Speaker 2:
[115:06] You know, and so-

Speaker 3:
[115:08] With a commemorative coin.

Speaker 2:
[115:09] Right around that timeline. Commemorative coin. Because I have a UFO behind me. I am the UFO president.

Speaker 3:
[115:18] They're not extra. They're ultra-terrestrials.

Speaker 2:
[115:21] I discovered it myself. I also am a scientist. The best.

Speaker 3:
[115:27] That could be true.

Speaker 2:
[115:28] Maybe.

Speaker 3:
[115:28] He's a time traveler.

Speaker 2:
[115:29] Maybe. Maybe he's traveled all throughout time and collected all superior knowledge. And when he says, I am the best, he means it. Like literally, I'm the best.

Speaker 3:
[115:41] I birthed Baron. He's the time traveler from the future.

Speaker 2:
[115:43] Not Melania. I did. We're just having some fun. We're just having some fun. Guys, let's bring it in for landing. I know the puppy needs to go out. Jack, can you give them a live look? Upload the picture video. Jack, you look like you had something you want to say though. You're like, what?

Speaker 1:
[116:03] I just can't believe. There's so much to talk about with this.

Speaker 2:
[116:05] There is so much to talk about, but like legit, we're on two hours and we're going to bring it for a landing. We can do this another time.

Speaker 3:
[116:14] There's a lot more to do.

Speaker 1:
[116:15] Do you want the picture or the video?

Speaker 2:
[116:18] Whatever you want. I don't care. I sent Jack a live look of the puppy in the studio and how he's laying and living his life, but yeah, I mean, this was a good conversation. And this is where I'm putting a gauge on it for you guys, because we're two hours in. Let that be chewed on and we can open the book up again on another broadcast. We don't need to go four hours to try dumping everything when there's going to be more information coming out after today. So I think that we had a great time here discussing. There's Oscar on screen, belly up, chilling in life. I'm going to have to get him a new cage soon, because his cage is getting a little tight. He fits, but it's going to get to a point where I need to get him something bigger. But hopefully he's just potty trained and I don't have to worry about him roaming around, because right now we have too many wires in here. He'll either poop, pee or chew on something. Definitely chew. Yeah. But yeah, let us know in the comment section, guys, what you thought of this, what would you call this, a debriefing of what's been kind of uncovered and discovered so far. There's a lot more. Maybe you guys can put a PDF together and make it available to people online somewhere. Yeah, I think that might be pretty cool, actually.

Speaker 3:
[117:45] Jack was working on something.

Speaker 2:
[117:46] Yeah, Jack, what were you working on? Was something to do with like a website or something?

Speaker 1:
[117:49] Yeah, I'll try and see if I can make a website with all the connections and everything like that, and then clickable links and everything.

Speaker 2:
[117:56] So, give this video a thumbs up, my friends, and hopefully you enjoyed this Slingshot Nation. Am I missing anything, guys, before we get out of here?

Speaker 3:
[118:05] Just that if any of this makes you weird or scared, don't be scared because Jesus is with you. And if you decide to follow him, you can visit theconfessionals.com.

Speaker 2:
[118:16] Yes, theconfessionalspodcast.com.

Speaker 3:
[118:19] I always forget the podcast. But you know, we just, our job, first of all, foremost is just to serve Lord Jesus Christ. So if you felt led and compelled in any way, just visit that website. We'd appreciate it.

Speaker 2:
[118:31] Cool. And what was the sponsor for today? Rumble Wallet. Rumble Wallet. So if you're like, hey, that was kind of cool, go ahead and check it out. Rumble Wallet. Rumble. All right, guys, let's get out of here. Let's go.