Awash in middling videos, grainy photographs and a pile of not so
secret government documents, this is Neon Galactic.
I'm James Folk, thanks for joining us.
Don't forget to leave a mark to like this video and subscribe to
this channel to let the world know that in 2026 you were here
to once again wax disappointed over these rather feeble
attempts at transparency. You can also support the show at
patreon.com/neon Galactic, where a few bucks a month will get you
early access videos, exclusive content, a Discord server, and
someday, I swear, beer cozies. Well, here we are.
Didn't someone call it Disclosure Day, May 8th, 2026?
If they did, they were full of beans.
This past Friday, the embattled Trump administration released
what it's calling the first tranche of UFO files collected
from various corners of government and what it calls an
attempt at complete transparency.
For those who may not have been paying attention over these last
several years, the Trump administration as a whole is not
in the business of transparency. They did release some JFK files,
then did everything they could to delay the release of millions
of documents surrounding the case against a billionaire
pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, and all his many minions, including
possibly Donald Trump himself. They sought to protect the names
of those involved and have generally obfuscated at every
turn, despite laws that were passed to prevent such
skullduggery. Not a great record, but the UFO
files were supposed to be different.
Trump was going to come clean and let the people see the
evidence, embrace the mystery. Instead, what we got on Friday
was nothing new. There were a few moderately
compelling videos, some files we've mostly seen before,
several grainy photographs. And they promise of more to
come. I hope that they'll keep that
promise. But in the meantime, we need to
think a little deeper about what this all means.
We should explore what disclosure actually involves,
what it would take to change people's minds, how it's being
used right now for political purposes, and what damage is
being done with all these half steps and holdups.
Is it really about a few feeble lights in the sky?
Or is it about the oncoming realization surrounding all
we've gotten wrong about our planet, our species, and the
nature of what's real? Joining me today is friend of
the show and deep thinker Daniel Elizondo.
No relation to Lou, but someone who has become known over the
past several years for being a brilliant analyst and insightful
student of the phenomenon. Welcome, Daniel.
Thanks for having me, always a pleasure.
Yeah. So wow, that was that was quite
the weekend. I always find myself, even if I
try to, you know, plan ahead, I get caught up in the roller
coaster of it all, you know, like, OK, something's going to
happen. This could be the big shift, you
know, and the conversations finally going to turn to what I,
I consider is important in this whole business.
And inevitably, I am always frustrated and disappointed.
You know, I found that the release, I don't necessarily
think that this was some, you know, attempt by the Trump
administration to obfuscate. I think that this is a low
effort attempt to kind of distract people from the Epstein
files. I think that's basically what it
boils down to. I also think that he's so
desperate to distract people from the Epstein files that
there is some small chance that he will go digging for a big
video that will, you know, change the channel so that, you
know, possibility remains out there.
But as you pointed out to me today on some, I was initially
sort of excited about the the moon pictures, but you pointed
out that some of that may actually be scanner artifacts.
Everything that seems like it might be, you know, fresh and
new and enticing ultimately has has wilted under further, you
know, consideration. I will say that some of the the
videos that were put out are compelling, but they're not
definitive. It's like they're, they're
obviously, I think some of them are anomalous, but all you
really see is a little white speck flying around on the
screen. And like the New York Times
said, those could be anything. And if you're not coming into
this conversation as a believer, those aren't going to change
your mind. They're just, they're just not.
So we're back, you know, in this crater of a state of mind,
trying to figure out, you know, for myself, how I got caught up
in it again, because I hate feeling this way.
But then also, you know, the, the value of the whole
disclosure conversation as a whole.
You know, I'm all about Government Accountability.
And I think that the government has done awful things in
relation to UF OS and that needs to come out because we're
supposed to be a democracy. And if it doesn't, then I don't
know that we can call ourselves that.
However, conversations can be ongoing that aren't related to
what files are being released by the government that I think
could advance this cause in really substantive ways.
And I'd kind of like to explore that with you a little bit.
But first, let's hear what your thoughts were after, you know,
Friday. Yeah.
You know, to be honest with you, I wasn't super surprised at what
we got. It seemed like we were getting,
I was seeing phrases like, oh, it's the eve of disclosure and
we were seeing a lot of victory laps that were happening and
sort of handshakes and high fives all around of everybody
who worked really hard to get us to this spot.
And I want to be clear that even though I'm a little cynical and
jaded, and especially about what we've gotten over the last
couple of days, that I do appreciate the efforts that have
been put forward from people like the Disclosure Foundation,
from, you know, certain whistleblowers that have come
out. And really just the community in
general to apply pressure really not just in Congress, but also
in, you know, bugging the hell out of the president and the
executive branch as well. And at this point, I feel like
that's the best we can do, right?
We can just continue to bug them and pester them and hope that
something comes of it. We can continue to educate them
right to hopefully find people like David Grush, who I consider
to be kind of top tier. Just in terms of the.
Information that he provides tends to you can find things and
it lines up and and so putting people in places of where they
can actually help move that ball forward.
I think that's really key. That being said, there's only so
much that one person can do, especially when that person is
embedded and connected to Congress rather than being sort
of a middle manager in the sort of intelligence agencies.
And I think that's really where a lot of the obfuscation is
coming from. I don't think it's coming from
Marco Rubio or I don't think it's coming from Donald Trump
or, you know, people that are actually heads of agencies.
I think it's coming, you know, sort of in this middle layer,
people that you've never heard of and will never hear of that
are lifers in the intelligence community.
They leave the intelligence community, go work for a defense
contractor. They come back in and it's that
revolving door people who live in that ecosystem.
Those are the people, right, that are sort of have their
hands for better or worse, you know, on the on the stick here.
And I think one of the things, you know, just getting back to
the drop itself, yeah, like most of the things that were in
there, if not all of the things that were in there, at least
historically that wasn't like super recent or new, has been
out on the Internet. And, you know, as I was kind of
pouring through those things, I was actually working.
So I didn't really get to look very much 'cause they came out
8:00 AM on a Friday. And I'm thinking, man, this is
like the, if this is really disclosure and I'm like gonna be
just working my 9:00 to 5:00 through it, that that'll be
great. But luckily, my cynicism was
correct, and it was. It was essentially like we'd
taken the files that were already, you know, on the FBI
vault website and moved those over to a new website, new
domain. Some of there were some
redactions that were removed and most of those were like names
and things like that of people who have been long, long dead,
you know, So I mean, that's appreciated.
You can kind of, if you're a really a nerd in looking at
those historical things and digging those up, you can go and
and kind of pull at some of those threads a little bit more
from those names. But even the NASA, right, like
the, as as we discussed a little bit, you know, all of the NASA
transcripts and the NASA photos, those are things that we've seen
and have been out not just for a year, but for decades in some
instances. And you know, there are some
compelling things there and they're certainly when you look
at the transcripts and things from the Apollo missions,
definitely some interesting observations there.
But like you said, it's nothing that's going to convert a non
believer or frankly even excite a believer all that much if
they've been sort of in this space for longer than a couple
of years. And so I, there was, it was kind
of interesting to me to see a lot of people who have large
platforms getting really excited about documents that have been
out for decades. And I think what, that, what
that goes to show is that we do have a lot of people that are
new in this field, even people who have a large platform who
position as experts. I don't position myself as an
expert. I position myself as an
obsessive. If you want me to rattle off,
you know, dates and names and everything that I, I'll do my
best. But that's, that's Richard
Dolan, right? And so I think it's there, there
can be be some good coming out of this, right?
At first it's like, yeah, that's kind of crazy that you didn't
know about this. You know, these particular
files, like the hot old memo. I even saw people posting the
twining memo. Like there's some things that
are sort of like UFO one O one kinds of documents and things
that and and just basic lore that a lot of people don't know.
And I think there is some value in sort of bringing that back to
the, the table and sort of forcing them to look at that
stuff again and to rethink about that those things.
And even for me, as I was, I, I didn't go through and start
trying to cherry pick my way. As always, I'm gonna start on
the first file and I'm gonna start reading.
And, you know, I'm starting to see some things that I'm really
familiar with. But as you spiral back around,
you find new things, you find it, it's really helpful to
revisit, you know, some of these documents and some of these
events over and over again because you come to it with a
new context every time you do that.
So I don't think it's it's a completely wasted effort in any
sense. And I do agree with some folks
who have really talked about it as a symbol of the progress that
has been made, just in the sense that there are people in the
executive branch who were talking about this issue.
There are all kinds of reasons and motives behind them talking
about the issue that might not align with my reasons or your
reasons. But at the very least, there's
this kind of season where chaos is maybe sought after a little
bit. It has a there's a premium on it
and there are people who have capitalized on that.
I think we can push further and get and get a better result.
But I do appreciate that we are having the conversations of,
albeit the same conversations that we've been having for
decades just now, though at a, at a much higher level than
we've ever had it. That's not to say that
presidents have not been engaged on this, on this topic.
They certainly have. But in a public, you know, at a,
at a public level and, and even the media, you know, to, to
their as much as they, they, as much as they can help it, they
have actually been engaging with the topic as well in a way that
we've never seen before. And so I don't, I don't see this
as a December, you know, 2017 moment, but I do think that it
is a culmination of a lot of work.
And I think that there's a lot of work, you know, still to be
done. But I was disappointed, right.
Like I, I was disappointed there were, you know, as I'm going
through there and even with some of the videos, you know, there's
one video in particular, I think you probably alluded to it like
the, you know, there's a, in sort of like a windmill, like a
windmill field, right? There's something that appears
to be or is purported as an orb that is sort of like going and,
and zigzagging around there. And it is really interesting.
And it, it, it looks, it certainly looks interesting.
But you know, you kind of have to hand it not even not really
to the debunkers, but just to anyone who's looking at this
from an objective place that could be really anything, right?
That could be, I know people don't want to hear this.
That could be a drone with a really bright light on it or
even not a really bright light. But it just happens to be that
the way it was filmed and everything kind of blurs it out
and now you just kind of have this point of light.
The other thing that I've commented on a little bit and we
talked about is there used to be, and I say used to, it wasn't
that long ago. You know, the, the other
Elizondo, right, the, the more prominent Elizondo that
everybody knows who they are, kind of put forth this idea of
the five observables where you kind of have these five things
that you're looking for in order to categorize something as
potentially anomalous. And I feel like there's not much
of that in these files. And I feel like they're, we've
gone from, OK, let's let's really look at these five
observables, which I don't think are necessarily, you know, as
rigorous as we might imagine they are, let's say.
And we've gone to, well, this just kind of looks weird.
So it must be UFOs, right? Or it must be, you know, at the
very least a UAP or some kind of exotic drone.
And I do think that there are going to be a lot of prosaic
explanations that come from come out of these videos.
There are people who have pointed out what looks to be a
parachute on one of the, you know, more prominent videos.
Yeah, yeah. It's like it's a flare that sort
of blew out the camera and then there's a parachute that's
hanging from it. Yeah, that's right.
And, and I'll be honest with you, when I first watched that
video, I didn't see, I didn't see that parachute, right?
It's kind of off in the background if you're not looking
for it or what looks to be a parachute.
I don't know it, it could be that that's something that's
super anomalous and crazy, but there's not enough context.
There's not metadata, there's, there's not really an analysis.
And without that, it feels like we're just adding more noise and
more mud to an already very noisy, muddy conversation.
So that those are kinds of, that's, that's sort of my
overall feeling about the drop. I'm excited.
You know, they, they say there's gonna be more.
I'm still cynical, maybe even a little more so now that we've
had the first drop. But you know, my cynicism is not
gonna change anything. And, and nor is yours, right.
So we'll we'll just have to see what happens and and then go
from there. Yeah, it's interesting you
mentioned that sort of muddying of the waters.
Part of me is what's that's what's most frustrating about
this. I mean, for those of us who've
been following the subjects we're we want disclosure, we
have, I mean, anyone who studies this phenomenon, I feel like for
any length of time realize that there is just a mass of evidence
that is pointing to something going on.
I would be hard pressed to be convinced now that it's all
prosaic and all this has been, you know, sort of fictitious
made-up or mistakes made by recipients.
So I feel like that's true. And I feel like the government
knows something about it because they've been playing these, you
know, whack A mole games for since 1947.
But so when the government like in this first tranche, it's like
they wanted to put UFO files out because that's a move toward
transparency, quote UN quote. But they're not trying to
disclose anything. Like, they're not trying to
convince the American people that there is a, you know, a non
human intelligence interacting with us.
They're trying to avoid that part of the discussion
altogether. So they're just throwing out a
bunch of chum and hoping people get really excited about it.
Without that commitment toward actually revealing the deep
level truth there, it's all just gonna be noise.
We need if if for for true disclosure, we need the
government to say, OK, look, this is what we think we have.
Here's some really weird compelling video that shows that
this is something intelligent and not human.
And let's have that discussion. And I don't see anybody really
making progress toward that. You know, Trump is, I think,
happy to have the distraction and he's been convinced by
Burleson and Burchett to kind of release these files because he
thinks it adds a, you know, an accolade to his legacy or
whatever. But without that deeper
conversation, which from what I've heard, he may not even will
be ready to accept. I've heard that when he was
briefed, he didn't necessarily believe some of the deeper
things that he was being told because he never really trusted
the intelligence community. So, you know, he had his
operatives go out and sweep out the easy to reach files, which
is what this tranche basically amounted to.
And but that deeper conversation isn't set to happen.
Another thing that concerned me is I heard Burleson on or I read
some of his talking points on X today and he was talking about
how even the videos he's seen aren't definitive in terms of,
you know, it being aliens or, and it seemed like he was kind
of not backpedaling, but like certainly not saying that, you
know, we're going to get our socks totally knocked off by the
next tranche of videos that is coming out.
And I feel like if that's not going to happen, if we're not
going to have that video, that really settles the question.
This is only damaging the conversation.
Ultimately. It's great to have transparency.
I'm all in favor of that. But the more we have these
events that turn out to be not as dramatic as we hope, the more
people are going to be like, oh, it's another UFO crying wolf
kind of situation. They're desperate to prove that
UFOs are real, so I'm not even going to pay attention to it.
And, you know, that ultimately can kill the conversation if it
goes on long enough. So yeah, that's really
frustrating. But on the other hand, like you
were saying, I mean, this was the federal government releasing
UFO files. When when has that happened?
When is the government released a bunch of videos voluntarily,
not snuck out, not kind of through some weird loophole.
It was like, here's a bunch of stuff.
So that is progress and I think that if we keep up the pressure
and if you know, Congress, especially the Democrats in
Congress, because I think that's going to switch hands and we
need someone on that side to carry this momentum forward.
Maybe Carson, you know, but we need to have those people
continue to make noise and hopefully that'll propel the
conversation even further. But as they were pointing out on
with the News Nation today on the, they were basically saying
that the people who are most conspicuously absent from this
release are the are the agencies that have the most to do with
these files. Department of Energy wasn't
involved. None of the intelligence
agencies was involved. And that's I think indicative of
how how deep this effort toward disclosure isn't going.
Yeah. And it's going to be really
difficult to not only get them to give you some files, but to
give you some files that are actually going to move the
needle is that's going to be really, really difficult for a
number of reasons. You know, one thing that I think
we need to kind of get out of the way is that if you're going
and you're looking for files that say UFO or UAP or even, you
know, all of the other sort of various terms that are thrown
around. I think you're going to have a
really hard time finding what you're looking for.
Because these agencies learned at least in the 70s when FOIA,
you know, was, was getting much more strict to stop using those
kinds of terms in in those papers, right, and in those
documents. And so, you know, and I, and
frankly, I think that more so than videos and more so than
than photos, what we need is intelligence estimates, right?
We need some analysis. We need, we need to, you know,
it doesn't have to necessarily be at that deep level, but I
think it's going to be pretty difficult to find that because I
don't personally believe that the UFO portfolio per SE where
the UAP portfolio is really held by anyone group or one person.
It, you know, the UFO and the UAP portfolio is really a
constellation of portfolios and a lot of those are going to sort
of be embedded in pre-existing, you know, collection efforts
from the very beginning in 1947, you know, General Shogun in the
Air Force put out an intelligence estimate looking,
you know, just trying to find information about flying discs,
right, and unconventional aircraft.
And he stated from that very beginning that they were
assuming for the purposes of this project or, or this
intelligence basically putting out this call for gathering
intelligence around this issue. They were assuming that it was a
Soviet aircraft, right? That was made sort of basically,
you know, capitalizing on or extrapolating on Nazi, you know,
RND and Nazi aircraft and things like that.
So it's he explicitly says that just for the purposes of this,
we're assuming that. And it makes a lot of sense why
you would do that because you already have a budget, you have
people in place who are looking at the Soviets and you have
people who are looking at, you know, trying to find, you know,
Nazi RND and things like that. So why would you start a, a
brand new project or a brand new portfolio when you already have
all of these people in house who are doing the same kind of work?
And you know, even Project Blue Book, they had a sort of a
technical consulting contractor, right?
Battelle Memorial Institute, right?
Really, really giant contractor that's, you know, related to the
Department of Energy and manages a lot of a lot of national labs
and things like that these days. But Project Stork, it's called,
in some places they call it Project Bear.
They weren't just looking at the UFO issue.
They were looking at Soviet advanced metallurgy and Soviet
advances in aerial photography and they're looking at the
Soviet portfolio. And yet, right, all of the UFO
things were also housed there too, as they were supporting
Atick with Project Blue Book as a consultant.
And so you can expect that that has not changed, right?
And we see some signs of that in the UAPDA, right where they're
talking about. And I, it's hard for me to, to,
I'll see if I can find the exact quote later.
But an overbroad interpretation, they blame an overbroad
interpretation of trans classified foreign nuclear
information, TFNI and basically what that's sort of a fancy word
for foreign or intelligence about foreign nations or, or
foreign, you know, nuclear information basically about
their nuclear weapon systems, their nuclear R&D, you know,
nuclear all, all things nuclear basically.
And so the issue is if you have the UFO files are technically
TFNI, if they've been designated TFNI because they were assumed
from the very beginning for lots of reasons to be related to the
Soviets, then if you're Arrow and you're going to look, tell
me about your UFO files. We want to look, you know, give
me your UFO files. Even if you were an honest actor
and you really wanted to find them, they're going to look and
they're going to say, oh, yeah, we really don't have anything,
Sorry. You know, because it's all in.
It's going to be all related to, it's going to be sort of mixed
and intermingled with all of these files about, you know,
Russia and then, you know, modern day about Russia and
China. And so, you know, and the only
person who can actually declassify ever TFNI is the
secretary of Energy. And the secretary of energy is
not going to do that for a variety of reasons.
But even if they were to consider doing it, sort of, the
rule of thumb is you don't declassify TFNI unless an
equivalent American capability or technology has already been
declassified. So if you put that, if you can
put the UFO context, put that context around UFOs, basically
what you have is you are never gonna get the answer about UFOs.
If such a thing exists in the way we think it does, you're
never gonna get that information declassified and released to the
public. Certainly unless and until.
We have flying saucers that are public.
We have American, right? We have American technology that
that is equivalent, right? That's a that's a big wrench in
the works. And I'm personally don't think
that the current administration has the stomach, you know, to go
in for that kind of a fight. I know that people like David
Grush do right, But he's there's only so much that that one
person can do. I mean, this is a this is a
battle and that's what we are hearing.
I saw on, I think it was on, maybe it was News Nation or
maybe on Fox, you know that Grush said that there was push
back coming from the CIA, in the CIA, among others.
Yeah, that that were basically they're fighting the
administration on this. And likely these are some of the
arguments they're bringing up like this is a national security
issue. And if you don't believe us,
look, it's, it's TF and I and only the people that are
qualified to look at this can look at this and even offer
opinion to push back on it. And so it's it's really
difficult to to get at this just because of the terminology,
right? Looking for actually looking for
UFO and UAP. And I know that there are lots
of really well informed people who know the right terms, but
then also getting the the purview not to just look for
those things, but also to dig through other portfolios.
Like I need to know about advanced Soviet R&D around
propulsion or around directed energy or around nuclear
propulsion, right? Like that's, that's a whole
nother beast. It's so that's in the weeds a
little bit, but I felt like it's important to kind of frame this
conversation in terms of what we can reasonably expect.
And, and so I think we're probably going to get more of
the same. We're going to get videos, we're
going to get photos, we're going to get reports, you know,
eyewitness reports and testimony.
And it's going to be from credible observers and there's
going to be maybe even some references to sensors and things
like that, but without the the analysis and the intelligence
estimates behind it, especially modern day cases.
I mean, we have, we just have no idea.
I mean, that I think we have to reckon with the fact that we
have no idea what is in our arsenal right now.
We don't know. And, and we have a really good
idea. We think that we know.
But I have a feeling that, you know, even those who are are
would consider themselves insiders right within the
military and intelligence community don't realize, you
know, the some of the technologies that we have and
some of the breakthroughs that we've made and.
Explain. Explain why knowledge of the
arsenal is important in this in this circumstance.
Discernment. Right.
To be able to tell, sure. Yeah, discernment, like think
about the five observables, right?
Like one of the five observables is, is instantaneous
acceleration that we, we don't have things that go from
standstill to a high rate of speed at a rapid pace of
acceleration, right? Or so rapid it's hard to even
see. That may be true, but we're
taking it on faith. OK, That may be true as far as
you and I know and as far as you know, the general public knows
that is something that is that's true.
Is it really true that within the entire right, like we don't
have anything like that anywhere.
No one's made any, you know, anything at least that could be
perceived as instantaneous acceleration.
What's interesting about that is that Lou Elizondo, the other
Elizondo, was on Ross Coltart's show earlier today and they were
looking at one of the videos where the white dot was doing
back and forth kinds of things at 80 miles an hour,
instantaneous changes in direction.
And Ross was like, well, and we don't have anything that can do
stuff like that, right? And lose like, well, as of two
years ago, there may be drones. I have to be really careful
here. But it was basically admitting
that some of the things that seem like anomalous are are
within the American military capability at this moment.
And that's stuff that he feels like he can talk about out loud,
which is, you know, obviously the low hanging fruit, so.
Yeah, and I I think exactly he's, he knows about, you can
say what there are a lot of people who have criticisms of
Lou Elizondo. Some of them I think honestly
are valid, others maybe not so valid.
You know, he's he's been instrumental in this era, right?
There are a lot of things that would not have happened had he
not, you know, come forward and and been for better or worse,
right? Like the the kind of face of
this whole thing that we've been doing the last 1010 to 12 years
here. That being said, you can't take
from him. He knows about intelligence.
He knows about security. He knows he's very careful in
how he parses his words, you know, and I think sometimes
that's people start to pick up on that and you realize that he
knows what he can say and what he can't say.
He and I think he knows the things they're probably things
that he knows that he is obligated to lie about right and
to help with security on. I think they're they're things
like that for almost all of the people that are, you know,
connected to this in the, you know, not because it of any sort
of nefarious motive or motivation, but just because
it's a matter of national security.
For whatever reason, They know that they need to to sort of
stretch the truth or or allude to things in a certain way.
But I agree with you. I think it's really interesting
that even some of those aspects of the, you know, the so-called
5 observables, we're already starting to backtrack on some of
those things. And it's not like, you know, the
idea that those drones, maybe those drones are actually now
being deployed out in the field. How long have they been on the
shelf somewhere? How long have they been out at,
you know, at an airfield somewhere?
I mean, there's a long, long process of technology transfer.
And I personally believe that there is a really well managed
technology transfer schedule at a high level that is managed for
lots of reasons and not just because while it's ready, we
could put it in the field right now.
That's not the only consideration to make when you,
you know, when you decide to pull the trigger on something.
And so I think a lot of our timeline here and the progress
that we will make on the outside is tied to this sort of
technology transfer schedule. And I do think that a lot of
people that are making this push are, you know, are advocating on
the back end for let's move this schedule forward.
Let's let's go, let's stop doing this.
Let's stop, you know, slow walking all of this stuff.
And and let's start making these these disclosures of what we
have so that we can start to move the ball down the field.
And you know, that's the case even for people like Hal put
off, right? And you know, Jacques Valet and
you know, people in that circle who've been at this for decades
and decades, you know, they are, I sometimes jokingly refer to
them as task force technology transfer, right?
They know their, I their whole, their whole game is not well, we
need to figure out the physics of UFOs.
They are working on the physics of UFOs so that the people who
already know about the physics of UFOs will give them a phone
call, right? They are, they are making
themselves available and, and hoping that they can can stumble
into the right program to get their hands dirty and yes, to
make a little bit of money, you know, trying to commercialize
some of these things. And so you know, it, it's our
progress is really going to be mitigated by that sort of
technology transfer philosophy. And, you know, the people, the
powers that be that are, that are sort of helping to steer
that in the background. And it's going to be also
mitigated by this secrecy issue, right?
This TFNI issue. And it's also going to be
mitigated by the fact that, you know, we're, we're looking for
things that they don't have to give us, right?
We're looking for UI want the UFOUAP files that are about
that. And you're not going to just
find those. You're going to have to go
looking and they're going to be, you know, really boring.
They're not going to, they're not going to sound super
exciting to, to most people. It's going to be people who are
subject matter experts in those fields and portfolios that will
say, oh, that's, that's something else, That's something
different. And so that, that's my, that's
my feeling about it. I do think there are some
practical things that that we can focus on to, you know,
moving forward that that, you know, one thing I'm, I'm
noticing is that there are now some very specific asks that are
being made. Congress is seeking specific
videos. We don't know what they are.
Burleson is asking right? There are 46 videos.
They say, you know, we're also being told that Burleson is
making this request for something from Rupelt right from
the Project Blue Book days, you know, some some kind of a
presentation or, or briefing that he gave at MIT.
So that's interesting from 1952. So they're they're starting to
be those kinds of things really targeted, which you could almost
think of that as almost like an end around FOIA kind of
situation where instead of submitting A FOIA request, you
tip off the the right senator or, you know, the right, the
right person in the House that's on an intelligence committee.
That's, you know, like a dog with a bone and say, Hey, can
you please request this request that trust me, this is what we
need. I think that's a great strategy.
But again, there, you know, if it's depending on what it is,
it's going to be either, you know, harder or easier to to get
their hands on. Yeah, as this seems to always be
the case, one interesting thing about Burleson is that his
frustration is becoming more and more apparent.
And he was basically threatening to use the speech and debate
clause to out to more dramatic videos if the administration
doesn't follow through on its promise to sort of up the ante.
He mentioned in particular videos that were of American war
fighters firing on UAP and a couple other types.
And he's like, you know, if you guys aren't going to do this,
then I will go and use my speech and debate clause immunity and
make it public myself, Which I thought was striking because,
you know, given, you know, what we've seen over the past 80
years in terms of, you know, people getting hurt from for
trying to pursue transparency. It was quite brave of him to put
himself out there as the potential mechanism for for some
of these disclosures. But I mean, we'll see.
He says he's not suicidal, so we'll have to make a note of
that if and when any bad thing happens.
Yeah, hopefully he doesn't come to that.
No, I'm exactly right. And I think that there for a lot
of these folks that we've proceeded so far down the road
that if anything were to happen to them, it would be so obvious
that there were machinations that hopefully they just won't
go there to me. So, OK, you mentioned this in
our Twitter or our X conversation earlier about like,
is this really about lights in the sky?
There's so much more going on. And, you know, I mean, I started
this show about UFOs and I spend a lot of my time talking about
consciousness and human capacity and philosophy and, you know,
ontology. Those are really, to my mind,
the deepest, most compelling issues.
Just by virtue of my own personality is proof that there
are anomalous lights in the sky, say that they don't ever admit
to us that there are aliens visiting, but that there are
machines that are flying around that appear to be non human,
that are flying around in our atmosphere.
If they admit that, does that get us into that other
conversation, or is it going to require also sort of ancillary
discoveries from the, you know, the study of human consciousness
from physics to also have sort of revelatory progress for those
things to combine to end us up in this new space where I feel
like, and a lot of my guests have intimated is where we're
ultimately headed. And what do you think about
that? Yeah.
I think that we are at a spot where it does feel like we are
focusing really heavily at the surface of the surface, right?
We are talking mainly about lights in the sky, right?
We're talking about, you know, sightings and sometimes some,
you know, sensor data sort of correlated with those sightings.
Sometimes there's multiple witnesses and things like that.
But that really only corresponds to, I wouldn't even say
depending on what what kind of witness it is, that's just a
sighting, right? That's just a, a perception.
If you have the radar data that that is great.
Now you're maybe looking at a physical object or at least
something that signal can bounce off of, right?
But that's really only one aspect of the phenomenon, just
like it represents a variety of portfolios, let's say.
You know, for different, you know, people within the
intelligence, military intelligence community, it also
is itself, you know, as a just in general, it's a multi faceted
phenomenon. And I feel that if we're
focusing only on this, you know, we're starting here in 2026 with
lights in the sky, that's a, you know, even if that's a
controlled disclosure, I mean, we're where are we going to be?
Because we've been at lights in the sky for decades and decades.
And I think it's worth noting that a lot of these
consciousness aspects that people are, you know, talking a
lot about today, to their great credit, these are things that
are being talked about back in the 40s and 50s, right?
Like the early contactee movement was.
And, you know, there are a lot of really actually deep thinkers
that were noticing trends that people are rediscovering today
over the past, you know, decade or two.
And, and their, that ESP connection, you know, that
we're, that we're seeing a lot and, you know, sigh, phenomena
and parapsychological phenomena. All of those things were being
recognized very early on, if not by researchers, at least by
enthusiasts and then later, shortly thereafter by
researchers as well. And so, you know, there are, I
mean, there are documents from, you know, the 50s, early 50s,
you know, from where there are U.S. officials and Canadian
officials who are talking about, you know, basically that there
are UFOs and there's a group that's studying UFOs, but
they're also studying some strange mental phenomena that
may be connection with the saucers, right?
Like like that's that's. Right about getting downloads
from beings and yeah, I mean totally crazy shit excuse.
Me, yeah. And these are official
conversations that are happening between allied nations, right?
And so, you know, I think it's great that the, the community,
let's say the UFO community is going there and they're going
all the way down the rabbit hole.
And I think it's, I think it's great.
But it in terms of our understanding of the phenomenon
and, and as it relates to disclosure, you know, it's
difficult. It's difficult even to see what,
what aspect are we trying to disclose, right?
Is it really that we want that? Is it that we want the president
to say that, you know, there are flying saucers are real and that
some of them are piloted by aliens?
And to be honest with you, I think it's interesting that we
take that as a given to be. I, I don't, you know that that
and I think that's part of the rub of disclosure is everybody
kind of has their, they already know and.
They're waiting to be confirmed not to be told anything.
They they, that's. Correct.
Everybody's got their own I idea.
And, you know, it's easy to, you know, to sort of think that,
well, every UFO person thinks that, you know, this is they are
extraterrestrials or now it's well there, it's everything has
there are, you know, biological entities, interdimensional
entities or even entities at all, right, that are responsible
for this phenomenon and, or, or who lay at the core of this
phenomenon. And that's just, you know, that
hasn't been true for a very long time.
And and so it is very difficult. We kind of talked about we're
not even really aligned on the really the confirmation that
we're looking for. And so it's sort of difficult to
#1 what is the, what's that, that speech that we're looking
for to agree? What is it that what's the
finish line for this thing we're calling disclosure?
But I would say also even for what's the data we're seeking,
you know, because right now the data that we're getting, even if
we're seeking more data, it's very surface level data.
I, I would even argue that if they rolled a craft out and they
said, here you go alien craft and you were to, and if it was a
craft anything like James Lakatsky or Jim Lakatsky, right,
has described where it's smooth, you go inside.
There's really no signs of any kind of an engine or fuel or
control surfaces. You know, it's, it's kind of
this thing that we know is not ours and we know it's, it's
something, but we don't know what it is.
What do we learn from that? Right?
What do we or maybe, and maybe there are some, some biological,
you know, we pulled these bodies out of there.
They're pretty weird. You know, there are things that
we could glean from the from that, but would we be able to
know definitively? Well, that is what we understand
as an extraterrestrial or that's what we understand as, you know,
our preferred noun is this, you know, and, and the reality is
that even when you get, you know, to that level, it could be
all of it. It could be an, you know, an
extraterrestrial interdimensional, you know,
demon, right? Like we could string together
all of these adjectives and adverbs and nouns.
And it's not as clean cut as well.
That's an extraterrestrial and that's an interdimensional and
that's an ultra terrestrial and that's an Angel, right?
Like we have this whole, you know, frameworks and hierarchies
that are, you know, have baggage with them, but that's not really
the everyday experience of of the the phenomenon, right?
The the people that want confirmation the most are people
that have engaged with the phenomenon.
And some of them have reported that they have had, you know,
liaisons or they've been, you know, in contact voluntarily or
involuntarily with what seems to be a non human intelligence.
But there's a whole host of other things that, you know,
surround these cases. And so one of the things that
I'm interested in is instead of looking for information about
lights in the sky or more reports of, we saw a sphere
moving at this altitude over the Pacific Ocean during this
exercise. That's all well and good.
That doesn't tell me, you know, why I'm lying on this table, you
know, or like why I'm right, why I'm awoken in the middle of the
night and, and I've, you know, and I'm floating through the
window. That's those two things don't
necessarily comport, you know. And I, I think that, you know, a
lot of times what ends up happening is we experiencers or
people who have had anomalous experiences.
I wouldn't consider myself a major experiencer, but I've had
strange things. You know, we are almost
hoodwinked or we're kind of like we are drafted into this
movement, which to me seems like a technology transfer, you know,
kind of situation like this is a military industrial complex
argument that's happening. And we're sort of being scooped
along and and sort of, you know, pulled along into this seeking
these broader these answers. And and so there's there's that
kind of meaning that we're not going to get from these files,
even if they're really great videos and photos, even if
they're giving us, they're showing, Hey, here's a craft,
here's a body that does not answer any of the fundamental
questions. In my opinion, it's it might
satisfy curiosity. It will be certainly
interesting, but even from the science perspective, you know,
the people that we know of that have been, that have been
studying this for decades and decades.
These days, they don't really talk about the propulsion very
much, right? They're they're more interested
in, you know, other aspects of the phenomenon, the same kind
that you're interested in. You know, we talked, we
discussed earlier and I'm sure you've discussed it on your show
several times that, you know, Doctor Jacques Vallet and Eric W
Davis, they came up with a six layer framework, right, to study
the UFO phenomenon. So, you know, there is that
first physical layer, but then the second layer is the anti
physical layer, right? So you have something that is
small on the outside, but when you move through the Hatch, all
the sudden it's really big or you have, you know, time
stretches and things like that, you know.
And so there's like that anti physical, that almost denial of
the physical, the thing that makes, you know, UAP really
loony and really crazy and rejectable by, you know, sort of
mainstream science. That's literally one of the core
aspects of the phenomenon. And we lose sight of that.
And they have the third layer, which is like the psychological
impact, right? You know what, what impact does,
you know, an anomalous experience or even a UFO
sighting have have on the witness and the people who
experienced that, right? So like there's a, there's a
psychological aspect. And I will, I will say that
psychological aspect is very important to war planners,
right? And I mean psychological warfare
that is a portfolio. And so you can bet that there
are people that have files related to that and probably
still are involved in collecting that kind of information today
because it's of tremendous national security importance.
It's a threat and it's an opportunity.
And, and you know, then there's, you know, a, a fourth layer
where you actually have physiological effects, right?
And, and where you actually are now looking at what are the,
what's happening to the body of, you know, within the, the
central nervous system, but also within the tissues of people who
come in close proximity or near field proximity to anomalous
vehicles. That's a very, very important
portfolio. One of the things that I've
noticed and a lot of people are starting to notice is a lot of
the people that we know of that are sort of either actual
verified insiders who have held that portfolios related to UFOs
or making pushes around UFOs. They are non lethal weapons
guys. Almost inevitably you will find
that they were involved in some, you know, very high level non
lethal weapons. You know, whether it's weapons
development or looking at anomalous health incidents and
things like that. Those things are connected in
many ways, right? And I think actually David Grush
alluded to this not long ago. He mentioned that he feels like
the UFO issue and a, hi, the anomalous health incident issue
are very similar thematically, that the way the government is
handling them is, is very similar.
And I, I agree. However, I also think that
there's a lot of overlap in terms of it's really difficult
to do R&D on non lethal weapons when you can't do human
experimentation. And you know, who are you going
to find that's going to say, yeah, I'll let you, you know,
shoot me with that directed energy weapon.
But here you have a group of people who claim to have been
hit with directed energy weapons in proximity, you know, from
some sort of unknown foreign force, right.
Great way to to gather to gather data not just about the UFOs,
but also about whatever kind of non lethal weapons or whatever
kinds of fields these people might have been, you know,
struck with. But then even, but even beyond
that, that layer, the fourth layer, the physiological layer,
you also have a fifth layer, which is psychic, right?
So all of the PSI and parapsychological phenomena that
has has come really, really strong into the forefront today.
And that's really exciting. That's a key aspect of UFOs and
you know it, you really can't have one without the other.
As we just talked about from the very beginning, the people that
were studying UFOs purportedly we're also looking at, you know,
so-called mental phenomena. There are also a lot of
prominent figures that are well known in ufology that were
involved in both efforts, right. So Andrea or Andrea Povich has
been, his name has been flying around a lot lately.
He is, you know, really involved in not just UFOs, but you know,
purported communications or attempting communications and
channel and things like that and saw UFOs with Yuri Geller and
the whole 9 yards, right? That's not a, he's not a, that's
not an isolated case, right? That's a trend.
And we see that to this day.
All of the, you know, not all of them, but many of the remote
viewers, big UFO guys from the very beginning and and the
people who are handling those portfolios that we know of often
are also very interested in UFOs and sometimes are actively
involved in that as well. And then finally, that six layer
not to draw things out, you know, too much is the is also
where we're looking at the sociological and cultural
effects, right? What is this?
We have effects in the witnesses, we have physiological
effects, we have psychological, we have psychic effects,
physiological effects. What does this do to our
culture, right? What does this, how does the UFO
story and how does the impact of individuals and groups having
these experiences, What does it do to us as a society and as a
culture? You know, we could go on about
that for months and months and months and it makes a.
System hypothesis ultimately like what is they are they
trying to engineer in our culture?
That's right, right. And, and you know, I love this
quote, so I'm going to read it verbatim, Valet says.
Everything works as if Uaps were the product of a technology that
integrates physical and psychic phenomena and primarily effects
cultural variables in our society through manipulation of
physiological and psychological parameters in the witnesses.
Right. That's a mouthful.
But what he's doing is showing that this is the that the UFO is
not just one of these layers, it's all of these layers.
And it, and it may be primarily about culture way more than it's
about propulsion. OK, not to say the propulsion
doesn't itself have a huge impact on culture.
It does. Well, the reason why I'm diving
into those six layers or reiterating them for your
audience is because I think we need to start seeking out data
that's relevant to all of those six layers.
And it just so happens that we know of the existence of a
massive like 300,000 strong database compiled by Jacques
Vallee, a data warehouse that's been literally built and
organized such that you can explore the phenomenon in its
various facets. And there was a tremendous
amount of work that went into that.
I mean, there were 30 plus employees hired by Bass and
cleared to handle some of this information that we're working
on creating this data warehouse. And all of the work was there
and it was, you know, there's so many things there.
That database is called Capella. It's named for a star system
that looks like one star in the night sky, but it's actually
four stars, 2 binary systems. And so it's kind of a little
tongue in cheek illusion that he's making with the naming
there that it's one data set, but it's actually a combination
of all of these different data sets that are really important.
And so if Disclosure Foundation people are listening, right?
If people Congress people are listening, push for Capella, we
know it exists. We know that it can't be that
that classified. Most of the information in those
data sets comes from open source data sets, or at least data sets
that you could go if you know the right person to ask and they
would give them to you. They were not all compiled and
collected, you know, from military witnesses or or around
strategic sites. There's a lot of civilian cases
in there. There's really only, I think one
data, one part of the data warehouse that's called like an
eyes only data set. And that comes from Doctor Kit
Green, right? And, and some of his
physiological data that he's been collecting over the decades
with the help of other people in programs and things like that,
that he was monitoring for the Central Intelligence Agency.
And so, but even a lot of that data is open source, right?
You can go, you can look at John Schuessler has put out, or when
he was alive, he had put out a lot of research, you know, sort
of collecting all of these cases.
You can find that Mufon's published a lot of things about
it, but you could take out those those cases if you needed to
from the data warehouse and you could put it out to the public.
And now we have this incredible endless data set that we can now
start to really look and I think actually get some of the
scientific answers and the progress that we're looking for.
I don't think we're going to get the the announcement.
And if we get the announcement, I'll be extremely skeptical
about whatever the announcement is, even if it's something that
I want to hear. In fact, especially if it's
something I want to hear, that's when I will be the most
skeptical about whatever it is. OK.
But I think that if we push for a data set that we know exists,
then, you know, they ought to be able to get it done.
It's not TF and I right, it's not, you know, there might be
some data in there that's relevant.
Just OK, pull those, pull those specific things out, redact them
however you can. But put that on a website, make
that a web app, make that, you know, put that on
war.gov/youknow Capella or whatever it needs to be.
I think that that is a, a really practical thing.
I don't know if we could get it, but it seems like why not,
right? Why not go for something that we
know exists? Yeah, that is such a brilliant
point and people forget that. I also note in the progress of
Bigelow's kind of career that post OSAP, he it seems like he
answered some questions for himself because then he pivoted.
And I wonder that if within that data, if there isn't some
realization that could be drawn for for all of us about the
nature of these things, how they intersect.
Now, if I'm right, DIA owns all that, right?
Does Bigelow retain any copies or is it all within the DIA?
I don't know what's what's interesting is you would think
that DIA at least would have some cognizance over it because
you know the program was Adia program.
That being said, if that database went along with the
program that was supposed to be cone of Blue and if that if that
efforts continued, that maybe that's where that that data set
is. And I sort of think it is that
there that there probably is some sort of continuation and
possibly is part of the contract for that.
You know, maybe they're the new contractor, whoever that is, or
contractors, maybe they sort of purchase the rights for this
data set, which by the way, basically should belong to
Jacques Valet really, if it should belong to anyone.
Most of the data is his in the 1st place.
And the whole, the whole concept of it is his and he's very
frustrated about it. He brings it up all the time.
He's he's trying to sort of rebuild it.
And hopefully especially now with AI agents and things like
that, it'd be a lot easier to do.
But you know though, the big. The reason that they came out
and said initially that it wasn't out was because, well,
it's proprietary, right? Because it belonged to Bigelow.
Well, now it doesn't seem like with everybody talking about it
openly, including Bigelow in spots, that that's really
what's. Going to be kept, yeah, yeah.
Unless somebody, unless there's now some other proprietary, you
know, effort that's been tied into it.
I mean, you could say, OK, you got the new contractor and well,
we added 10 cases to the data warehouse.
So now it is proprietary and nobody can see it, you know,
unless we release it ourselves, right as the contractor, it's
possible that they that they use that.
Either way, I think it's worth making a push for that.
Yeah, I mean, and, but as Grush pointed out, DIA is he, he's one
of the two agencies that he explicitly said is, is sort of
pushing back. So it's rough.
It's rough sledding, but I think it's I think it's worth pushing
for. It might be naive, but you know.
Yeah, well, I think that it's the most obvious target for a
collection of information that addresses the global aspect of
all of this stuff rather than just, you know, lights in the
sky or, or, you know, some other thing.
And what I like about, I mean, if Jacques Valet can recreate
it, that would be awesome as well.
But if somehow he is involved in it does get released, I mean,
his stuff's going to go to archives of the impossible when
he passes. And I can't think of a better
home for that kind of information.
That a place it's already working on developing AI tools
to do a meta analysis on all of the information within, you
know, Whitley Schrieber's letters and you know, John Max
papers, all those things together is exactly the kind of,
you know, synthesis we need for us to actually draw, I think
legitimate conclusions on what's going on.
But it's it's daunting to think it's like this.
It has to be because by nature of how large of a transition
this is ontologically for folks, this is not going to be a simple
thing. There's never going to be a
speech where, you know, the president comes out and we just
suddenly accept this new reality.
It's happening on so many different, you know, frontiers
that it's always going to be a slow evolution.
And so I think we need to be, you know, comfortable with the
fact that this is going to be a slow campaign to educate people
and engage with people and sort of arouse their curiosity rather
than thinking one day it's just all going to be better and we're
all going to be validated. Because I don't know that that's
going to occur in the next 5 or 10 years.
It's always going to be a slow process.
Yeah, I I agree. It's going to, and I think it's
going to be messy no matter how you do it.
And you know, and I think I think we need to also, you know,
accept the relative. Maybe the, the government does
not have all the answers. Like maybe they do have the
answers at a layer one level, but at the rest of these layers,
which are can be fairly scary, right?
They may not have all the layers, all the answers there.
And that may be the heart, the part, you know, there, there
been a lot of people talking about this isn't indigestible
and it's hard to swallow and it's scary.
You know, they may only be talking about that, that level 1
reality. They might not even be talking
about some of these other aspects that, you know, people
are going to have to, to reckon with.
But that's part of life, you know, like the, the, the
government can't protect us from reality forever.
You know, like you, you have to live your life.
You know, imagine if the government was trying to keep
tornadoes under wraps, Like they didn't want anybody to know what
a tornado was. And, and people say, well, I saw
tornadoes and I, I have a film of it and everything.
I mean, you at some point, you know, people get hit by a
tornado, you can't keep it secret anymore.
And and that's where we're at, right?
People are experiencing this phenomenon.
And it's possible that the phenomenon is some kind of
natural phenomenon like that, right?
Or at least some aspects of it is that it's just some kind of
system that we don't or some kind of meta system to keep
Chuck Relay happy that we don't understand, right?
And, and it's possible that, you know, the government is able to
understand some things about that system, but that, you know,
it wouldn't surprise me if they don't have all the answers.
You know, it's possible that some of those things are just
unknowable, you know, at their level of reality, you know, at
that institutional level of reality, certainly.
So it's going to be messy, but I think it's worth, it's worth
continuing to push and being optimistic that, you know, that
we're going to make it have a good result.
And I am, I am encouraged because the community is, even
though it's, it's definitely messy and definitely toxic and
all of those things, there are people that are talking about
those, those, you know, those other aspects.
And, and I, I do think that that's great that we're seeing
so much of that dialogue happening now.
Yeah, I, I think I, I agree with you that during this whole
conversation leading up to the, the release on Friday, people
were like, OK, this is 1 only one aspect of the phenomenon
consciousness is the much bigger piece.
And we need to be prepared to have that conversation.
I saw that several notable, you know, content producers with
that message. And I, I was encouraged by that.
And I have to say, I, I was encouraged by the whole thing.
Donald Trump is obviously using the UFO subject as a as a
distraction. My feeling on that is let him do
it. He's going to be trying to
distract no matter what. That doesn't mean we have to be
distracted. It's like the man is possibly a
pedophile. I'm not going to forget that.
Voters aren't going to forget that.
And when he's out of office, he may well have to pay the price
for that or at least kind of come to terms with an
investigation of some sort. And whatever he does in the
meantime is still is going to happen or not.
So if he wants to release UFO files to kind of create noise,
that's not going to really do him any good anyway.
I'm all in favor of it. Whatever.
He's always going to be chaotic and I would just maybe like the
chaos to work in our direction for once, yeah.
It'd be nice to have a a positive side effect, yeah.
Exactly one thing. That's just strategic, you know,
I mean, you've got you can only play the you can't wait till the
person you like is in office to try and make any, any progress.
I mean, you know, and I do think this is an issue that's being
politicized and and will be politicized, continue to be
politicized, you know, along predictable lines.
But it's not, you know, it shouldn't be, right?
It will be, but it shouldn't be. And so I think that it's OK,
even if you vehemently, you know, or even despise this
administration to say, hey, let's capitalize.
Let's get what we can, when we can and make the most of of
whatever the situation we're in. Exactly right.
And I mean, for some folks, the whole disclosure conversation
has become kind of a dirty word. And I get it for all the reasons
that we've been talking about. But like I tried to say in the
beginning of the show, it's like there's a there's a level of a
Government Accountability that I feel like we have to go after.
And then also, I think that that it is a way ultimately, even if
they're just talking about lights in the sky, if the
anomalies can be focused upon and brought to public attention,
that'll foster a deeper conversation.
Whether it takes decades to get to the stuff that's really
substantive. That may well be the case.
But if we don't start the conversation, we'll never get
there. So it's all part of the piece,
you know? Agreed.
Yeah, agreed totally. I think, you know, that's what
we're trying to do. We're just trying to get more
people having the conversation and it's working.
I mean, this space is, I can remember, you know, there was a
time where UFOX or UFO Twitter, I still like to call it, you
know, there were like maybe 5 to 10 people that were creating
content regularly and everybody kind of knew each other and it
was very insular. And that was even after 2017,
you know, But I do feel like in the last, in the last three
years, I'll say two to three years, I mean, it's just
exploded. I mean, and, and that's, that's
had some really positive effects.
It's brought in some really quality voices.
It's brought in also some not so quality voices.
But that's the nature of the beast.
Right. Yeah, it's always going.
To be that way, if you were going to expand it and you're
going to have more people engaged, then you have to just
accept that more people are going to be engaged.
And so, you know, hopefully as we go on, we'll get more
information, people are going to learn more and more.
Hopefully they're probably going to do one of these rights where
you kind of get, you're really excited.
And then all the sudden the the football, you know, it's moved
enough times that you swing down here.
And then hopefully before, you know, you stick with it and
you'll find some of those truths kind of coming up on the other
end, you know, call it deconstruction, reconstruction,
right? Absolutely.
You know, with ufology. And I think that that's
definitely the relationship that I see a lot of sort of grizzled
vets have with, you know, with this subject.
They're not being, you know, they're not too excited about
anything, right? They just kind of because
they've, they've seen it, they've seen it come and go.
And so I, I, you know, I think that's the healthiest place to
be. So we'll, you know, it, it just,
it just takes sticking around and, and sort of learning and,
and being open to those conversations.
All right, Daniel, thank you so much for a fantastic
conversation and for all your insights and expertise.
You always cut through the bullshit and give us the real
stuff, so thank you. Thanks so much, had a great
time, love to do it again soon.