Hello and welcome to the program UFO Warning.
In this episode, we're talking about NASA's deception.
That's correct, NASA's deception.
Now, whether we're talking about space shuttle disasters or
pictures that NASA just won't release, there seems to be a lot
of deception around. A lot of things they've done.
It begins with the fact that most people, I think, don't
really understand NASA's origin, where it comes from, and what is
prime mission is. Most people, I think, believe
NASA is this benign group of scientists who are intent on
discovering and exploring the universe.
That's not how they started. They started in 1958, and
reportedly that was in response to the Soviet, Soviet Union
sending up the satellite Sputnik.
They got ahead of the Americans a little bit, and the Americans
got pretty concerned about, you know, a rival superpower getting
the heads up on them, taking the high ground in space.
And it said, hey, we got to do something.
So if you go to Wikipedia, you'll see that their their
mission statement basically just says NASA explores the unknown
in Air and Space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and
inspires the world through discovery.
If if that's not a blank check, I don't know what is.
It says core values. We have a set of core values.
Safety, integrity, teamwork. Excellent.
Inclusion and they are evident and all that we do.
There are jobs and there are careers.
What NASA really is, is is a company I think I read somewhere
where they take in basically $53 million a day in taxpayer money.
So they get they're hugely, you know, relying on America
taxpayers. Yet we have to hire Elon Musk to
send up rockets to our space station.
So they seem to be incompetent of doing the job of keeping our
space station supplied and staffed, but yet they're taking
in millions upon millions of dollars.
They seem to be accountable to no one really.
And when you try to find stories about like the two million
pictures that they have from the 90s that they took at the moment
that they won't release, you know, I found that story once.
I'm going to have to go through my old programs and relook it up
because that's been memory hold. They seem like maybe the $53
million that they're that they're that they are granted by
taxpayers. Every year.
It seems like millions of that must just go into PR because
you'll be hard pressed to find a bad story about them.
But I did find a few stories written pointing toward the
deception that we often see with NASA, and I find it to be quite
serious now. Like I said, the first detective
thing I think about NASA is the fact that they're not.
Like, just focused on exploring outer space, okay.
They're doing all kinds of other stuff.
And those telescopes aren't just directed toward bars and Jupiter
and Saturn. They're directed toward your
house, your property. And we'll get into an article
here a little bit. And where they actually say,
well, some of these pictures we can't publish because people
don't like to be shown watering their garden in the backyard.
NASA's not just spying on the moon, they're spying on you,
Okay. Now, you could say that's
intentional or otherwise. But that's, that's the fact of
the matter. And that's one of the most
deceptive things about this whole organization of NASA is
just what are they watching and who are they watching now?
This article I found from fedscoop.com and I'll post it on
the Buy Me a Coffee website. You can go over there and look
at these articles and as always, shout out to the people that
support me over there. I appreciate it very much.
This article's titled NASA Won't Rush Mars Mission Over US Space
Race with China. The article goes into some
detail about. The Chinese going to the moon
and you know what a threat they are, blah blah blah.
And it quotes this, It quotes Administrator Bill Nelson.
It says this is date of July 21st, 2021, so, you know, three
years ago. But the part of this article
that I really found interesting was.
Down here toward the bottom, he says space is the high ground
and the important ground, and trying to protect the interest
of our country and the free world, Nelson said.
Notice that they're looking at space as a place to look down on
us, not up in the sky. Nelson said he also supported
expanding publicprivate partnerships and space
exploration, commercial 3D printing of rockets.
Will reduce the cost of space travel and make it more
accessible. While SpaceX is fixed price
contract to deliver cargo and crew to the ISS is enabling
commercial space efforts, he said.
Look, if these guys are so competent, why aren't they doing
it themselves? NASA will require that any space
tourist going to the ISS and you are the same training and
medical and psychological training as its own astronauts
so as not to interfere with their research, Nelson said.
He says yes, there may be a Bezos idea of colonies and out
in space, yes, there may be colonizing on Mars, he said.
But we need to have the vision to get there and develop the
technologies in order to sustain human life.
Now here's the part that's really important, he says.
Closer to home, NASA deployed A phalanx of satellites measuring
climate effects. He said.
In the next 10 years, we're going to put up five great
observatories. Then we're going to look at
oceans and land and ice and the atmosphere, Nelson said.
And we're going to compile a 3D composite of the minute changes
that are occurring so that we can better project what we've
got to do in order to save our planet by saving our climate.
Okay, where do you begin? 5 Great observatories, 5 great
spy machines to be pointed directly at you.
To decide how much carbon that you're using to decide whether
or not you're overheating the planet.
Secondly, the Herbri the arrogance that they're going to
save our planet by saving our climate.
Remember, we've talked about the butterfly effect.
You can tweak 1 little tiny thing.
You know the butterfly in a in a jungle in South America bats its
wings, which leads to a cascading chain of events, which
leads to a tornado that wipes out of town in the Midwest
somewhere. I mean, this idea that these
morons can somehow control the climate, a system with probably
quadrillions of inputs, and they're going to tweak that
system somehow so that they can keep the temperature of the
Earth at a stable temperature. And we're not even talking about
the fact that they've been caught lying about the data.
Okay. They can't lie about it.
They can't, they can't help themselves.
But lie about everything. It's maddening.
Let's take a look at this next article here, which kind of goes
into this whole notion of NASA and the fact that they are based
on deception, that they engage in deception and they will be
the last people on Earth to give you disclosure.
And so we're talking about pictures.
And I did manage to find this one short article from
collectspace.com. It's written by a member, it's
like a form and it's posted 8/27/2002.
So this has been a while, but even back then having problems.
It says forget the moon hoaxes this is out of their leg and
their comprehensions. Many people are unaware that the
moon does rotate on its axis blah blah blah.
And then it says it is a fact that NASA has hundreds of images
considered classified. I think it's actually way more
than that. A various lunar mission imagery
as early as Ranger, the lunar orbiters one through 5 and
including Apollo hundreds of classified images of the moon.
Later down the road, Project Clementine came along and had an
outstanding high res camera on board that sent home some of the
finest classified images you will probably never see.
Clementine was used jointly by NASA and the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization to acquire these high res images of the
moon front and back. So here you go again.
It's just nonsense about, well, we've got some really good
pictures but we can't show you the pictures because if we did.
The Russians and Chinese would know how good our cameras are,
and if they knew how good our cameras were, that would be a
dangerous national security. What nonsense.
So they've got pictures from the 1960s and 70s of the moon that
are high resolution, unbelievably high quality, but
you can't see them. Because if you saw them, the
Russians and the Chinese would see them, and then the Russians
and Chinese would know how far advanced we are and how far
ahead of them we are. And that would be a danger to
national security. So shut up, go back to bed and
pretend like NASA's your friend. We heard the same garbage out of
the Navy and the Department of Defense when they had images of
those UFO off the coast of San Diego.
Remember the ones that fell into Louis Elizondo's hand somehow in
the in the brown paper bag and found that we on to the New York
Times and on YouTube and then had the Tom Delonge watermarks
stashed all over him? Remember, the Navy came out and
said, well, we've actually got much better pictures than that,
but you can't see them because that would endanger national
security. So I understand.
They've got pictures of these things.
They've told you that they can take a picture of a softball
sized object at 30,000 feet. So they've got the pictures same
way when that submarine went down a couple weeks ago they the
the Navy went, knew that that submarine had employed about 1/2
a second after it employed it. They heard it.
But what did they do? They let people believe that
those people might be down there gasping for air at the bottom of
the ocean because you know if the Navy.
Told you that they knew about it, then the Chinese and
Russians would know that we're listening to everything that
goes on under the water in the ocean.
And if they knew that it might endanger national security,
well, of course that's nonsense. And that particular story got so
much national attention. And so many people saw through
this, first of all, action of the Navy pretending not to know
what was going on, that they got a little bit of heat over it and
said how could you keep those families?
There with false hope like that. So they're hiding from you.
They're hiding from you. The fact that the Navy can hear
everything going on in the ocean, see everything that's
coming in through our skies, and that NASA has pictures of the
moon that are mind bogglingly good from the 1960s and 70s, He
says some Apollo missions detected moon geysers.
Along the eastern edge of the Sea of Storms, for example, in
moon volcanoes, they reported seeing many different colors on
the moon backside while the centers of some of the craters
glowed. We've heard about moon glow many
times. Now they're telling us that the
Chinese discovered what a a 30 mile long slab of granite that
had to have been caused by a volcano.
So it's looking more and more like the moon is a living body.
It's not just some dead, inanimate object up there.
I mean it's it's moving the same way the Earth is moving.
But NASA, and it's a drive to deceive and it's drive to cover
up, and it's drive to just hold all knowledge to itself.
It's doing what it's doing best, and that is holding on to the
data, not letting us see it, it says.
Some of the Apollo missions detected moon geysers along the
eastern edge of the Sea of Storms, for example of moon
volcanoes that reported seeing many different colors on the
moon's backside. While the creatures of some of
the while the centers of some of the creatures glowed, later
missions observed and reported unexplained haze, clouds, and
color flashes in the in the in and around the crater Aristocus.
A lot of this information is available to those who seek it
in the February 1972 National Geographic.
They make mention of some of these findings, he says.
I don't want to be too long winded on the matter, but I'm
curious to why classified images of the moon would even exist.
Well, it would exist because it can.
They want to. If it was up to the people that
that run NASA, the people like the people that run NASA, they'd
still having you believe the world was flat.
And the only reason that they let you know the world is round
is so they can get more money from you.
And so you see this pattern happening over and over when
NASA exercises deception, when it comes to just common,
ordinary everything, that ordinary things that are in
plain sight for everybody to see, to see.
It is their nature to deceive. It's almost like it's in their
charter. Okay, they're not put there to
be this, this vast organization that explores the universe.
They're there to spy on you as much as anything.
Now let's take a look at this next article.
So I've got another article here on photos and this NASA's
obsession with not releasing photos with just being deceptive
about it. Now this article comes up from
space.com. You know, pretty much mainline.
This is dated October 16th, 2015, so it's a fairly old
article. It says tracking down rare NASA
photos hidden from public view. This written by John Business
John Bisney. It says John Bisney, a space
journalist, is co-author with JL Pickering, The Space Shots and
Snapshots of Projects, Mercury and Gemini.
And moonshots and snapshots of the Project Apollo.
And then it goes on here, says Is there anyone who hasn't seen
the iconic photo of Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin standing
on the moon? Or the equally famous Earthrise
photo taken from lunar orbit by the Apollo 8 crew?
They are just a famous because both are dramatic images that
document two of the greatest moments in exploration, the
first time humans left our planet behind and the first time
humans walked on another celestial body.
Such images are so historic, in fact, that it's nearly
impossible to find a book about space exploration that doesn't
include them. And while there's nothing wrong
with that, or with using any of the perhaps 200 other Greatest
hits pictures from the US manned space program for decades
readers have been deprived of a much deeper look at that effort,
ironically, because the more famous photos are, well, more
famous then it goes on here. As the pictures of the
astronauts with their heads been over praying, it says that
reluctance by book authors and editors go to go beyond easily
accessible photos has limited the exposure of more rarely seen
images, crowding them out as a result of space photo archivist
JL Pickering and I both realized something was wrong, that the
public was missing out and seeing 10s of thousands of other
images that has simply been followed away and forgotten,
languishing in NASA archives. I think he's being a little too
easy on NASA here. First off, of course, we know
that a lot of journalists and authors are just lazy, and it's
way simpler to just to pick out one of the, you know, couple 100
pictures that's easily accessible than to try to deal
with NASA to get pictures that are locked away in a vault
somewhere. But you have to ask yourself,
why are those pictures locked away?
It is 2023 NASA is getting, you know.
Billions of dollars a year? Wouldn't say $53 million a day
from the taxpayers. Are you telling me that NASA
couldn't find one of those people that should be building
rockets to go to the space station, but we but isn't
because you're not competent enough to?
Couldn't one of those guys develop a website where they
could just post these pictures? Why are why are so many of these
pictures classified? I mean, it's just this notion
that this stuff was just kept from you.
You're your plebe. You're a peasant.
You don't get to see it. These photos, filled with far
more than astronauts and spacecraft, are just are just as
important to the nation's understanding and appreciation
of what the country accomplished as their more famous
counterparts. They reveal the men and women
behind the successes and failures of the early US manned
space program. We see their emotions and
workplaces and glimpses of their everyday lives and culture on
the job. So it goes on.
Talks a little bit about the article, about him trying to
find this stuff, he says. In the public eye, and while
much material is still hidden away, we knew we had much more.
We had more than enough to publish books focusing on rare
images or those that have never been released.
The result is space space shots and snapshots of projects
Mercury and Gemini. Look, these guys are just tip.
They're just touching the tip of the iceberg.
You know, you have, you have this article, which is pretty
much a. Pretty much a washover, I think,
of NASA's really deplorable behavior.
Even they're telling you, well, we've only got a couple hundred
of these pictures in the public domain.
But since, you know, that's not enough, we went to NASA.
NASA's got 10s of thousands of stuff, pictures of the buried
away, hidden away in vaults that's not accessible to the
public. But they did give us another
couple 100 pictures, so we're going to write a puff piece
about them. You have to ask yourself, what
is this obsession with NASA covering up these photographs
and being so deceptive? Now, of course, I'll claim that
it could reveal sources and methods.
Where will we heal that? Where have we heard that before?
Anytime you have people covering stuff up like this, it doesn't
lead me to believe that they're covering it up for my own good.
It leads me to believe that they're covering it up.
Because they're hiding something from us.
And let's look at this next article.
So if we're trying to find out why NASA is being so deceptive,
maybe it will help to look back at the roots a little bit of
this organization. I think this thing was just
founded in deception. We have this article here from
time.com. It says the sadly familiar
reason NASA was created. It's written July 29th, 2015.
It's got a picture of Dwight the eyes now here.
And Doctor Keith the Glen, in the first head of NASA, says
NASA may be devoted to exploring the universe, but the agency
owes this existence to a far more earthly concern office
politics. The National Aeronautics and
Space Act, which was signed into law on July 29th, 1958, was
intended to quote, provide for research and the problems of
flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for
other purposes. Like I said, blank check.
One of those other purposes is time noted shortly after the
Aqua sign was to overcome the inner service rivalries that had
confused the US missile and space programs.
Well, what do you expect? I mean, you brought all these
Nazi scientists over, Von Braun, all these guys.
Would there be some rivalries? Yeah, I imagine you had people
that had been working in Nazi Germany using slave labor of
Jews who were about to be murdered in.
In concentration camps and those scientists that were working in
facilities where the work was done by people who were being
actively worked to death and soon to be gassed to death by
Nazi s s, those guys were okay with that.
Werner Braun was Okay with that. What did you say?
What goes up, comes down, comes down?
Something like that. These people didn't care, Okay.
They were sociopathic. But what did we do as America?
What did? What did Harry Truman and the
CIA do? Well, Operation Paper Clip, we
went over there, we rounded up these Nazis and we brought them
in and we flooded our missile and rocket program with these
guys because we felt like our guys were too dumb to do the
work. Could that?
Create some rivalry? Yeah, I imagine it could.
Before NASA, various branches of the military were conducting
research into aspects of space exploration like Jet Propulsion
and satellites, and each wanted a key role in the exciting new
field. Giving a single branch agency
over all space exploration would alienate the others.
Moreover, it could signal that the universe was a battleground
as much as a place of inquiry as a NASA.
Act noted activities in space should be devoted to peaceful
purposes. That's like hiring the fox to
guard the hen house with the establishment of an agency
specifically dedicated to space and its counterpoint, the
military research agency now known as DARPA, which was
created at the same time that bureaucratic nightmare was
thought solved. Well, nobody in their right mind
would think it was solved creating another behemoth to
combat the first behemoth. It's not going to work.
It goes on. It says NASA's authority take
our peaceful Space Center Commission didn't exactly go
down easy. Talks a little bit about that,
some of the politics involved. And then it says a version of
that plan is what ended up happening before the end of the
NASA's preeminence and American space exploration was settled.
There was no sign of future infighting.
At least not that Glimmon would be involved with.
I doubt it, he said. I can.
I cannot. I doubt that I can go through
this again. Yeah, it talks a little bit
about the infight between NASA and DARPA.
Look. Two wings on the same bird.
But what you see here is an organization created as a
response to the Russians being able to launch satellites.
An organization populated, from what I can see, with former
Nazis. What could possibly go wrong?
Why should we be surprised at the deception that we were
constantly faced with from this organization?
Now let's look at this article. It's not just photographs.
And office politics that these guys can be deceptive about.
There's also been some other strange happenings that I think
deserve to be covered now. This is an old article from the
New York Times back when they still did some good work.
Is dated November 14th, 1988 written by Phillip Shannon.
It says special thanks to the New York Times, NASA accused of
cover up and shuttle deaths and this is some pretty some pretty
dark stuff. About this archive It says this
is a digitized version of their article from the New York from
the Times print archive before the start of online publication.
The Times does not alter, edit, or update them.
Well, I hope that's true. Occasionally the digitation
process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
We are continuing to work to improve these archive versions.
Well, let's just hope they didn't leave by any of the good
parts, but that I'll read it anyway.
A member of the presidential Commission that investigated the
1986 Challenger disaster. Charged today that the National
Aeronautics Space Administration that tried to conceal details
about the deaths of seven crew members aboard the space
shuttle. Quote of course there was a
cover up UN quote, said the Commission member Robert B
Holtz, former editor of Aviation Week and Space Technology.
I believe they couldn't face the fact that they had to put these
guys in a situation where they did not have adequate equipment
to survive. Well, I'm going to tell you
something. Maybe I've mentioned this
before, but I had an NBA class years ago and we did a failure
analysis on this crash. And of course, you know what
happened? In a nutshell, the O rings got
too cold. They contracted.
They let what gasket by and you ended up with with the craft
blowing up and there was talk about whether or not that thing
should launch. And the engineers were telling
the flight manager the guy in charge, hey, listen, these
things have. You expose these O rings to
temperature ranges outside the safe limits.
Okay, We shouldn't do this. There's a there's a pot, there's
a chance something can go wrong. We found that the decision
makers were actually using qualitative reasoning, that is,
their emotions, to make decisions that should have been
made with quantitative reasoning.
In other words, using the math. And that's never a good
situation when you're making math based decisions using.
Only your emotions. So when it comes to mechanical
things, or when it comes to making a serious financial
choices, it's more important to use quantitative reasoning.
You've got to do the math. If you're just following your
emotions, you're going to make a lot of mistakes, you're going to
panic, you're going to get angry and make decisions out of anger.
You're going to make decisions out of fear.
And this situation, it looked like the guy that was in charge
felt like he was under intense emotional pressure to have this
rocket undergo a successful launch.
So he wasn't using math, the engineers were using math, and
emotions had no place in this decision other than the emotion
of empathy towards the crew. And there wasn't obviously a lot
of that. So we went through the whole
process and we talked about. You know, NASA's approach to
this problem. And the professor asked us what
we thought would happen as a result of all this.
And I said back then I said, well, there's going to be
another shuttle crash. And he was kind of shocked.
And he said, why would you say that?
And I told him basically what I just told you.
I said they're making quantitative decisions
qualitatively. They're thinking with their
emotions. They're not going to the
engineers who were the experts. And as I understand it that next
shuttle that came down, engineers had approached.
I believe it was a female that was in charge of their group or
in the in the launch and told her, listen, we think that these
things have been damaged, but we can repair them up there and she
just shut them down. No, those things are those
things are beyond being damaged and as a result you had a bunch
more astronauts burned to death. So I.
I have a lot of misgivings about NASA.
I don't view NASA as being some sort of Dem.
I God, you know, they're just people like the rest of us.
And anytime you get a group of people, if you have a large
enough group of people, there's going to be dumb people in
there. There's going to be stubborn
people in there, there's going to be ignorant people in there.
And you know, usually the Dumber somebody is, the more arrogant
they are. That's usually it.
A sign of high intelligence to somebody who's not arrogant.
That's that's been my experience, the highest time
intelligence, somebody who's curious.
And wants to know all the facts and wants to get the information
before they make a decision. This know it all attitude.
If I know everything, you can't tell me anything.
Doesn't hold water with me. And we see a lot of that at
NASA. And what happens then when they
invariably screw up and people die?
Well, they exercise deception because that's what they're good
at and that's what this article talks about.
It says Mr. Holt's confirming statements attributed to him and
the Miami Herald Sunny magazine, said in an interview that he
believed that at least some of the seven crew members were
alive, though probably not conscious, when the crew
compartment smashed into the Atlantic Ocean more than two
minutes after the shuttle exploded.
That would be terrible. Shirley Green, a spokesman for
the space agency, denied Mr. Holt's allegations of a cover
up. I don't know on what he could
possibly base such a conclusion, she said.
I think the evidence is very clear that the agency tried,
through a number of methods to get as honest an investigation
as it could. We were straightforward with the
public breathing packs activated.
Yeah, that's the go to line. We didn't lie to you.
First thing a liar will say to you is that it didn't lie to
you. NASA was has altered its account
of the January 28th, 1986 disaster first saying it
believed that the crew members had died instantly.
In July 1986, the space agency said its analysis showed that
the crew had no inkling of the disaster.
Later that month, however, NASA reversed itself and acknowledged
that the astronauts had activated their emergency
breathing packs, which seemed to be evidence that some of the
crew members struggled to survive well after the
explosion. Imagine that, Mister Hot
because, And why? Well, because some arrogant
person on the ground said. I'm not going to listen to the
engineers. I'm going to do things my way.
I mean, that's how I understand it.
If I'm wrong, correct me. Mr. Hots said he believed that
NASA's initial statements about the astronauts and other actions
by the space agency were part of a broad effort to keep the
public from learning that the Challenger crew members might
have survived the disaster if certain precautions had been
taken. There you go, maybe if the
people in charge of pulling lot switch.
Would have simply listened to the engineers who said those OO
rings got too cold last night and they're they're they're not
sealed like it should be, and there could be a catastrophic
fire. If they would have listened,
Okay with readily available standard safety equipment like
emergency oxygen and parachutes, that could have, that could have
happened, he said. I believe NASA couldn't face
that fact, so even after they'd screwed up and launched, if
there'd been proper. Equipment put on that craft to
save those guys. They could have been saved after
the fact, but why should we expect an organization that
can't make the first good decision to make a second good
decision? Determining the exact cause of
the astronauts death is important for policy and legal
reasons. Safety specialists say that if
astronauts survived the fireball, they might have been
saved had the show been equipped with an escape mechanism.
Others, including NASA officials, question whether
anyone. Could have lived through the
accident despite Mr. Holt's comments the contrary, the space
agency said in a statement today There is universal agreement
that no one could have survived such an accident.
Universal. So they pulled the entire
universe. Reminds me of something else.
We just got through Universal agreement.
Don't question the science. As a result of the challenge of
disaster, the space shuttle Discovery was equipped with
devices to allow the crew to escape an emergency shortly
after launching. An article in Herald Sunny
magazine Trophy reported that NASA officials misled employees,
their presidential Commission, and the public about whether the
astronauts could have survived the disaster.
Something awful. Well, there you go.
Make a mistake. Cover up a mistake.
And that's why you see all this deception.
Now that I What I'm getting at here is the core value of NASA
being deception from the very beginning.
Who did we hire? Nazis.
Von Braun. Not going to talk about it.
What did Von Braun do in Germany?
He built rockets to kill English people.
And how did he build those rockets?
He used slave labor of Jews who were headed to the gas chambers.
So just before the Nazis gassed them to death, von Braun got a
little bit of work out of them building his rockets.
And did he ever apologize for that publicly?
I've never heard it. Big time NASA guy.
And it just goes on and on from there.
They're supposed to be exploring the universe, but they're
exploring your backyard with photographs, looking at you.
They're supposed to be sharing all this stuff they find for the
betterment of mankind. It's classified.
And they won't show you the pictures.
Why? Because that might expose
sources and methods. Sources and methods of what?
How they can spy on us. We already know that.
It's a circle of deception. This culture of deception and
why in the world anybody ever thinks that they could ever get
5 minutes of disclosure of these guys is beyond me.
Now I want to take a look at one more thing here.
It says privacy limits, NASA investigations, talking about
these pictures and this is what they're telling you they're
putting on here right in, in in plain sight for you.
Mr. Kirkpatrick. Also know that privacy concerns
limit the. The agency's investigations, we
can point the largest collection apparatus in the entire globe at
any point we want, he said. Think about that speaking
confidently. We can point the largest
collection apparatus in the entire globe at any point we
want, he said. A lot of what we have is around
the continental United States, he added.
A lot. Most people don't like it when
we point our entire collection apparatus at your backyard.
Think about that. When we do.
So apparently they're doing it. So here's NASA, the agency
that's supposed to be focused on exploring space, telling you
that they have the largest collection apparatus on the
globe and they can point it at your house.
So if you want to trust the NSA with disclosure.
If you want to trust the CIA with disclosure, if you want to
trust the Department of Defense and Intelligence with
disclosure, go right ahead. But NASA is no different than
this brood of Vipers. This is what they do.
Yeah, yeah, okay, We have to have the military to protect us.
But you can't expect the military to give you disclosure
about UFOs or anything else. They're telling you that they
have the largest collection apparatus in the entire globe.
But look, they're not going to tell you about UFOs.
Because if they told you about UF O's, they would have to show
you the pictures of that UFO and somebody's backyard.
And then you would realize, wow, when your wife's out there with
her bikini in the backyard, take a nice sunbathing or you're out
there in the backyard with your grandkids playing in the pool.
NASA could be watching, Probably are watching.
I mean, what else have they got to do?
They're not in charge of taking rockets up to the space shuttle
anymore, up to the space station anymore.
They've got to hire out all the hard work.
They've cancelled the landing on the moon for next year.
So what do they have to do? But look in your backyard with
the largest collection apparatus on the globe.
So as we've talked about this in the podcast about deception and
disclosure, I get a lot of feedback, sometimes negative
saying that I, you know, and being a negative, Nancy about.
Everything from the Smithsonian to to NASA.
But these articles I've just showed you today right here show
you that NASA was based in deception.
NASA operates in deception, and NASA holds and collects tons and
tons and tons of data, and they do it deceptively.
And you're not going to get it and you're not going to get the
you're not going to get disclosure from these guys ever.
So it's time to look outside these organizations.
That's all I can say about it. Until next time, this is UFO
Warning over now.