Daniel Sheehan, Lue Elizondo, Ralph Blumenthal, Richard Dolan

“It’s Probably Not Human” – Elizondo, Blumenthal & The Allies of Humanity

30 Aug , 2021  

“I think we can agree that it’s not ours, and I think we can agree that it’s probably certainly not foreign adversarial. Which means it’s probably not human.”

~Lue Elizondo


If you like what you see on my blog, my Twitter and YouTube Channel and appreciate the time and effort, here’s my Patreon, Pay Pal and Venmo.


Patreon = https://www.patreon.com/ufojoe

PayPal – ufojoe11@aol.com

Venmo – www.venmo.com/u/ufojoe


By Joe Murgia – @TheUfoJoe

Making Contact Convergence Conference

Day 4 – August 22nd 2021

Panel – The Public Policy (‘Political’) Questions Posed by ‘Contact’ With An Extraterrestrial Civilization – IF These “UFOs” Turn Out to Be “Extraterrestrial”




Danny Sheehan = DS – Moderator. Constitutional and Public Interest Lawyer & Executive Co-Producer of Making Contact

Ralph Blumenthal = RB – Multi-Award Winning Journalist & Esteemed Author

Richard Dolan = RD – American Historian, Ufologist, and Radio/Television Personality

Luis Elizondo = Lue – Former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent

Marshall Summers = MS – American Religious Leader, Spiritual Teacher & Prolific Writer

Adam Curry – AC – Adam Curry – Director | Entangled Labs


I also read a large portion of the transcript and added some of my own thoughts on YouTube. Part 1 of 3…


DS: Saturday has been one of the days this has all been building up to, to get everybody here to deal with it, to come to grips with the extraordinary nature of what’s happening now, the crescendo of which started back in December of 2017, that we’ve all talked about. I wanted to have Marshall be here, so as to put the issue to us that there’s an awful lot of idealistic responding to the UFO phenomenon and perhaps a lack of some care. There was an awful lot of going on when Marshall was delivering your talk, Marshall, that people were running around here with their hair on fire, going, “Wait a second, wait a second. What about the allies, what about the allies that we’ve made, what about the good guys that are out there that are kind of communicating with us?” And one of the reasons I asked Adam to come on, is because Adam has done research in the area, Princeton has done research on the issues, such issues as a telepathic communication, these extraordinary anomalous capabilities that people seem to have that do generate some realistic probability that human beings are capable of receiving telepathic communications. 

One of the things that Marshall didn’t get to in the discussion today, stopping early, was making references to how he had gotten information from a group of people, beings, actually, from different star systems within our galaxy, who are communicating their desire to be helpful to us in light of the sort of non-intervention protocols that Marshall understands exist within our galaxy. He’s talked about one side of them, that the commercial coalition of people or beings in the galaxy that are engaged in sort of a commercial view of our planet, as a source of resources, etc., have one whole kind of agenda. But that there is in fact another group of beings in our galaxy, who are here trying to suggest to us that we be careful at this extraordinarily important stage of our human development, to be cautious in our response to any types of offers to help, reaching out to us, etc. This is a very different thing for Lue, it’s a very different kind of challenge than the kind of standard, military type of challenge, as you say, in your own unique experience, were frustrated by the fact that the highest-level officials in the defense establishment didn’t seem to be treating this phenomenon as a kind of a threat of any kind. And it was frustrating for [Lue], and here’s Marshall suggesting that the threat may be something quite different than a military threat. And yet, there’s gonna be a lot of people saying, “Well, how would Marshall know anything like that?” Marshall would indicate that he has, and he’s been careful about this…I noticed that during his participation so far, that he has not really directly communicated to everybody that this is telepathic information that he’s gotten down over the years from this group of Allies for Humanity. 

And so what I wanted to do is I wanted to have us all come together to talk about this. Richard and I have been on different panels, in different presentations and different gatherings in conferences etc., down through the years, so we’re quite familiar with sort of each other on this. So I wanted to get us all together, and we’ve got here one of the premier investigative journalists in our generation, who’s here with us. So I wanted to have a conversation in which, Ralph, you as an experienced journalist, would be helping to ask questions of people of a panel like this. What kind of questions? I know you were asked during your question and answer period, “Would you like to meet an extraterrestrial being?” I could just see that kind of an interview (laughs). What are your questions going to be? But what I would like to know, is what kind of questions, knowing who the people are that are gathered here, including Adam Curry, who has done research at Princeton, about these potential extra-special or extrasensory capacities that our human family has, which Marshall is alluding to. Why don’t you ask some questions like, if you’ve gotten this golden opportunity to have this interview of these people that are here with us today, how are you going to advance your understanding of this whole phenomenon?

RB: Danny, I gotta say this. It is hard enough to get a serious organization like the New York Times to pay attention to the fact that the UAP report, for the first time, acknowledged that these objects physically exist. I mean, that in itself is a breakthrough. To go on and talk about, you know, communications from extraterrestrials or so is a huge leap forward that is very very difficult to make in the mainstream media.

DS: It is.

RB: I just want to say that…my talk today was about how it’s so important to stick to things that we can verify, on the record sources, things we can confirm. And when you get into, you know, claims that the U.S. is working with extraterrestrials on the Dark Side of the Moon, you know, that turns a lot of people off and it’s just impossible to verify. So what I’m saying is that, you know, we, investigative reporters in mainstream media are facing great obstacles in establishing even the most basic elements of the whole UFO/UAP experience so we have to be extremely cautious and conservative in what claims we put forward.

DS: I agree. 

RB: That’s where I’m coming from. 

DS: I know, I agree and that’s why I think that you will probably acknowledge that, if we have to wait for that, for the New York Times to put it on the front page, may be a little behind the power curve on this issue. So, I’m approaching you in terms of being a journalist who has, for example, done the book about John Mack and exploring what an extraordinary set of data it was that was coming in here. There was data from other sources that, for example, you might ask Richard Dolan, for example. Richard, in all the time that you spent on this, what is it that convinces you that there is another dimension to this story that has to do with, actually, not just the mechanics of these vehicles – and whether they’re solid objects, which we’ve finally gotten the Defense Department to acknowledge. But, how much farther do you think that you as a journalist might be able to go by interviewing a person like Richard Dolan, to share with you some additional data that he has that might be worthy of your journalistic integrity, even if the New York Times is not quite yet ready to publish that? But so, for you as a journalist, to try to figure this stuff out. What kind of information? Let me do it the other way around. Richard. What type of information do you think that you have, that has convinced you, as an objective historian and researcher, that might be shared with Ralph, that would start to give Ralph an additional amount of information or data that might be helpful?

RD: Very easy. You start with the declassified literature that we have had for decades and decades, that describe military encounters with objects that are simply not supposed to exist. Not starting in 2004, which is all we ever about. It’s as if the UFO phenomenon started in 2004. And, I mean, I understand, it’s important to keep the discussion restricted to certain facts, but the reality is, by ignoring the 1990s, 1980s, going back to the 1940s, and even forgetting the earlier periods, by ignoring those earlier sightings and ignoring the dramatic memos, classified memos that we have through FOIA, that we’ve had since the 70s, that prove, they don’t hint, they don’t suggest, but they prove, that the United States government has been deeply concerned, to the point of almost panic about these objects. Like, to me, that’s a story that has not been in any mainstream establishment or publication, certainly not The New Times. And I know that Ralph would be interested, I have no doubt, I mean I’ve listened to you, Ralph. But the fact is, that’s where we need to go. We need to establish the historical reality of the United States, and also other governments but let’s start with U.S. because this has been going on. You’ve got, for example, a January 1949 memo, by the FBI, detailing airspace incursions over White Sands and over Los Alamos. Objects being tracked with instrumentation traveling in upwards of 9000 miles per hour. That’s Tic Tac UFO territory right there and there’s quite a few of these types of documents that we have. So, I would say start with that. 

RB: You know, I agree with Richard that a lot of it hinges on documentation, government documentation, which is why we put so much stock in Lue’s group, AATIP and why that story still (audio cut out) was printed in The New York Times, our first story. We had Lue, we had his documentation, his letter of resignation, we had his quotes, there were no anonymous sources. So, with the proper authentication, and proper sourcing, yes, these stories can get into the paper. One of the problems, Richard, as you recognize, I’m sure, with the documents, is there’s been so much controversy over authenticity of documents and so much disinformation in documents. We were dealing with a document at the New York Times that we were convinced, and I’m not going to say what it was, but we were convinced it was authentic. And we ended up concluding it was at least partially authentic, it had to do with crash retrievals. But then we were told that it may not be totally authentic. So there’s been a lot of tampering with official documents. There’s been so much shadowy government activity in this field, disinformation, that it’s almost impossible.

RD: There is that.

(I believe the document Ralph may have been referring to is the 1961 MJ-12, SNIE – Special National Intelligence Estimate. I wrote about it here and here)


RB: It’s why we relied so much on Lue and his organization, because here, at least, was something we could latch onto, to say that the government, an official government organization says this, this and this. And suddenly, we were on easy ground in terms of getting the New York Times to pay attention. And so, that’s the challenge we face and it’s always easier when the government acknowledges something. At least we know who’s standing behind it, who’s saying what, and it’s much easier than taking a video, for example, from a citizen who says, “I filmed this UFO outside of the DC train station and here it is.” And I don’t know what to make of it, it looks good, it looks interesting. But if the government were to release that, like the three Navy videos we put in the New York Times, that drew unprecedented attention, that suddenly makes news. I mean, Lue is the key to this in many ways, it seems to me, because…or certainly, Lue’s position in the government, because he can can bring to it, a certain authority that makes it easier for the mainstream media to pick up.

RD: I just want to add, absolutely, Lue is critical and I agree with you. The documents that I referred to are all 100% authenticated by the United States government, they’ve come out of College Park, Maryland at The National Archives, all of them. The ones that I work with are 100% legit, out of the U.S. archives. So there’s quite a lot. There are thousands…in fact, one can go to The Black Vault, John Greenewald runs that, he does a great job. So no, there’s quite a bit of U.S. government documentary authentication of long standing, essentially the impossibilities being noted by military personnel in the sky, sometimes in the oceans, and we’ve got them. And they get released and the fall into the black hole of the American memory and no one ever talks about them but they do exist and they are part of our history. 

DS: So how much farther do you think a really sound, responsible journalist can go, based upon the absolutely authenticated government documents that have been recovered? For example, such as a report from Project Sign back in the 1940s that they had investigated this, and you tell Ralph, if he doesn’t already [know], what the report concluded. 

RD: Well, I don’t know if you’re referring to the so-called Estimate of the Situation

DS: Yes. 

RD: …which does not exist in any…no one has seen. Some people have seen it, but no one has produced it. Air Force Captain Edward Ruppelt, who ran Project Bluebook, wrote that he knew about it. Dewey Fournet, who was a colleague of his in the U.S. Air Force, testified that he had seen it and read it. That was an affidavit. So there are people…there’s no reason to deny it, but no one has seen it. Aside from that, though, there are actually quite a few, very excellent, declassified U.S. military reports and intelligence community reports as well. I quoted a couple of them very briefly in my hour today. I just like running through them because I think people should remember them. So it’s quite a fit. There’s no single U.S. released document that says, “Ah, yes, UFOs are aliens.” So there’s none that say that. But if you take the top ten or top twenty, they do prove that while the United States government was telling the public there’s no such thing as UFOs, or no genuine ones, in the 40s and 50s, they were seriously concerned about it. And there’s enough data in those documents to show extraordinary performance capabilities on a number of occasions. So the top ten or twenty of those documents absolutely prove that there was a cover-up on UFOs and formal government lying to the public. And that’s a good place to start. You know, we don’t have to solve: Is it aliens or not, right away. I think step one for public conversation is just to recognize, this is a real phenomenon and let’s figure it out from there

DS: If Ruppelt said that The Estimate [of the Situation] does exist, from Project Sign, and his assistant or deputy said he’s seen it and read it, did they say, in an affidavit, what the conclusion was, of that report? 

RD: Yes, yes, absolutely. The conclusion was that this Sign team…this all started in the summer 1948 with a dramatic UFO sighting and they had been working on this all through 1948 and they put together a report which ended up on the desk of Air Force Chief of Staff Hoyt Vandenberg. And that report, according to Ruppelt, according to Fourner, stated that Sign had concluded this is probably extraterrestrial. Because they asked the same questions we asked: U.S., Russian, or something beyond?

DS: Is would ask this. Ralph, do you think that is a really worthy story? That Ruppelt, the head of the project, and his deputy, signed an affidavit, swearing that he’d read it and this is what the content of it is. Aside from whether the New York Times will agree to publish that, do you think that is a real event, in and of itself, that’s worthy of reporting?

RB: Yeah, I do, but I’ll tell you this: I’m much more interested in some stuff that Lue could tell us if he would or could about what is going now.

DS: I’m just about to go to that right now (laughs).

RB: (laughs) But, I think looking back, I remember discussions I had with an editor at The Times about documents that we were referencing that do go back years and decades, and his eyes kind of glazed over at one point, and he said, “Well ,we don’t know the authenticity of these documents and anything could have been tampered with.” But I know he would be interested, and we would all be interested in what Lue could tell us, if he would, about things that the government is involved in now and knows now. Now, I know he’s constrained by certain things, his security clearances and restrictions, but I think that is a more fruitful…but given where we are now, I think what would get the attention of the public and the media is stuff that the government now is in possession of and is holding back, or Congress in classified form, you know, with the UAP report, that would shed new light on this stuff and then we don’t have to go back decades. That’s interesting.

RD: I want to say this one thing. I think a seventy-five year old cover up is extremely important for the public to know about. And, so the more we siphon the history out of this phenomenon, the more we are in danger of not holding our government accountable for an entire lifetime of lies.

RB: I agree with you, Richard.

RD: So I think that’s just important to keep in mind.

DS: Let me ask the question that you’re suggesting, Ralph. Let me ask this, Lue. In your capacity, as the director of the AATIP program, were you able to get access to the actual Estimate by Project Sign, back in 1948. I’m not asking you what’s in it. Were you able to get access to it?

Lue: We were able to get access to a lot of things, Danny, and I’ll go down that [road] in a moment. The initial predicate of this conversation began with the idea that someone has the ability to receive information from something beyond our species and effectively communicate that with intent, and whatnot. Let me just state, for the record, my perspective on that from me and my qualifications. The problem with information like that is there’s two things…there’s no way to test and there’s no way to prove that. You are just simply taking the interpretations of a single human being. Whether that be my interpretation or Mr Marshall’s interpretation or anybodies’ interpretation. So, from that perspective, my background as an investigator is really focusing on things that I can test and prove, and then present that to a jury, if you will, and let them decide what that means. And I suspect from Ralph’s perspective and a journalistic perspective, that probably applies as well, right? For someone to say one thing is great, but if you can’t test it and prove it then there’s no there there and there’s not a whole lot we can do with it. 

DS: I agree as a lawyer, because I have to stand in front of a court and get the information admitted, pursuant to the rules of evidence. Let me return to the question: Were you given access to the Estimate of Project Sign?

Lue: Not that particular document. We had access to a lot of things but let me finish. Let’s just suppose here for a second, presume that – whether it’s Mr. Marshall or anybody else – does actually have some sort of relationship there from a communication perspective. There’s something, as an investigator…just because a source tells you something – I’m not talking about Mr. Marshall but if he is talking to someone else, the other side – just because someone tells you something doesn’t mean it’s true. When you’re doing undercover narcotics and you ask somebody what their name is, a lot of times they’re going to give you a fake name, they’re not going to always give you correct information. And also to avoid what we call single-source reporting. So there’s a lot of extraordinary things that occur. And now, let me put that on to the backdrop of, do we, as human beings, have extraordinary capabilities and some of those remain unexplained? We absolutely do, we know that for a fact. There are human beings that have very special gifts and capabilities that we might consider paranormal. For example, individuals who can tolerate a tremendous amount of electricity without it killing them, individuals who have photographic memory, individuals who are music virtuosos, who’ve never played a piano and can also crank out beautiful music. And then you have the areas such as intuition, right? Human intuition. Does the government involve itself in that stuff? Yeah, it has. In times, it has. In fact, one of my dear colleagues and friends is a gentleman named Dr Hal Puthoff, who actually was one of the godfathers, if you will, that ran the U.S. government’s remote viewing program, psychic program for espionage, and it wasn’t just us. The Russians had a long involvement in that as well, in remote viewing or psychic espionage, and also as far as to go further into what we call psychotronic weapons development. 

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that governments are interested in this. It shouldn’t be surprise that human beings have extraordinary capabilities. If you just look at the word, for example, and I’ve said this before, it’s just a thought process. When I ask you the word “parachute,” what comes to mind? People think of a device that deploys and slows you down. If I ask you what a “paramedic” is, people think about a first responder or a lifesaver, something positive. And then if I say the word “paranormal,” people usually stop for a second, they kind of hesitate, maybe raise an eyebrow and they’ll kind of look at you, maybe cock their head to one side and say, “What do you mean?” Well, the point being is that paranormal has a stigma associated with it just like anything else weird and crazy, right, that we consider as a fringe in our current genre. When in reality, there are things that, by definition, all things in science are paranormal until they become normal. That’s just a fact. My cell phone I have right here in my hand, a hundred years ago would certainly be considered paranormal. Some sort of magic talking box that allows me to communicate across long distances. That’s reality now. 

And so, I guess my point being is that, although I think that that particular piece of the conversation is certainly worth having, understand that, unless there is a way to test and to prove this information, it’s very, very difficult to have that conversation, not only in the media outlet like the New York Times, but certainly me, when I was in AATIP, being able to talk to a three or a four-star general or political appointee about that. At the end of the day, it doesn’t get me any closer to the finish line, that, “Hey, there’s something in our skies, we don’t know what it is, we don’t know how it works and we probably better figure it out.” And so, let me preface that.

Now as far as answering your question, “Did I have access to historical documents?” We did, but also, as Ralph explained from a media perspective, I had that same challenge. It’s a cold case. Something that happens in the 1940s and 1950s, although it’s very compelling and it is official documentation and oh, by the way, when I’m talking to the media now, I show those documents, I bring them. I say, “Hey, take a look. This is not just me, this is a four-star general to the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, saying, ‘This thing is real and it’s affecting our sensitive facilities. Some sort of reconnaissance is going on!’” So, don’t get me wrong, that historical information is valuable, in fact, I would go even further and say it’s vital in the conversation, but it’s only part of the conversation. What it does, is it establishes a precedence that this is continuing to occur and there is some sort of national security equity or interest in this topic.

DS: Ralph, if in fact, there is an official, government Estimate from Project Sign, back in like 1948 – it’s a full-scale, official, government investigation – and it states that the people that are on the team, that have conducted the investigation, have formed the conclusion that the source of these UFOs is extraterrestrial, wouldn’t you view that as a big story in and of itself? 

RB: Historically, it would be very interesting, but again, going back to establish, what is the foundation of that conclusion? Richard, with all due respect, a lot of these documents have come to light, historically, over the years, and they’ve been written about. I wrote about some of them in my book, they’ve been written about in your books and many books, so it doesn’t strike readers as really brand new. We know that the government researched this stuff decades ago and that they were compelling reports and some of them were hushed up or buried but a lot came out. But there’s a patina of oldness to the stuff that doesn’t excite modern-day editors and readers as much as new stuff would. 

DS: Because the government was officially lying and punishing people and attacking them and trying to destroy their careers, 

RB: It’s been said again and again and again.

Lue: Now, if I may, for a second, interject here. I think there’s interesting middle ground. And, you know, I’m not an either or kind of guy. As most people know, I’m not a binary decision maker. It’s not, you go left or you go right if you come up to a cliff, there’s other options to do, and I think that there is certainly relevance in historical reporting if you can tie it to current reporting. So let me give you an example. The fact that you have in 2004, during the USS Nimitz incident of a carrier strike group, two F-18s encountering what was called a Tic Tac, a forty-foot long Tic Tac with perturbation in the water, is very similar to events that had occurred in the 1960s and earlier, the 1950s, where these same white objects – we’re going to presume for a second here that they’re the same thing, because they’re performing the same way, they’re described the same way. But rather than being described as a white, flying Tic Tac, based upon our current genre of things to relate it to, they called it a white, flying butane tank. Now, okay, that’s pretty similar. And before that, a white, flying throat lozenge because they didn’t have Tic Tacs back then, right? So I think when you’re looking at a historical report where you have an object performing precisely in the same way that we have the objects occurring in current time, and you can draw that correlation that we may be dealing with the same technology going back seventy years, then that probably is a good story because now, there is a logic that can be thread through all of these different incidents and say, “Hey, look, you know…”

DS: Okay, Lue, let me ask this of Ralph: If you have a credible report that is worthy of going into the New York Times, that Dr Eric Davis, in December of 2020, gave a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating that the people that he was working with that were investigating this phenomenon, had come to believe that these were off-world vehicles. And he said that, just in December of 2020, does that convince you, Lue, that there’s a direct correlation to the report, the Estimate, that was made back in 1948 by an official government group? That they had done the same thing, looked at the same phenomenon, the same, similar technology you’re talking about at that time. And they too had come to the conclusion that the source of this was extraterrestrial. Doesn’t that meet your journalistic standard, Ralph, and your investigative standards, Lue?

Lue: I can’t speak for Ralph and I’ll let him jump in here and give his perspective. But from an investigative perspective, I think we have to be careful with anybody who makes a conclusion because this goes back to the binary way of thinking, and it’s problematic, it really is. Because human beings are cardio-social animals, and as a result of first the eight, nine months we spend in our mother’s womb, all we hear is our mother’s rhythmic heartbeat, it’s on, off, on, off. And so, sociologically and psychologically, we tend to look at the world in binary terms. How are you feeling today? I’m feeling good or I’m feeling bad. It’s either up or down. Do I turn left or do I turn right? Is it black or white? That’s the way we look at things, and it’s just ingrained in our DNA, but in reality, nature doesn’t work that way. So when we say, in the 1940s, these things are extraterrestrial from outer space, we didn’t know a whole lot about our own planet, let alone about quantum physics, in the 40s, right? We were just unlocking the secrets of the atom. And so, this is why I’m very careful to say…when someone says this is from outer space, well, it certainly could be, but there’s other options. This thing could be from outer space, inner space or frankly, the space in between. Or I’ve said before, even from our oceans. We don’t know. So, it’s dangerous to conclusively say that these are Pleiadians, or Reptilians or Tall Whites or whatever someone wants to hypothesize. But in reality, we simply don’t know and I’ve always…I think we can agree that it’s not ours, and I think we can agree that it’s probably certainly not foreign adversarial. Which means it’s probably not human. Much beyond that, it’s wide open, it’s the wild west. And we can speculate all day long, but in reality, I know it looks like a I’m threading the needle here and [people are] saying, “Well, he’s not really committing.” I’m not committing! Because…

DS: No, no, no. If you’re saying that we can say that the source of these is not human… 

Lue: I think that is going to be part of…look, I don’t think we can avoid that part of the conversation. I think we’re already (inaudible).

DS: Are you listening to this, Ralph? You got that part?

RB: I’m listening and I’m dying to jump in because I want to say something. First of all, I want to say to Adam, that you are the heir to that research at Princeton that was conducted into paranormal and psychic abilities, which I’m sure you know well. So I’d like to hear from you, quickly, on how your research may tie into the numbers research by your predecessor at Princeton, Robert Jahn. But I just want to say one thing, that we have the ability today that they didn’t have in the 40s and 50s of technology, to do things that they couldn’t do back then. We have the infrared detection devices, the gun cameras, the radar, things that are picking up now proof that these objects physically exist. So, in the sense that, yeah, we can go back to Project Sign, Grudge and look at their records and sort of excavate everything that they found and The Estimate of the Situation, but we have the ability today to go beyond that. What has NASA picked up from the space station? What are the satellites picking up? These are all questions of technology that we can use our modern tools to advance us. So we don’t have to go back. Yeah, it’s interesting to go back, but let’s go forward and see what we can find. And we can take pictures of black holes, hundreds of millions of light years away, like the one they took that I have in my book from 2019, I guess. An astounding feat and they found the Higgs Boson underground, after hundreds of billions of experiments and hours where when they found nothing, now they found one particle. With that kind of scientific know how, if we apply that to trying to figure out what these objects are, and how the hell they can do what they do, that would really advance us. So, I think that’s why I’m sort of focused ahead rather than back. 

DS: I agree, I agree. Over 50 years of being an attorney, dealing with a lot of these issues, I’m always struck by how prepared every administration is to only look forward and never wanting to talk about the past. Let’s just set aside the past. But if you’ve got an official government document in 1948 saying that the people who’ve looked into this have concluded this is extraterrestrial. And in fact, you’ve got Eric Davis, in December of 2020, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee or Senate Intelligence Committee that his whole, his team has concluded, these are off-world objects not constructed anywhere on this planet. And you’ve got Lue Elizondo, who is the head of the investigative group, saying, “They’re not human. That it’s something that’s not human,” I mean, doesn’t that’s strike you as a story? 

RB: Yeah, and we put it in the New York Times! We put a briefing slide, Eric Davis’ briefing slide in the New York Times saying off-planet vehicles. So, let’s move on. 

AATIP Briefing Slide from NYT Article


DS: What did Eric say when you asked him about it?

RB: I don’t wanna say what he told us but I’m telling you what we put in The New York Times. 

DS: Well I’m asking you what he told you, not what you put in the New York Times. What did he tell you?

RB: Well, he told us enough to back up that story that we put in New York Times. So what I’m saying is that…so we said that, we put it in The Times. So now, you know, a lot of stuff is already on the record, let’s move ahead and expand that opening we have to find out more. I’d like to know what information the government has that it’s not sharing with us. It’s our information, it’s the people’s information, we pay for it with our tax money. It affects us, our future, our contacts with, possibly, other intelligences in the Universe. What’s so secret…we have a right to that information, so let’s push as hard as we can to get that information and get it on the record.

DS: Would you compare the classified annex to the June 25th, ONI, UAP report, would you compare that to the Pentagon Papers that the New York Times published?

RB: Well, I would in the sense that I think it’s public information that the people paid for, that they have the right to know. It’s their future, it’s our future. So what is the government protecting us from? You know the whole story of why the government held this information so closely all along, historically, is that we couldn’t be trusted with this information to know that these objects were real, that there were real encounters and the government always thought that we can’t handle the truth, you know? And that’s not true.

DS: Yeah, because they kept concluding that they were extraterrestrial, according to two different reports. 

RB: Well, whatever they concluded, we can’t be trusted with that fact, so we demand to know now what it is. So I keep saying, it won’t be hard to get other stories in The New York Times and The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, if we had the information from a reliable source and that’s what we’re pushing for all the time, to get the information that is verified, that’s authenticated, that comes with a named source that’s not anonymous, that we can put in the paper.

Lue: Can I ask what happens if it turns out the government isn’t quote, “telling you the truth” because the government itself doesn’t know the truth? The government itself is in a situation, a position where it knows that something’s out there, but much more than that, as far as a narrative, is rather inconclusive. And perhaps…

DS: Lue, there’s, potentially credible evidence that they’re in possession of extraterrestrial bodies and extraterrestrial craft!

Lue: No, no, no, listen. What I’m trying to say here….

DS: But that’s just a hypothetical that doesn’t comport with the reality.  

Lue: No, no, no, but it does.

DS: It’s not that they can’t figure out what they are, it’s that they don’t want us to know!

Lue: Hear me out for a second.

DS: Okay.

Lue: It does comport because we get things all the time that we don’t know how they work and so we keep it secret. There are things, and I won’t go into detail here, but there’s technologies that we get all the time from a foreign adversary and we don’t let anybody know because, even though we haven’t figured it out yet…yes, we have it, we do, but we haven’t figured it out yet. I’m not saying that the reality is that that doesn’t exist, what I’m simply saying is that, if you are given a technology and it takes you a hundred years to figure it out and you still haven’t figured it out, there’s not a whole lot to report. Yeah, we’ve got something strange and exotic but…we don’t know how it works. 

DS: But if the strange and exotic thing that we’ve got comes with bodies that are clearly not human, doesn’t that seem to shed some light on that fact that the…

Lue: Well, I think what it does…it certainly makes it compelling but we still don’t know any more than we did before. So let’s go down that trail for just a second. Let’s say there’s a craft, with some bodies in it, that aren’t human. 

DS: Yep.

Lue: Okay. But, you don’t know where they’re from, you don’t know what they are, what their intentions are, what their motivations are, how long do they live, what’s their metabolic rate. My point being is, just hypothetically, just to go down that road…

DS: But you’ve been keeping it secret or 75 years. 

Lue: Well, but that’s different issue. Let’s not conflate the two. So, you’re right. The fact that we might have something like that, that should be told to the American people, but where we have to be careful is to go down the line of saying we know more than we don’t…. I agree with you, I think. 

DS: I totally agree. I totally agree. 

Lue: This topic is…so, anyways, I’ll shut up.


My Comments…

It seems like Lue is saying, if we have a craft and bodies, we need more data to figure out all of the details such as where they’re from, what they’re intentions are, etc.

On February 23rd of 2021, Elizondo was on Spaced Out Radio, and he brought up that lack of data when asked a very interesting question by Dave Scott.


Dave Scott: Has Lue Elizondo, the person, ever seen a gray being? Big, black eyes, skin color, silverish tone, maybe brown at times, four-feet tall to five-feet tall, almond-shaped eyes, a slit mouth, barely any nose, three fingers. Ever seen one?

Luis Elizondo: Lue Elizondo as a person has seen some pretty extraordinary things in his life. I don’t wanna prejudice the jury here. I’ve seen a lot of things in my life that have been very, very compelling, but in every one of those situations and in every case, I needed more data. You’re asking a great question and people are gonna say I’m being evasive  and yeah, you’re damn right I am. I am being evasive on purpose.

Dave Scott: Did it scare you?

Luis Elizondo: “A lot of things scare me, sure. Fear for me, though, I’m not scared by this topic. I’m more scared of not being able to ask or not allowed to ask a question than getting the answer to the question that I’m asking. Unless you’re shooting at me, I’m really not gonna get stressed. If we can’t have a conversation about, potentially, something that is existential to our species and our understanding, to me, the bigger threat is not being able to ask the question, versus the answer itself. I’d rather have an uncomfortable answer than not being allowed to ask the question that I’m asking.


Back to the panel…

DS: There’s a really famous story that they tell about Oliver Wendell Holmes, the famous Supreme Court justice. Back in the 1880s and 90s, when he was on the Supreme Court, he used to work like seven days a week and his wife was really distressed about this. And one Sunday, she decides to pack a picnic lunch because he’s over at the Supreme Court, which was still in the Congress building at that time, she makes the picnic lunch, she hooks up the buckboard (horse-drawn carriage) and she goes over to the Supreme Court and she dragged him out. And she says, “Come on, we’re going to go out into the Virginia countryside and we’re going to have a Sunday picnic.” And they go out and they’re riding along in the buckboard and she turns and she looks and she says, “Oh, look Ollie, somebody has shorn all the wool off those sheep over there.” And Oliver Wendell Holmes turns and looks at it and says, “No, my dear, the most that we can say is somehow the wool has been removed from the side of the sheep that we can see.” Okay? Now, the fact is that almost anybody in their right mind, knows that those sheep have been shorn. Okay? So that type of an anal analysis, while it may serve certain purposes, it doesn’t really always convey the truth. And what I’m saying is that if you’ve got a crashed saucer at Roswell, where you can read the telegram that’s in the hands of General Ramey, which we have done, which says, “Bring the disc and the bodies to Wright Field,” and Peter Jennings put that on the ABC News, back in January 24th of 1972 or whenever it was, and it seems to me that the people that are involved in officially investigating this should be all over that like white on rice. And that somebody should go over to the Geological Space Intelligence Center, and get the information about Roswell. And once you’ve got the fact that we’ve got a vehicle that is technologically, vastly beyond anything we know anything about, with dead bodies in it that are clearly not human, it seems to me that that story should be told to the American people.


Not sure what he’s referring to as far as 1972, Peter Jennings and the Ramey memo from Roswell, but here’s a clip from the Jennings/ABC News special, “UFOs: Seeing Is Believing,” from 2005. It’s cued up to the Roswell part.


RD: And I want to add something here. 

Lue: I think Mr. Marshall had his hand up.

DS: Go ahead Richard and then we’ll go to Marshall. 

RD: I’m glad you liked The Estimate of the Situation but it has to be said, and also, we can talk about Dave Rudiak’s analysis of the Ramey memo, I just want to add this because you mentioned this before. Both of those are decent cases but they’re not a slam dunk, neither of them. So in terms of The Estimate there, it could very well have been destroyed, this was the statement. There may not be a copy of it, it may not exist. It probably did exist, but even I, who believe in it, I can’t say that I know for a fact it existed. Ruppelt said it, Dewey Fournet said it, that’s probably good enough for me but it’s still not proof, so we just have to say that. And it was never a policy, either because that Sign team was scattered to the winds after they handed that report to Vandenberg, so they all got split up. So that never became Air Force official policy, anyway. 

Relating to the (Ramey) memo, there was, of course was a lot of debate over this analysis. David Rudiak did a Herculean job of analyzing that memo, which by the way, says, Victims of the Crash, that was the phrase discussed. And I also think here, it’s a pretty darn good argument that he makes, that the analysis is good, but it’s also like…those letters, it’s almost just slightly beyond our ability to 100% confirm. So there’s been debate for decades about the interpretation. I think most people, when they look at that, think, yeah, he seems like he’s right but there are still naysayers out there and that is the problem. So, I mean Ralph’s point is very well taken, like we want to work with absolutely confirmed, unarguable data, and all I was saying when I get into the history, and I don’t want to belabor this, is that there actually is very good, confirmed, historical data and analysis. And the reason it’s important, I mentioned the cover-up, but the other reason is that nowadays we have all these people tossing out ideas about, ‘“Well, maybe the Tic Tac is a black budget project,” and it becomes a lot more difficult to make that argument when you see the exact same reports going back through the decades, as Lue pointed out. Which, by the way, Governor Ronald Reagan, in 1974, probably had his own Tic Tac UFO encounter in the air, which I’ve talked about. He was on the campaign trail, talking summer of 1974. This is confirmed, it’s out there, it was written in a book by Wall Street Journal journalist named Norman Miller. Reagan’s pilot, a guy named Bill Paynter, confirmed this. It came out in the late 1980s, Reagan was into this. He saw this zigzagging object and says to the pilot, “Let’s go after it.” They’re in a little Cessna Citation and they tried to go after it, and this object was white, slightly elongated and it just moved horizontally and then shot straight up. Bill Paynter the pilot said, “This was like a hot rod. An airplane can accelerate but not like this thing.” So that’s a good case. You have a future President of the United States seeing a possible Tic Tac UFO, helluva case. No even one seems to know about it.


Part 2 of 3…


DS: Okay, we’re making headway here. What I’m trying to do is I’m trying to get an understanding of how we can all participate in getting more evidence to Ralph so that Ralph is in a position to exercise, completely responsible standards of a journalist’s integrity to get this information further out to the people, to understand what is a real event, a real story, and working with Lue. Because Lue, I know perfectly well, believes that a good deal of the information that the United States government is withholding, merits being told to the American people, and that it’s not legitimately classified. It’s the same exact challenge we had with the Pentagon Papers. Is that, there were forty-seven volumes of this information and we surveyed the whole thing, I got to look at the documents, we shared documents with Judge Gurfein, and we went through the whole thing. And even though Whitney North Seymour, the United States Attorney who was representing the Nixon administration, he couldn’t point out one single piece of information, which if it were revealed, would irrevocably damage the national security of the United States. ‘


The Pentagon Papers

The Pentagon Papers was the name given to a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. As the Vietnam War dragged on, with more than 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by 1968, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg—who had worked on the study—came to oppose the war, and decided that the information contained in the Pentagon Papers should be available to the American public. He photocopied the report and in March 1971 gave the copy to The New York Times, which then published a series of scathing articles based on the report’s most damning secrets.


Back to the panel…

DS: And so the question is, is that process going to be brought to apply to the pages of the classified annex (of the DNI UAP report)? I think we need to be extraordinarily careful here because this is a preliminary report and we don’t want to stop the flow of information to the Senate Intelligence Committee by having any illegitimate revelation of those…I think we need to be extraordinarily careful, those of us who are all interested in getting this done. 

RB: Danny, let’s give Marshall his say, come on.

DS: That was just the first part of our conversation. So, Marshall, I would like to have you…part of the distress this morning as you were talking, is that you never quite got to the Allies of Humanity, the good guys that you understand that you’re in communication with, that can come and be of some assistance to us in sharing information that you’re sharing with the people. And that the means by which you obtained this information, I want you to briefly explain that to us. And then, Adam, I want you, to the extent to which you can, based upon your unique areas of study, communicate to us what your understanding is about this particular phenomenon that Marshall is conveying and what type of evidence there is to suggest there may be some credibility to it. Okay, so Marshall, go ahead and please tell us about these Allies. 

MS: Okay, first of all, I’d just like to say that what’s going with information not leaking out into to the public is really not my domain, I don’t want to presume to know what the government holds or doesn’t hold. I’m sure it holds a great deal after 50 or 60 years of secrecy but I don’t claim to have any intuition or insight into how much they do know or don’t know. They’re kind of condemned either way because if they don’t know, then they look pretty stupid and if they do know, who can hear it?

But what’s happened for me is, I was encouraged to receive a communique, and I wasn’t really wanting to do it. My work is in, really, the spiritual, religious realm. I didn’t really want to get into this business, partly because my wife’s brother was involved in it earlier and it really had a damaging, I think a damaging impact upon his well being, and he saw things that just didn’t fit his reality. He was an assistant to George Van Tassel at Giant Rock, he was his assistant, and what had happened there. He was there, full time. And so, he just finally had to leave. He was kind of given a choice: You’re either going to go deeper into this, in which case you will not have a public identity, you will not have a normal life, you will have no access to just about anybody. Or, you should probably bow out because you’re hitting a threshold where you’re gonna have to make a choice. And there was an apparent offer for him to go in that other direction. 

So, I’ve been reluctant because I’ve seen this is a very messy and confabulated and repressed arena of information. But nonetheless, I was asked to receive this by a spiritual force that said we want you to receive these beings. And they actually did give me a small message, actually on my honeymoon, which I didn’t appreciate, in 1983. Just said, “Hear us, hear us, hear us, we have a message.” But they didn’t come back until 1997 when I was in a much better position, having written, “Greater Community Spirituality,” and being interested in the realm of theology in the Universe. I mean, that’s been a real focus of mine. So I began to receive these briefings after much resistance. I’m surprised at how much resistance I had because I always thought of myself as like, I’m open to truth from whatever source, right? Well, I really wasn’t open to truth from this source. But, I did finally acquiesce, and began to receive the first parts of the first of the four “Allies of Humanity,” briefings, but from a very distant voice, very far away. No physical presence, no physical engagement, no craft, nothing appearing in my room, nothing splendid or exotic or anything, just this communication. And so, I recorded it, as it was coming to me. It was written out and is now available in the form that I received it. What I want to say about this is that, we’re losing time to deal with this. We’re losing critical time. I mentioned four fundamental questions in my talk this morning and we’re stuck on the first question.

So, something needs to break somewhere and I don’t think it’ll be through the New York Times and I don’t expect Ralph, for you to be the vehicle for it or anything like that. And meanwhile, there’s so much disinformation going on about this amongst the people on the internet, it’s shocking. To me, it’s very shocking and I think much of is unbelievable and some of it is downright dangerous. So my concern is that we really don’t have any basis for evaluating foreign presence in the world today, because we have no idea what is going on in life beyond our world. Everything we ascertain is from our position on the ground, from a human perspective and as a result, I make no claim to understand ET intelligence. I don’t think I would even presume to do that. Nor do I think that they’re part of my spiritual cosmology or that I assign to them,  spiritual causes or anything like that. 

But the Allies of Humanity briefings, in a way, is a form of disclosure. This is what you need to know about who is in your world, why they’re there, what they’re doing and what their ultimate game plan is. And, here’s what you need to know about your local universe that gives rise to this intervention, [and what] supports it and what limits it. What dictates what it is able to do and not able to do, in the realm of greater things that we have no information about. So, if all we have to go on is physical evidence on the ground or sightings in our sky, I think we only have a very small piece…we don’t have the whole puzzle, maybe we only have 40% of the puzzle. So we can answer the first question, but beyond that? Why is it happening, what does it mean, how do we prepare? Well, who can go there? Everyone goes to the government…

DS: Let’s try to be clear, Marshall. Who is it, that you understand, is communicating this information to you, telepathically? Who is that group, what is that about? 

MS: They claim to be a group of seven individuals from seven worlds, who’ve been observing the alien intervention – I call it an intervention – on our world, and who can report on their activities, and where they came from and what guides them. Because this is an expeditionary force, this is not a big military force. And it appears, in 70 years of being here, that they’re laying the foundation for something else to come and they’re doing many other the things that I mentioned in my talk this morning. Now, I had to sit with this for a couple of years, really, before I even knew what to do with it. Because, I can’t prove to you my source is real or authentic, I can’t prove to you its authenticity. It’s only the quality of the message itself and its coherence with what is observable on ground. And my own sense of, I think this rings true to me but I don’t know why. I’m not in a position to say what is true about life in the universe and what is not. But this is a message that I’m tasked to take out to the world to translate into many languages, so people have an opportunity, from a citizen standpoint, this is kind of the citizens initiative, if you will, to look at this from a certain level of practicality and feasibility, based upon what we know from what we have learned here from life on Earth. 

DS: As Lue was pointing out, legitimately and Ralph has too, and I do as an attorney, we need to know more about the source of this information in order to evaluate the credibility. Setting aside, which we’ll address with Adam, shortly, the means by which you understand you’re receiving this, sort of telepathically, we’ll address that separately. But the nature of the source of the information, you say, are seven individuals from different planets, different star systems in our galaxy? Are they from our galaxy, you think? 

MS: That’s what they say. Let me share some other information that I think bespeaks their intent as being neutral observers. One of the things they say, really, at the beginning, is no one should be visiting your world for any reason because humanity is not ready for contact, it doesn’t have human unity, species maturity or any kind of preparedness for this event to happen. So, all I can say…

DS: That’s telling us more about what it is they’re saying. What I’m doing is I’m trying to put myself in Lue’s shoes and Ralph’s shoes and my shoes as an attorney, and saying, “This source that you’re talking about, what have they told you about who they are and what their reason is for knowing this information?” That’s how you explore the credibility of a source, even if they’re an unnamed source or a potential source that wants to maintain anonymity, I did the case that went to the Supreme Court to protect the identity of confidential news sources (laughs), so I’m respectful of that. But I need to know who they are and what is the means by which they profess to have access to knowing this information. If you can share that with us.

MS: Their story…they don’t tell their identity and where they’re from, because they’re acting as spies, basically. They come from planets where…they’re not even representing their planets. They’re on some kind of greater spiritual mission because their planets represent free societies in a universe of large, technological societies where freedom is either unknown or repressed. 

DS: Are they all in our galaxy? 

MS: Yes, this is our local space, this is local space. So I’m telling you the story they tell me, okay? And that they underwent the kind of intervention in their histories that we’re undergoing now, and were able to ward off that intervention, through variously means, sometimes violently, and that is why they have been asked to come and give us their wisdom about this, because we have no idea what’s going on beyond our borders and we’re very limited in how we can fill out this picture. So, they’re giving us then, the picture and that is what they’re there to give us, they’ve never visited our world. They have no plans on establishing relationships with us because they say we’re far too immature to engage in contact successfully, and that no race who would ever be an ally of humanity would try to do what is occurring in the world today.

DS: Are they capable of interstellar space travel?

MS: Well, if they come from different planets I would assume so. I mean, they actually say that space travel has been around even before human civilization, far before. So, we’re way behind that curve. And so, we should never try to ascertain the limits of human…

RB: This is all very interesting, but in order to keep this discussion on track, I think we’ve got to figure out ways to establish the independent authenticity of information and how to get it out to the public. So, while John Mack, Marshall, dealt with a lot of anecdotal accounts like yours, and they were very compelling, as is yours, he also realized that unless there was some way of verifying these accounts, or making, or checking them or testing them, they remain anecdotal. And anecdotal evidence, as Danny knows, is acceptable in court. People testify all the time about things that get people convicted, but in the end, this discussion seems to require some other element of corroboration and verification and how people who don’t necessarily believe, or who are skeptical, can be led to understand the realities, the complexity. So, let’s figure out, for example, hearing your story, Marshall, I would say, one interesting thing would be to study the physics or the mechanics of these communications. What changes are going on in your brain as these messages are coming in? These are things that are amenable to scientific study, and that would conceivably, or could result in some corroboration, some understanding of what process is involved. Otherwise, it’s just anecdotal. This happened to me and there’s no way to check it, and it didn’t happen to you, it just happened to me and that’s the end of the story. So to get beyond that, we’ve got to figure out a way, like we found with the UAP, that they were caught on radar and thermal imaging devices and FLIR cameras, so now we know they exist. So it’s not an anecdotal story anymore at all. 

DS: So let’s go to Adam. Adam, without putting you on the spot. You can see, Marshall, what I’m trying to do is, I’m trying to bring the tools that we have, as journalists and as professional investigators like Lue, and security people, to bring in some additional type of potential insight into this. Adam, what can you share with us about the areas that you’ve studied at Princeton that can help shed some light on the very question that Ralph has asked? What is the mechanism by means of which this may have happened?

AC: The requirement for something like empirical evidence behind the anecdotes is very important of those issues that were grappled with by the laboratories of which I was a part. I was very fortunate as a teenager to have mentors of Robert Jahn, who was the Dean of the engineering school at Princeton, and founded the PEAR lab, which is a consciousness research organization. And Edgar Mitchell, who was the Apollo astronaut who founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Both of these men had reached the height of their technical career very early in life, actually in their 40s. And both of them, from this vantage, had come to see that something was missing. Each of them had also had a transformative experience that compelled them to investigate ways in which we can scientifically verify anecdotes, such as what Mr. Summers is discussing.

In the case of Bob Jahn, he created a laboratory to look at the ability of consciousness to do things outside the body. So famously, while he was involved with the early remote viewing research with Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ and those guys, he’s perhaps best known for the work with the random number generators. This is a physical system, physical equipment that converts fundamentally, random physical processes into a string of ones and zeros. So, for example, you could think of it as like a coin flipper, if it’s flipping ones and zeroes in a long string. You can ask somebody, using their attention, to attempt to nudge the outcome of the random number generator more towards ones or more towards zeros, whatever the person is choosing. And it behaves that way. There’s an easily measurable, statistically significant outcome, in most cases, that corresponds to the direction of the intention. So that suggests that consciousness is more than just an illusion of the brain, but that it is somehow connected to the fabric of physical reality through space and time, in ways which we’re still trying to understand. Edgar Mitchell was involved in a lot of similar work through the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Dean Radin continues to explore telepathy, clairvoyance, the ability of humans, in this case, to communicate ideas.

The cumulative database of the Princeton results over a couple of decades has odds against chance of 1 in 10 to the 12th. There was a recent meta-study of 1003 peer-reviewed papers on psi phenomena, the ability of humans to operate in these capacities. The odds against chance of which were 1 in 104, which, to put that in perspective, science estimates the number of atoms in the known universe is something like 10 to the 84th. Both of these laboratories succeeded in showing that these types of abilities of consciousness: psychokineses, telepathy, these things are very real. It succeeded in showing that through rigorous, scientific means. It wasn’t easy to do that. Where both of them were less successful is in developing a framework for explaining them. If it’s real, the question becomes, what is the mechanism? And they were less successful still, in telling us what to do about it.

RB: Or how to duplicate it?

AC: Well, these have been replicated. The issue of replication comes up in psi research because people are people, right? They’re not constants that you can hold the same each time. So things like strict replicability in these studies is a slippery concept. But nonetheless, you still have highly significant p values. It did not ultimately tell us much about how to deal with received information of the subjective side, like Mr. Summers experienced. My perspective is that the kinds of physical evidence that Mr Elizondo has brought to the table in the footage, for example, cannot and should not, at this time…it’s fundamentally different than the kinds of subjective anecdotes. But that’s because its task is different. This is information (the UAP videos) that the whole world is watching, that is meant to create an opening for understanding and accepting these phenomena on behalf of the general public. That’s very different than the type of information that Mr. Summers is receiving. But, I believe that the research that I just discussed does tell us that we cannot dismiss these types of received information and subjective experience, on the basis of there being no physical mechanism. The evidence for this type of stuff existing is substantial, the only reason it’s paranormal is because the standard model of physics has yet to explain it, yet.

Lue: If I may, Adam, real quick, jump in. I think you’re absolutely correct. I think, as I mentioned before, the difference between paranormal and normal is usually just time, and that usually settles that argument real quick. I think, from my perspective, I’m always very cautious. You said a couple things that I think are, I’d like to reiterate, if you don’t mind…but people who have transformative experiences. History is full of examples where human beings have had transformative or extraordinary experiences and at the end of the day, it comes down to two things, and I would ask you, what is the difference between a vision and a hallucination? And from that, really, comes interpretation. One man’s vision is another man’s hallucination and so forth. And I’m not at all saying one is, or one is not necessarily what’s happening here. I’m just being in general terms.

And, you know, of course, we now know through the study in the 60s of the use of psychedelic drug use, there are physiological changes, biochemical changes in the human brain, that open up receptors to be able to do things and in some cases, you know, people get hospitalized because they see strange things and they do strange things. In other cases, people swear by the use of certain drugs that it opens the mind, allows them to be more receptive and do things. And there are some tests that were done.

You know, we do see interesting things that the human mind is able to do. I mentioned remote viewing, but there’s been some other experiments with, for example, metronome synchronization, you see random number generators as well, I’m very familiar with that. And even to some degree, one could argue, there has been some proposals, I’m not going to say by who or where I heard this from, if anyone [asks]. But even something like Havana Syndrome. Imagine if a foreign adversary, which is the world I come from, has developed a way to take psychotronic weapons development, which we were involved in, everyone was involved in, in the 60s and 70s. For those who don’t know what psychotronic weaponry is, it is the integration of technology, tronic, that’s the word tronic, psycho-tronic, and human cognitive abilities to affect something physically, okay? So, a machine in which… [let’s say] the Russians and the Americans are playing a game of chess. In essence, a Russian could sit in the back, or an American, in the back of the crowd, with a little device and then use, amplify certain thought waves to affect actions or make someone feel sick, or make someone scared or make someone nervous. These were real experiments that were done, and there’s some real interesting evidence to suggest that some of that may indeed be quite real.



Lue: But again, we must and I think we must always make sure that the first thing we have to recognize in anyone’s claim of being able to do something like that is the difference between, again, a vision and a hallucination. And it might not be cut and dry, it might be more subjective than that. There may be elements of both in someone who has, and this goes to the whole idea of religion. If you look at any particular religion out there, whether it’s Western Judeo Christian religion or any other religion that’s Eastern, there are these moments of enlightenment, whether it be Buddha, who had his moment of enlightenment, or it be some of the Hindu gods or again, Jesus Christ or anybody else, they had these extraordinary claims. And again, in some cases, some people, it’s disproven, and those are no longer religions, they’re kind of these cults. And then you have religions where you have these bonafide claims of miracles, right? And being able to see things and being prophets. So, by no means am I trying to discredit anything that Mr. Marshall has to say, I’m just saying that we have to approach this. He used the words, two things: He said he received a message from someone from a very far distance. Well, if you don’t see the individual, my question is, what are you using to make that determination that something is either far or near or in between? Is it an emotion, is it a sense that you’re feeling or is it an actual vision? He says he didn’t see him, so… Please, I wanna hear this, Marshall.

MS: Okay, this is good. Well, my work has really been about angelic contact, so my mind… 

Lue: Which, by the way, I’m not arguing, just for the record. 

MS: Which, by the way, has been a long training for me to even be able to do it because it’s a very remarkable and different use of my mind. This also creates some health problems for me along the way. This was a different kind of communication. I say distant because the voice was very faint, as if you’re on a long distance call with somebody far away and it’s not a great connection. (The next sentence he says in a weak/distant voice) So the voice is really like this. And so, you know, I had to really pay attention to be able to speak what I was hearing and record my speech. This is not, I’m not speaking someone else’s voice here, I’m just speaking what is coming into my mind, okay?

Lue: But the distance is your interpretation because the signal wasn’t clear?

MS: That’s my interpretation, this isn’t far away. It didn’t feel like it was something in my room or nearby and it was completely different than the angelic thing, which is a real powerful presence that overtakes you. It’s not physical but it’s so palpable. 

Lue: So, in essence, is it fair to say it was just an internal feeling that you had? 

MS: It was a voice.

Lue: No, no, no, understood. But you can’t confirm if it was far away or near or anything like that. 

MS: That was my experience. 

Lue: Your experience, okay. So it’s a personal experience. You said a small, expeditionary force, which I found very interesting because that’s my terminology, right? Military.


Below is 20 minutes of this panel posted by Roger Stack, which is matched up to where you’re at with the transcript right now.


MS: Oh, is it? Well that’s how…from what I’ve learned from them and as I look at the data. I’ve been looking at this for 35 years and I came to this without a lot of pre conclusions or trying to make this spiritual or trying to confirm my religious views or anything. This was like, something I just felt, “Wow, I better know something about this because this could be important.” So, I sat with this for a long time, I was really uncomfortable with it. In a way, I’m still uncomfortable with it, I’m a pretty reasonable person, I’m not given to fantasies, I consider myself to be actually, pretty conservative in the way that, at least I live my life, maybe my views are far out. So, this was something given to me with a request to share it with others. And I think its value, in that sense, has to be based on the merit of its message, and how well that corroborates with what we see and know about this phenomenon on the ground. I mean, there does have to be some resonance there. This is not asking us to believe in something we’ve never experienced, or we have no idea what it is. It’s more to speak to the nature of what we’re seeing with information that we could not gain from our own.

Lue: May I ask how you have the knowledge that this was a small, expeditionary force, not something more robust or elaborate? You used very specific… 

MS: That’s revealed in the briefings itself. 

Lue: Okay, so, in essence, it was communicated to you by someone, somewhere else, something else, that this is a small group of individuals that are part of this endeavor…

MS: Yeah, they are…this is their claim. And, okay, I’ll accept it, I’ll receive the information, I’ll sit with it and see how I feel about it. Because I did that for quite a while, and I didn’t want to be the person to deliver this, I can tell you that right now. This is not, the whole UFO thing is really messy and I just, I learned from, you know… 

Lue: I can sympathize, again, I’m not arguing with you. 

DS: I bet you can (laughs).

Lue: If there’s one person who can attest to how messy this topic can be, I am certainly the living proof of that. I’m just trying to figure out a little bit about…


Part 3 of 3…


RB: I gotta say, one of the fascinating things about this is, is – and John Mack wrestled with this, as Danny knows – some people have had these insights, or contacts like you, Marshall, and others have not, like John Mack and me. And the people who have not had these contacts find them very difficult to believe and the people who have had them, find them impossible to disbelieve. So the question is, and this is something that might be amenable to scientific investigation, what marks the difference between the different people? Why do some people have this ability, or have had these experiences and other people have not? And that strikes me as something that is worthy of scientific investigation because, in the end, the only way we’re ever going to get these stories into the paper or this phenomenon examined is by some means of authentication. Either it’s the government saying something, so we’re more inclined to believe it, or it’s Lue putting his name on something, that gets it into the New York Times. But just an anecdotal account, with all due respect, Marshall, is not going to get into the New York Times because no one knows what to make of it. But one way… 

DS: Let’s go to Adam. You were right, Ralph, in referring this to Adam. Adam, what is your sense about this? And you can share, surprisingly enough, a lot of people are not aware of the remote viewing stuff that was done by the Stanford Research Institute and Hal Puthoff and the Office of Naval Intelligence in the military. Just share a little bit of what you know about that and your view of the credibility of that, and how it relates, if at all, to the kind of research you were doing there at Princeton.

AC: There’s the question of the authenticity of the psi research, which is pretty well documented, as I discussed. There’s also the question of, is there something unique about individuals who have these capacities that might open a door for more empirical evidence for these things? And there is some. One of the things that the PEAR lab and psi research in general, however, have discovered is that while there are some superstars, everybody seems to have these abilities. It seems to be more related to the nature of consciousness itself, than the skills with which an individual wields it. Now there are superstars. There’s some evidence that people who have high levels of gamma brain functioning, binding frequency in the brain that creates coherence in the brain, in those moments, are more given to, let’s call it, weird abilities. There’s a problem with that, though, because people that are schizophrenic also have high levels of gamma. So, maybe that’s not a really good example. 

We did a study at the PEAR lab, called the plant experiment. And while we published it just as a technical report, it wasn’t a peer-reviewed paper. I bring this up often because I think it’s useful to understand. So the experiment goes like this: There’s a room with no windows, and there’s a plant that requires light, and that plant is placed in one corner of the room. On the ceiling is a growing bulb. The bulb has a motor and the bulb can shine in one of four quadrants in the room. A random number generator is controlling where the light shines. So by chance, the plant should get 25% of the light but it needs more than that. So you record how often the light is shining in the room, in that quadrant, and you find that it’s shining on the plant far more often than it’s shining on any of the other corners. Now I think that’s important because it tells us that this is what consciousness does. Consciousness itself, bends the fabric of space time in the direction of what supports it, in the direction of its growth, and its evolution. Maybe it’s an experimenter effect, you can get into this whole other side of these things, of course. But it’s something to keep in mind. So, this is sort of just what consciousness does. Now, is that going to get it into the New York Times? Probably not. 

RB: That might get into science times, by the way, that’s an an interesting experiment.

AC: That’s an interesting one. Last thing on this, I will say that, let’s just separate the woo, right? The Adam world, right? The weird, psychic research stuff. There’s plenty of mainstream work on the question of consciousness right now that is kind of pointing in the direction that we’re talking about. There’s a mini-revolution taking place in the philosophy classrooms at universities, surrounding philosophy of mind. And that is this question that, if consciousness is an illusion, meaning if it’s an epiphenomena produced by brain, the question becomes, an illusion to whom, right? You have to have consciousness to experience anything, including illusions, so, it’s very difficult to get behind consciousness. And from that simple philosophical argument that is pretty robust, it tells us that there might be something more which is consciousness, deeper than all of the physical investigations that we might make about the material world.

And the second is happening in neuroscience. So we thought for the last 30 years that as neuro-imaging improves, and we get finer and finer images of the brain, then we’re going to find the place where consciousness comes from, right?. And as neural imaging and fMRI and all these really wonderful technologies have developed really good science behind it, we’re no closer to finding where consciousness is in the brain. We’re further away than we ever thought. And, in fact, it brings up an even deeper point, which is: Why is it that subjectivity, should be attendant to brain functioning at all? The brain is just four pounds of cells and water, why do you have something happening inside of that with the appreciation of music, and the experience of color and love and resonance and the whole panoply of subjective phenomena? Couldn’t you just have cells firing back and forth without the need for any of that? It seems like very inefficient for nature to create and yet we have it. So these are mainstream issues with which we’re grappling along the lines of consciousness, pointing to something that consciousness… 

RB: In other words, Adam, it’d be a difference between an AI brain and a human brain, right? 

AC: No. In fact, I think that we’re going to be dealing with these very questions when we actually get serious about AI, and we stop just using the term as a way to get VC funding. But if we are to progress down this road of the question of what is consciousness and how can we create it, we’re going to have to look at the fundamental nature of consciousness and probably also the psi research as well. And it’s going to be a lot more difficult than having a really advanced computer with special machine learning software.

DS: So, the point is that…I remember that, a lot of people don’t know this, but I was actually shown copies of, ostensibly, classified information about the studies that were being done with remote viewing at the Stanford Research Institute with Pat Price. As it turns out, Ingo Swann, who was one of the major adepts that was working with them there, was also a high level clear in the Church of Scientology. And he was providing deep, inside classified documentation to the Church of Scientology.

RD: I think it was Pat Price and not Ingo Swann. You’re saying Ingo did that, I thought that was Pat Price?

(Dolan was right. It was Pat Price)

DS: Ingo. No, it was Ingo Swann that was doing it. And I saw the documents about this. And the capabilities that Pat Price displayed are something that almost no one could conceive of, his capabilities of learning how to do this and then being able to do this. He was able not only to quote “go to a particular place,” where they would identify the exact minute and seconds of the longitude and latitude of where he was supposed to go, and then describe, verbally, what the scene was that was there. I read the internal documents where he was actually given those logistical details and he went to the site and described what he saw, which was a facility with razor-wire fences around the place and said… 

Lue: He got in trouble for that, Danny. You know that? The Bureau went to investigate him.

RD: That’s right. 

DS: Yeah, I know, I know. 

RB: But that woman came along who was better than he was and she had no training at all, right? 

DS: No, no, no, I’m saying anything about the issue of training, I’m talking about capacities of our human species, to be able to do these kinds of things. Because what it is that Marshall is talking about here is met with the same kind of derision that the UFO phenomenon was met with 50 years ago. And so, if in fact it’s true, that certain human beings are capable of discerning, accurate information…which, and the unique thing about remote viewing, was it was able to be confirmed. You know, they knew where the sites were, they knew what the data was, they knew, for example, what was in that building, that Pat Price was able to go into.

And so, what I’m saying is that, if we as a human family are going to try to come to grips with this extraordinary phenomenon that’s happening here, I think that we need to get access to all of the resources that we have and that we cannot be confined by the limitations of what’s getting ready to go into New York Times, what is the Defense Department willing to acknowledge. And now that Lue, you’ve come outside of that particular community that has all of those constraints, to be able to assemble a team of people (signal dropped out) with the type of skills that we have here.

RD: So, fascinating conversation. I loved hearing Adam, I really enjoyed hearing Marshall as well. And Marshall, I just want you to know, for many years, I’ve had…I have your first two books and I stayed away from them. I shied away because I did not know how to make sense of the source of your information, it was that simple. But I decided that I really liked what you were saying, and I agreed with your basic message. I have a fundamental sympathy to that. And so, I thought, I’m going to just look at your work on the basis of what you are saying and on that basis, I think I really like what’s in there. Now, the other thing is, like Adam, I also studied remote viewing, I’m very engaged in that. And, there is no question in my mind that there’s a reality to that. So, the problem that I’ve had as a historian is, it’s similar to what Ralph has and what Lue has, as well, like when you have to evaluate information, how do you decide what to include? And that is the problem. We don’t all have to work at the same level of what constitutes valid evidence, that’s the beauty of it. Because when we’re dealing with this phenomenon, it is quite evident, I think, to all of us, that we’re dealing with something that is beyond our horizon, to some extent. We have certain tremendous abilities of cognition, and thinking things out, and we understand reality through space and through time but there’s this phenomenon that seems to go beyond what we’re able to understand at times, and so we struggle with that. And we may never get to a point where we truly understand this at the level we would want to, I think that’s probably going to be the case. It doesn’t mean we can’t make progress, but it’s just difficult. 

And so therefore, I think an important part of evidence, at least important for me, is context. So when you have, like, I agree, anecdotal testimony, I cannot prove if a particular individual has seen either a UFO that they claim to have seen or gotten a message that they claim to have gotten. How could we possibly know that? But, I do think that there’s a level of proof that is rock solid that would even hold up in a court of science, then there’s a level of proof that’s rock solid that would hold up in most courts of law, and then there’s something that looks like it’s probably true to a reasonable mind. 

DS: This is the shorn sheep (laughs) that they’re almost certainly are really shorn.

RD: We have an intelligent person with a reasonable mind, looking at the sum total of types of information that’s coming to them, I think can also make a conclusion. In my view, that’s also valid. And when I do my writing and my discussion of this, I will often go to that level, I think, you know, Cheech and Chong: If it looks like it, tastes like it, smells like it, it’s probably it. And I think it’s often the same with a lot of other types of evidence and things that we encounter in our world. The easy thing to do with UFO evidence is to ignore it, that’s what most people do. When you actually engage in it and you encounter it, you find…I can’t prove that person, I can’t prove that one, I can prove that one, I can’t prove that one, but they’re all saying almost the exact same thing, so I’m going to work with that. And that’s my attitude. And it doesn’t mean that everything is a sure shot but I think that’s valid and for that reason, I was very, very glad to hear Marshall, and very glad to hear Adam talk about how that type of information can be valid. Doesn’t prove that Marshall’s communication is valid, but it’s not bad to have that type of…at least we can see that there’s a possibility that these things can be real. 

I, too have talked at length with Hal Puhoff and Russell Targ about remote viewing, I know them both quite well. And I knew Ingo, and I’ve met a lot of those other remote viewers, they’re amazing people and their stories are undeniable, it seems to me. So we have capabilities, we don’t know how it works, we don’t know the physics of remote viewing, we don’t know the physics of telepathy, but that’s the fault of our worldview and our science, it doesn’t mean it isn’t real. That’s it.

RB: My wife and I had dinner with Russell Targ a couple of years ago, and we were in his favorite restaurant which has since closed down in Penn Station. And we’re sitting across the table and just on a whim, I said, “Russell, you know remote viewing, tell me what’s in my wife’s bag?” (laughs) Just like that, I put him on the spot! And he drew on a napkin, a shape of a flip flop (laughs) that was in her bag, and it freaked us both out. So I became a believer.

RD: It doesn’t normally work like that, you realize.

DS: Let me try to draw this back so we can help to be practical. What I’m trying to do is, you know, we have access to Mark Sims, who has been fortunate enough to have made a significant amount of money in his early professional life. We’ve got access to other type of people who may be able to provide resources for us. I’m trying to figure out, putting something together, sort of like a Jason group that existed, that was a group of experts, in that case, physicists, etc, who could come together and try to work on, they were under the auspices of DARPA, primarily. But I think what we need to do is get outside of the military industrial corporate world, but put together a group of people such as those of us who are gathered here, and others, to try to do everything we can do to come up with a better understanding of not only what this phenomenon is, but who the beings are that are behind this. And taking into account information that Marshall has and other people have, to try to evaluate that, with the assistance of Adam and John Valentino, and other people like this. We’ve got Eric Weinstein who’s involved in this now, who knows lots of people, as Adam does and John, who are extraordinarily expert scientists and physicists etc., who do not appear to have been tasked with trying to figure some of this stuff out.

And as Jeff (Kripal) said yesterday, when he said, “What’s the major problem with getting at this?” he said it’s resources. If we can get access to the resources, the financial resources to be able to put together, in a sense, grants, to do this at an institute, even though the institute is only virtual, like this, you know? To get together, to try to work together in panels to figure this thing out. I want to, in case people hadn’t been noticing it, I would like to recruit you guys (laughs), all of you, and all of us that we view to be sound and responsible, rational people, to deal with this. All of us acknowledge that this has gotta be one of, if not the most important single event in our entire lives. And they’ve been telling people about global climate change, they’ve been warning people about what we’re doing to our planet. The consistency of those kinds of messages can’t be ignored. And I’m not suggesting…

RB: Danny, this evidence exists in the most deeply hidden parts of, not only our government but outside our government (audio cut out)…in the private contractors. They have this information. We’ve heard this, we can’t get at it, they’re not amenable through FOIA requests. Even the government, even Lue’s group – as I’m sure he might or might not even acknowledge – was unable to get their hands on it. There are secret, secret, super-secret corners of our country, our establishment, particularly the private component, private industry. Lockheed, etc. – where this stuff is held, we’re convinced, but we can’t get at it and that’s the object. That’s the place to go looking.

RD: Yes. Exactly. 

DS: I believe that we can get it. I can tell you. I can tell you I believe that we can get it, but we have to make a concentrated effort on getting it. We’ve tried to do it inside the rules and regulations that have been drafted by those who are keeping it, but we need to do everything necessary. This is a state of emergency that we’re in here, not necessarily because of any particular threat that they pose, but because of our dealing with global climate change, there’s technology that may be available that our human family can get access to. Not by compromising ourselves by asking the extraterrestrials to give it to us, but we may have possession of information already that we could utilize. This is a state of emergency. We cannot stand around twiddling our intellectual thumbs, saying nothing about sitting on them, while the Earth burns and while our whole nation goes into chaos with people fighting with each other. We’ve got to step forward as men and women who care about our human family, care about our planet and who have strong suspicions that the information exists. And I can tell you, if information exists, we can get it. People were always astonished that we were able to get at the bottom of the Iran Contra stuff and who’s smuggling the cocaine. And just because you couldn’t get Congress to admit that they knew what was going on, we disabled that whole operation, and we exposed it. The same way with the Pentagon Papers. We got at that information. As long as they know that there are sound and responsible people that are trying responsibly to get at the information, people will come out of the woodwork, people will come to us, as long as there is a place. Build the field and they will come. So that’s what what I’m about here. I’m trying to have these type of conversations that some people find disturbing, some people find upsetting, but we’re the kind of people who have been working at this particular subject, and we can do it, I believe that we can. So that’s what we’re doing here, that’s the reason for this conversation, that’s the reason for putting Marshall on the spot, where he feels a little uncomfortable about having to talk about this thing, but it’s necessary to get it out in front of us here.

Lue: I think Marshall had a question, too, by the way, Danny.

MS: Go ahead. Luis? Did you have a question? 

Lue: No, I do, but after you. I saw you had your hand up first so you go first my friend. 

MS: I just want to say that I really appreciate your respecting me and I’ve been at a lot of denial and criticism, and called many different things. Somebody, I think on your chat, actually said I was a stooge of the Defense Department. A stooge of the Pentagon.

Lue: Who said that?

MS: Somebody said that on your chat

DS: Wait a second, that’s Lue’s title! 

Lue: I’ve already got that one so you’re going to have to get another title. (they all laugh)

MS: I thought to myself, now I’ve been called everything. I just wanna say, I’ve received 9000 pages of information and I’m in the process of publishing it all, it’s going all over the world and I’m making most of it just available to people. All I can say is that I have a serious life and also a very tangible life. But I think that potential is in all of us, and I think we can analyze from an intellectual or a rational viewpoint, but we’re not looking at a human universe where human reason is practiced, or, the limits of technology, the limits of rationality are at all observed, or it may have been transcended long ago. So, I think we have to think within the box to communicate to people but we can begin to think outside the box. And I think you all are part of this because of extraordinary reasons, I don’t think it’s just circumstance that you ended up in this very puzzling and sometimes very uncomfortable interest, or connection. Most people would rather not go there. So, I just want to say that it’s important that we honor or explore how we really feel about things because the deeper knowledge within us, mostly comes through our feelings, sometimes as ideas or images [and] in many different ways for different people. But we can only ascertain so much about a foreign intelligence. What we can ascertain from evidence, is intent and I think that, from my perspective, these briefings are like extraterrestrial whistleblowers that have revealed a picture that we could not find on our own, pieces to the puzzle that we cannot gain here from standing on Earth, we cannot be outside our Earth, watching what is occurring there. And helping us to assemble this puzzle for ourselves. They don’t give us all the answers to everything, but we’re missing some big things. And I’m saying this is for our own purview, for our own investigation, not what we’re going to publish or try to have published in a major newspaper, or magazine.

I think we can all feel things that are honest and feel things that are dishonest. And when I talk about knowledge, I’m talking about core response to things that we can’t intellectualize, we can’t explain why we feel bad about the situation or good about the situation. We may be able to fill that in, if we get to know it and have the information, but we’re missing so much information about this, that we as individuals, citizens of this world, members of the human family, have an opportunity to begin to explore this on our own, to answer some of our own questions or try to get connected through our own innate experience. And I think this is something you can’t prove, you can’t quantify…how we know things. If it’s authentic and it can be verified, of things that actually happened, or proved to be true, represents just a mysterious part of ourselves. And this is the mind beyond the brain, that watches the brain. And I always wonder if you watch your own thoughts, who is you watching your own thoughts, and who is you watching you, watching your own thoughts (laughs). This is a Buddhist kind of practice…I’m watching myself watch myself. So, it’s not just to provide evidence, but to give a perspective that I think we have to explore. 

DS: I agree. One of the other remarkable, newsworthy events that has taken place here, in addition to the New York Times reporting on these as real, and the Defense Department, through the Director of National Intelligence, even in the nine pages of the public report, acknowledging that the UFOs are real, that these are real things. This event, virtually the same day, that Lue and I know, Lue filed his complaint with the Department of Defense inspector general’s office, in the early morning of May 3 of this year. And right that afternoon, the Office of Inspector General, issued a public memorandum, stating that they were going to engage in a wide-ranging, not investigation, but an evaluation of all of the actions, if any, that any element of the Defense Department had undertaken with respect to the UAP phenomenon. This is an extraordinarily important piece of information. And I think Lue and I can be honest and share with you, that my sense was, and I think Lue shares this, the people that are involved in this evaluation inside the Department of Defense, are honest, good faith, men that we have met. 

Lue: I agree wholeheartedly.

DS: And they’ve been kept in the dark about this phenomenon. But they have a responsibility, even if it’s only at the evaluation level – and that it hasn’t yet gone to a full investigation – they have the authority to call people before them and ask the right questions and get the answers to their questions. And if they start to discover that they’re being stonewalled in the same way that you were, Lue, then we have an opportunity to be of assistance to them in conducting a good-faith evaluation of what the information is. It doesn’t mean that they’re going to give it all to us. They may share it with you, Lue, because Lue has the classifications and security clearances that I don’t have. But it seems to me that that is a very real, active edge of the investigation that’s going on now, even if it’s only called an evaluation. And I think that we’re in a unique position, all of us, because we have the ability to be communicating with you, Lue, all of the kinds of information and different sources of information that we have, and you have the capacity to sit with these other men and share this information. Because, I think you agree, I have the distinct sense that, in our meetings with these guys, that they are inviting the information, they’re open to trying to get Lue to share with them what Lue was able to determine in his investigations because they have been left in the dark. 

Lue: I think that’s correct, Danny. I think there’s an honest attempt to reconcile what they have been told previously about this topic, versus what they’re now learning. My impression was the same. Mr Stone and his cadre are extremely professional, extremely competent and adept and they seem like very patriotic people that want to do the right thing for the American people and their boss. I applaud that.

I agree with Adam that consciousness is not just a result of electrical synapses in the human brain. I think it’s safe to presume, at this point, there’s something more to it. You know, philosophically, there’s always been some sort of division between quote, “the mind, the body and the spirit” as being distinctly three different things. And, of course, it’s easy to look at a human body and understand the physiology, to look at a mind and be able to understand neural pathways, but that third component is far more difficult. But I don’t think it’s any less important and again this goes to my belief that all data must remain on the table until it’s no longer on the table. I know from my own perspective, and this may be a surprise to some people, I don’t ever talk about it, but I happen to know a thing or two about the remote viewing program, and I’m not going to go into much detail than that. 

But when we’re having a conversation with the public, we must understand that you’re talking to people who have not been indoctrinated into this topic at all. The most they’ve seen is maybe a couple sci fi movies on TV and they’ve been told to be dismissive, that this is something, a topic of fringe. So, you’re asking them to do a complete 180 degree turn, and so, there’s that old adage of crawl, walk, run, right? So you got to crawl before you walk, you gotta learn how to walk before you run. Well, I think we’re still in a stage of slithering and writhing on the floor, we haven’t even begun to crawl yet, so it’s gonna take time for us to get there.

This goes into the the question of remote viewing and even things such as channeling. I’m not sure there’s much of a difference between a prophet, a channeler, a remote viewer or anything else, it seems to me that the skillsets seem to be the same. But perhaps one of the greatest challenges we have with understanding consciousness may be because consciousness isn’t inherently only a human thing, where the body is, and the human mind is, perhaps consciousness is something a little bit more indelible or something a little bit more universal beyond just our species, potentially. And as a result of that, it tends to be a little bit harder to define, or a little bit harder to understand, because it’s not a completely human thing to begin with. 

So, what I wanted to say, Marshall, is, please understand, when I’m quote, unquote,  “sharp shooting you,” I’m not really, and I’m not disagreeing with you. What I’m simply doing is posing to you the questions as an investigator. The reason why I don’t superimpose my own thoughts into things and my own beliefs is because I’m not sure it’s fair nor relevant. It’s just like when Ralph is writing an article for The New York Times, his opinion doesn’t matter, what matters are the facts and you have to really separate yourself. So, when I’m asking you these questions, Marshall, it’s not because I believe or don’t believe you. It has nothing to do with belief at all. I’m just trying to look at this from an outside perspective and ask questions so I can try to evaluate the authenticity of the information. It really is nothing to do about you, I’m trying to understand where the information is coming from, right? That’s what I try to do. But please don’t look at this and [feel that] I think it’s hogwash because I actually have, maybe, a surprising perspective that you’re not aware of (smiles). But I keep those very private and it’s important as an investigator [that] I remain as objective and as fair as possible and so that’s why I ask you the questions that I do. It’s not personal. 

RB: The government shut, the CIA shut down or stopped supporting the remote viewing program saying it proved a complete dud, right? 

DS: Total bullshit, total more lying bullshit. 

RB: Interesting that they said that, number one, after all those years of supporting it and putting all that money towards it.

Lue: Well Ralph, are you sure that it’s actually gone?

RB: (laughs)

DS: I don’t believe it’s gone.

Lue: I’m not gonna answer that question, but are you sure it’s not being used anymore in the U.S. government? 

DS: Nobody puts aside that capacity that has been established. 

RB: (pretty sure it was RB who said this) Right. 

DS: That’s just total hogwash.

RB: Listen, I just want to say one other thing. The UFO debate has been around for decades, as we know, since the war, the post-war period, back and forth, all these reports that Richard is citing, properly so, that would be great to see the light of day. But what changed everything, in my view, is the footage from from the Navy, the videos, that gave a physical, you know, imprimatur, a positive proof that these things exist. So what we’re looking for now, we, me, The Times, the media, is something that will move the story forward, that will add to the information we already have, that will take it, catapult it to a new dimension or a new level, that will tell us something that we don’t already know that will prove something that we long doubted. So that, I think, is the challenge for Lue and for everybody who is in possession of this information. 

RD: How about an analysis of the Davis/Wilson notes? I’m just saying.

DS: Yeah. But see, we have the advantage of having Lue working at the kind of the tip of the spear of this continuing investigation. I mean, there’s no doubt at all about the interaction that we’re having with the Inspector General’s Office. We’re engaged in an active, still active investigation. They can’t get rid of Lue Elizondo that easily, okay? And Lue is the kind of guy that once he starts going after a piece of information, you can’t just say, “Forget it, go away, we’re not going to hand it to you.” He’s not going to go away, he’s going to continue this investigation and we’re going to be working in coordination with him. In the same way, Ralph, a great reporter doesn’t drop a great story, and we know that Ralph is going to keep going after this. Richard, you’ve been going at this for decades, we know perfectly well you’re not going away, no matter what they might try to do to you. No matter what they might try to do to you, or how they might try to discredit you, whatever it is that’s going to happen, your friends are all around you, okay? And we know that you’re going to continue pushing on this information. Adam, you have access to some really, really important information about the kind of objective work that you’ve done there at Princeton and your other friends and colleagues. Marshall, you have access to a unique, completely, sincerely-believed-in, source of information, and we know that these things happen. Police departments use psychic people to go and find criminals. We know this goes on all the time, and they don’t like to talk about it. But if we can maintain continued communication among ourselves, taking leadership from people like Lue and taking leadership from people like Ralph and Richard, and even Marshall, with leadership also from people like you, Adam, that WE CAN FIND THIS INFORMATION OUT. Even if we have to use remote viewers to find it (laughs). Because the fact is, I know, and you guys all know why Pat Price got in trouble with the FBI for going into that building and what he was capable of doing. We can get this information, they cannot hide this information from us, okay? So all we have to do is be willing to participate in this all together and I believe that we are. We have other allies around. What you see here, Marshall, is Allies of Humanity. 

RB: Human allies. Human allies.

DS: Human Allies of Humanity.

MS: This team needs some good allies right now.

DS: That’s right. We need all the allies we can get, and we will take them from extraterrestrial sources, we’ll take them from remote viewing sources, we’ll take them from investigative sources and reporter’s sources, and we will get this information. And we will handle it responsibly, and we’ll share it with our people, and we will exercise our constitutional, fundamental rights to get access to this information and use it responsibly, to not only solve the problems of the UFO, but our global climate change, and our other major problems. And we need to earn the trust of all of our people, engaged in this process. Okay?

MS: Gentlemen, It was great to meet you all. I would love to be in contact with any of you who would like to be in contact with me. 

DS: Absolutely. 

RD: Thank you, Marshall.

MS: I’m very respectful of everybody’s experience here, and you know we all bring pieces to this puzzle and, we’re all in this situation out of destiny or choice, however you might want to interpret that. 

RD: Absolutely. 

DS: An important place in our human history. Great, thank you very much guys, I appreciate it. I will see you all in the virtual world.

© Joe Murgia and www.ufojoe.net, 2018-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Joe Murgia and www.ufojoe.net with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

, , , , , , , , ,


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *