This is a program that goes back to the Second World War, at least. There have been retrievals since, allegedly, according to Grusch. Well, the first retrieval he knows about was in 1933, which is allegedly the Magenta Italy Italian UAP craft, which was allegedly returned or recovered by the Americans in 1944 with the assistance of the Vatican and brought back to America. And if that's true, that's what Mr. Grusch is alleging. If that's true, one can only hope that it's investigated and that people get to the bottom of it. In collaboration with the Vatican? Yes,
the Vatican interceded to assist in handing the technology over from the vestiges of the Italian government at the end of the fascist Mussolini regime and handing it over to the Americans as the Americans moved into Italy at the end of the Second World War. So that doesn't mean that there's something inherently Christian about this. It just happened to be where the Vatican is, like there's something geographical about it. You know, it's funny, I've spent a large part of my career revealing the horrible, sordid history of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. So I'm not
a fan of the way it's conducted itself with its treatment of children. But one thing I will applaud the Catholic Church on is that it's long had a very progressive attitude towards the notion of a non-human intelligence. And I think 10 years ago, the Vatican astronomer, they do actually have a Vatican observatory in Italy. He spoke publicly about the notion that essentially, whatever species we are of intelligent being, we are all God's children. And I think the Vatican knows an enormous amount about the phenomenon. And one person I commend you speak to is Diana Walsh Pasolka, who's written a terrific book called American Cosmic. And she's got a new
book coming out that I've been privileged to preview. I think the Vatican is well aware of allegations that the planet has been shared with a non-human intelligence for a large part of humanity's existence. And I'm told that some of the best archives and information historically on this is stored in the Vatican. The other word that stuck out to me was the, with the legacy program, like there's a single one. This to me sounds like this would be a multi-department and a multi-program program. So why is there just one? I think it's a euphemism that's become quite common inside the program as it's called. It's called the program. That's the euphemism that people
have used to it. And I think those of us who are passing comment on it have referred to it often as the legacy program, because essentially, it's been a continuing program that never stopped operating throughout the Cold War. And it continues to this day. One of the issues, though, and you quite rightly make this point is that it's now fragmented. I think the allegations of my sources, not just Mr. Grusch, that this program is now administered across different private aerospace companies. Notably, one of them, of course, is Lockheed Martin. I think those companies should be asked directly whether they have had or have possession of non-human technology, that at one stage was in the possession of the US government. And are they going to be obligating
their requirements to respond under the new legislation that's coming up before the Congress? It's going to be very interesting to see what they say. Because I think that one of the one of the big issues here is, and I say this as somebody who's trained in intellectual property law, they might rightly think it's their property. Why the hell should they have to account for this to the US government? If they've spent the money and done the work in the last 6070 years on trying to develop this technology? What business is it of the US Defense Department or the US government if they were properly vested this material or if they recovered it themselves? Why should the US government have any right over it? I'm kind of on their side on this, you know, frankly, if Elon Musk develops antigravitic propulsion, based on a recovered piece of technology, why the hell should he have to account for it to the US government? What business is it of theirs if they've been so incompetent as to hand over this technology invested into private aerospace, then I'm kind of on side. I'm a big fan of private enterprise and capitalism. I think that the profit motive drives some of the best innovations in technology. If I was a private aerospace company
that's responsible to my shareholders, I'd be getting my lawyers briefed and ready for a big fight with the Congress. What business is it of theirs? I'm kind of with them in a way really, you know, bottom line is if Lockheed Martin has a flying saucer hidden in a cupboard somewhere, and if they've spent billions of dollars on trying to develop that technology, why should they be putting up being bullied by US Congress? What business is it of Congress? If some president in the past made the decision to divest the US government of this technology or to take it out of say the Department of Energy 50, 60 years ago, why would they completely divest themselves, the government completely give this technology up and not say, hey, private industry, you have great technology to investigate this technology. Let's work together. That's a very good question, Curt. One explanation that I heard is that there was concerns that the Department of Energy in particular was going to be brought under the control of various regulatory agencies, notably the Government Accounting Office, the GAO. And I'm told that at one stage, the GAO was asking some
very shrewd questions about monies and expenditure relating to the program and a decision was made to divest that technology from the DOE into private enterprise. And unless proper contracts were drawn up at the time that required that this technology remained the property of the US government, well, frankly, my friend, if I was a clever IP lawyer, I would be saying, stuff the US government. This is us. We're one of the world's top aerospace companies. Why should we have to hand this over?
I'm kind of sympathetic with them. And I think if they came out publicly and actually said that and said, yeah, we've got this technology, but it's none of your bloody business. Piss off, leave us alone. We're spending the money. We've got the scientists, we're spending the DOE. If the US government was stupid enough to go off and fight wars in the Middle East in the last 10, 15, 20 years and not spend money on a Manhattan-style project to back engineer alien technology, then it's their fault. I mean, I think we're actually a very interesting point here where the implications of this extraordinary legislation, where clearly what's going on behind the scenes here is the Congress is pissed off. It's upset that it's asked, it's demanded, it's already
required under the NDAA laws that people come forward with evidence of UAPs. And they know it exists. They know that evidence is there. That's what's driving this legislation. The reason why Senator Gillibrand is pushing for aerospace companies or private corporations to be forced to reveal whether they've got objects of non-Earth origin or exotic UAP material is because they've got witnesses who've already told them about it. And if I'm, I don't know, let's just say Lockheed Martin and they've got a flying saucer sitting in a cupboard somewhere, they might think, well, hell guys, that one there, we recovered it ourselves from Guatemala a few years ago. Why the hell should we tell you about that? It's none of your business. We're a private company. Free enterprise is what made America great. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. These loopholes characterize
the States and perhaps Canada, maybe Australia. Is this something that's occurring worldwide? Because I don't imagine that these loopholes exist in Russia or in China, and I don't see why it wouldn't leak. And you did mention that some, I don't recall exactly what, but some parts of this have leaked, but I don't know if it's related to this. Anyway, what do you say to that? Let's deal with your country. I know for a fact that Canadian scientists are actively involved in working and collaborating with the United States on retrieved non-human technology there. Let's just see if any
of your media now go out and ask questions about it. I don't think they will, because they'll be cowed. One reasonable thing to do would be to go to a press conference and ask the Canadian defense minister, with the cameras rolling, minister, what inquiries have you done as a result of the letter from Larry Maguire, a member of parliament who told you that he is aware of a reverse engineering program with which Canadian scientists have been collaborating through your DRDC for decades with the US government? Is she going to answer that question? She should. Now, let's deal with Australia. I've spoken to very senior people in my government who've told me they know nothing about
any Australian involvement in reverse engineering, and I think that's true. I think that there have been individual military personnel, mainly from our special forces, who have collaborated in retrievals. I've spoken to people who've alleged to me that they've been involved in retrieval operations. I do believe that it's possible that technology has been tested on Australian territory or over our sovereign waters without our knowledge, and I'm investigating that at the moment. I enjoy eating home-cooked meals, but I intensely dislike the requisite trip to the store for ingredients. I enjoy eating home-cooked meals, but I intensely dislike the requisite trip to the
store for ingredients. So HelloFresh is a boon after these sometimes eight-hour-long podcasts. To make it even better, go to hellofresh.com slash theoriesofeverythingfree, and use the code theoriesofeverythingfree, that's all one word, and then you get a free breakfast for life at hellofresh.com slash theoriesofeverythingfree. Let's deal with the UK. I think the UK knows a
lot more than Canada or Australia. It's been a very active member of the Five Eyes through the foreign material program because there have been retrievals in the United Kingdom and in Europe, I am told. It is alleged to me. I don't know that for sure, but the allegation that has been put to me, and that includes British special forces personnel, is that there have been active operations crash retrievals even within the last few years. This has been an ongoing issue.
And people may say, oh, well, how come these things are crashing? If these are such advanced technology, why are they crashing so much? Often they're not crashing, they're just retrieved. We don't know the circumstances in which they came to be where they are. But I'm told, it has been alleged to me, that on occasion there have been fully functioning technologies recovered with no visible damage to them. Now, under the foreign materials program, as is detailed in the Larry Maguire letter, which is the secret Five Eyes agreement for the recovery, normally of foreign adversary technology like Russia or China, like the latest MIG or the latest rocket system and things like that, it's happening a lot at the moment inside Ukraine. I'm told that through that FMP, the foreign materials program, there have also been very controversial and very secret recoveries of what people believe is non-human technology. But if you're a soldier, a special forces operative, and you're cleared to be involved in a retrieval operation like that, the level of knowledge that you have is limited to your utility. It could very well be they've
just been standing there with a rifle, making sure nobody comes on scene while scientists and officials move in and remove whatever it is. So, it may very well be they have no direct knowledge themselves as to exactly what it is. And they're open to the accusation that what they're talking about might just be a Russian satellite or a Chinese drone or something like that. This is
why this needs to be investigated. Because one of the things that I am aware of is that there is an intelligence take, there is distribution of Five Eyes intelligence now, and it's become much more routinized than it ever used to be. And within the last few years, there is now intelligence sharing on UAPs within the Five Eyes Alliance. And I've spoken to people in Australia who've told me that they've seen some of this take. Very senior people. And our intelligence community. And when I've said to them, should we discount this claim of collaboration inside the Five Eyes on alleged retrievals, they've giggled and said, no, I wouldn't. I wouldn't put it past the Americans at all. And one of the phenomena that's quite common here in Australia, one of the things that
I've reported on as a journalist reporting on the intelligence community, has been it's been a long standing practice for Australia, Canada, and New Zealand as kind of junior partners of the Five Eyes Alliance, to do plausibly deniable favors for their big brother allies in the US and the UK. And so during the Cold War, it's now public information that Australians, New Zealanders, often collaborated with the Brits or the Americans to bug or to tap foreign embassies or foreign adversary companies, countries, buildings, and we did plausibly deniable favors for our friends. I'm told also that we've been involved in retrievals of and quite rightly so it's a good thing that we've been doing this retrievals of Chinese and Russian and North Korean technology, you know, we're keeping tabs on our potential enemies. But I'm also told because I've had chats with people who've been involved in these operations that there have been retrievals where what's being retrieved is obviously far more controversial. And I think the Brits know a lot more about this,
because they've been more actively involved. And there is a high level of collaboration between the UK and the US on this issue. But it's interesting, because certainly the parliamentary oversight committees in the United Kingdom that I've engaged with, they're not aware of this. So again, there's
a there's an accountability issue here. If British military or intelligence have been involved, I don't think their parliamentary committees know about it. And frankly, I think they should. I mean, I'll give you an example. I did a story in 1994, that's how old I am, about how operatives of our Australian Secret Intelligence Service, our equivalent, if you like of the CIA, assisted the British government in bugging Kuwaiti government offices, after the first Gulf War, to procure a trade advantage to win contracts against which Australia was competing. And the operatives that were involved in that operation told me how they were paid cash by the Brits, and told not to tell their Australian masters what they'd been doing, bugging Kuwaiti government offices to help the British win contracts against the Australians. And there was a Royal Commission
of Inquiry, which essentially is a bit like a grand jury investigation, which looked into this issue, and the whole issue of plausibly deniable favors by our intelligence community to assist Big Brother allies, the UK and the US was brought to the fore. Another incident that I became aware of when I did the story in 1994, was that when the Chinese government was negotiating with the British about the handover of Hong Kong back to China, Australian government operatives were involved at the behest of the British SIS in bugging Chinese government offices in Hong Kong, so that they could negotiate a strategic advantage in the negotiations with the Chinese. And imagine the consequences for Australia if we'd been caught by the Chinese and doing that kind of high level spying. I mean, the blowback would have been enormous. And so I raised in my story, the issue of why we were doing these plausibly deniable favors. This is the same thing that's been going on with UAPs, because Larry Maguire, in his letter to the Canadian Minister of Defence, specifically raises how he's concerned that upcoming public announcements will be coordinated between AUKUS, which could damage Canada's credibility with our allies. And AUKUS, it's not a very well known agreement, but it's the Australia, UK, US agreement. And what it is, is essentially
a collaboration defence agreement, which is essentially targeting, providing Australia with nuclear submarine technology. It's bringing Australia into the nuclear world, controversially, huge controversy in Australia, we're spending $400 billion on nuclear attack submarines, probably the Virginia class American submarines in the next 20 to 30 years. Now, I know, my Prime Minister in Australia, and my Defence Minister, and the heads of our intelligence services in government do not know about the crash retrieval program, if it exists. The Australian crash retrieval or the... No, no, no, no, the US Canadian crash retrieval collaboration. If I was Australia,
and I'm about to spend nearly half a trillion dollars on weaponry, which is supposedly the top of the line weaponry in the world, I would expect as a Five Eyes ally partner to be brought into the loop on the fact that the US is potentially sitting on vastly more superior technology. I would expect that it would be a legitimate question for my government to be asking, are we being sold a lemon? Are we being sold technology that will be superseded within five to 10 years, if and when the American government finally admits the truth of what this alleged crash retrieval program involves, alleged technology that is capable of extraordinary energy from the vacuum, extraordinary propulsion systems that are capable of instantaneous velocity, the performance characteristics manifested in the five observables. That's a technology I would want in preference to a nuclear attack submarine. And so, this is why this is relevant to agreements
like the AUKUS agreement. Are members of the Five Eyes alliance who have historically been treated as and patronized as junior partners, are they being locked out of information and knowledge that ought properly to be being shared with them to assist them in making decisions about their future national security? That's why this now matters. I'm not trying to drive a wedge between the Five Eyes partners, but I have had discussions with people in my government in Australia where I have said, look, I know stuff that Canada is allegedly involved in, and you may not want to ask about it. But I think there is the beginning of a realization now in my government in Australia that they haven't been told the whole story. I suspect, for example, that there are facilities in
Australia that have been used for experimentation with some of this technology by the US government as places like Groom Lake and Area 51 became more and more scrutinized and hot. Vast, empty areas of Australia and our ocean are beautiful places to practice technology. And in my book, In Plain Sight, I start the book by talking about an extraordinary sighting, multiply corroborated, where a gigantic black triangular craft hovered silently over two policemen and a civilian woman, and did performance parameters, performance characteristics far beyond known human technology. And that's a technology that has been seen by multiple witnesses that I've since spoken to.
Clearly, something was operating over Northwest Australia back in the early 90s, that has never been properly explained. And clearly, the Americans knew about it and tried to shut people down from talking about it. And so it's funny, and I obviously get frustrated with stories like this one in our national newspaper, where the whole issue of alien conspiracies are mocked. And you know, there really are references to little green men, that sort of nonsense. And it's this
kind of belittling ridicule that ignores the fact that there is an abundance of evidence, no longer circumstantial, to suggest that there is something going on. The Pentagon has admitted the reality of the phenomena. It has admitted that there is an anomalous phenomena, possibly intelligently controlled, doing things, showing performance parameters that we cannot explain. Multiple,
hundreds, thousands of witnesses have seen objects doing things that are apparently craft, under intelligent control, showing performance parameters that just cannot be explained within known human technology. There is an intelligence source by the name of David Grusch, who has come forward and courageously spoken out for the first time publicly, saying that he is aware of a crash retrieval program that has been illegally kept secret from the American public. He's also alleged, by the way, bodies, and some journalists seem very shy about even discussing that issue, because they're worried and confronted that people may find it so ontologically shocking that they don't want to talk about it. This is real. These allegations are being made. They should be being investigated. That's all David Grusch wants. About that triangle, do you think that we have the ability to operate? Forget about reverse engineer. I'll refer you to, again, one of the
episodes of Need to Know, www.needtoknow.today. I interviewed a former British Special Forces soldier called John Chapman. He's a former British para very highly trained British soldier. He was literally in combat in Ukraine in the very early days of the battle around Kiev in April last year.
He was with a group of Navy SEALs, Special Forces soldiers from all over the world, an international battalion that was fighting behind Russian lines. And in the interview that he did with me, he and his colleagues described seeing firstly, three strange lights appear in the sky in the night sky. And then all of a sudden, a triangular craft winked into existence. And the way he's described it, it appeared to be operating as some kind of surveillance and reconnaissance platform. It silently moved above the battlefield, literally, as they're getting watered. They're looking up, and they're describing it. They're seeing it. They're absolutely categorical that they saw it. I've corroborated that this was seen. Some kind of triangular surveillance platform was
being used on the battlefield, clearly monitoring Russian positions in the very early days of the Kiev offensive by the Russians. I don't know who that was, but something was taking an interest. And that platform, that triangular object has been seen by multiple witnesses all around the world. Now, I know people love to dismiss all this as a wacky conspiracy theory, and they love to sort of push the idea that this is just a conspiracy theory, and it's pushed by crazy people with little green men agendas. That's no longer the case. This is being rationally suggested by sober men and women at a very high level in the American governments, both in Canada and the US. I've had conversations with people in your government. You know, they privately admit to me that they know
something's going on, but they're frightened of asking. You know, it's almost like, well, we kind of assume it's in the national good, so we're not going to push any harder. But I think that's what the people who've been hiding this all these years have been playing on. I think there have periodically been people inside the US government who have an oversight role. One of them is perhaps Admiral Tom Wilson, the Wilson document, as we've discussed previously, Curt. And I think people have stumbled across the issue from time to time. And I think they've bought the
line that this is a national security imperative and that they shouldn't push any harder. If you enjoyed this toll clipping, then the full video is linked in the description. Don't forget to follow Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal on Spotify for exclusive content and in-depth discussions. Your support on Spotify helps us grow and to reach more curious minds like yours. Check
out the link in the description and join the core toll community on Spotify today. See you there.
2024-09-19