And my sources are telling me that private aerospace companies have been involved in private retrievals. And under the Senate Intelligence Committee proposed legislation, I don't think there would be an obligation on those private aerospace companies to reveal what they have. Another loophole in this legislation that's a worry to me is that if a private aerospace company is in possession of technology that was recovered with government assistance or was passed on to them by government, say 50, 60, 70 years ago, if they divest themselves of that technology, then they're not required, under my reading of this bill, to report it to the Congress or to the Arrow. What do you mean if they divest themselves of the technology? Okay, well, I understand at the moment. I'll tell you my understanding. This is how much I know. I am told that right at this very moment, there is a major private aerospace company that is trying to divest itself of a craft. It has approached another company expressing interest in selling that technology to them. And the reason why? I suspect it's because they've
known this legislation is coming. That's what's going on here. You have private aerospace companies that are actively involved in trying to subvert the intention of Congress. Now, roll your eyes. I don't care. The simple fact is, there are people who are telling me this from within the legacy program who are very concerned that there is an active attempt underway to hide technology from the Congress. There's another issue here. Another issue is, if a private aerospace company has been involved in a retrieval, as I understand they have been, by law, it's their property.
Sure, they may have to reveal it to the Congress. But by law, there's a very, very good argument that they are under no obligation to hand over that technology or to give the knowledge to the government. That's because there's actually a law called the Law of Ownership and Control of Meteorites. And essentially, there are provisions in international law that mean that it's not just meteorites. Essentially, if you come into possession of something, and you've spent the money on recovering it yourself, it's an incentive for people to develop the technology that might arise from that recovery, that they enjoy the private ownership of that material. So, one of the issues that we have behind all of this is, let's assume, hypothetically, that there are private aerospace companies that have been sitting on technology for 50, 60, 70 years. In the first category, let's say Roswell happened in 1947. And let's say around about 1950
or so, perhaps in the 1970s, the Roswell craft was passed on to a private aerospace company. What happens then, if they've had possession of that object for 50, 60 years? Does the US government really have a claim on that technology? In law, there's a question mark. And what if, as I noticed, somebody was recently asserting just in the last 24 hours on Twitter, what if, say, technology from recoveries in the US has been moved extraterritorially into Canada? Oh, gee, that's interesting. What if Canada was secretly in possession of retrieved technology that is owned by a US aerospace company and being worked on by, say, Canadian government scientists in collaboration with US scientists? What's the law on that? Does the US Congress have extraterritorial control over that technology? Interesting question. And then separately from that, another loophole that you could drive a truck through here is, what if those private aerospace companies have recovered that technology using private military contractors? As I understand has very much been the case in the last few years. What if it's been entirely recovered by those
private aerospace companies, perhaps in collaboration with the US government, but they've spent all the money and all the resources on doing that? Shouldn't they ought properly to have the rights to that technology? I mean, imagine hypothetically, if it is true, imagine, just imagine, if it is true that say, Lockheed Martin, let's say Lockheed Martin has a spacecraft. Let's say they've got a perfectly operating flying saucer from say, I don't know, Kingman, Texas, sitting on blocks somewhere in a cave, sitting in a private facility somewhere. Why do they have to give that technology knowledge to the Congress? And why should they? They're a private aerospace company. They've got every reason to want to develop an advantage over their corporate rivals. Even if that company was dealing with the
government? Well, that's the issue. The issue is, I've spoken to people at a very high level in Silicon Valley, who have resources and money, who are very angry that they believe technology was gifted, vested into private aerospace companies 50, 60 years ago when they didn't exist. And they're now aware of this. And what they're not angry about is that the public don't know about it. What they're angry about is that they've not been cut into it. That's what's going on here. And it may all sound like a wacky conspiracy theory, but let's see it investigated. Grusch has made these claims. He has risked his career. He's risked his security classification
to come forward and give evidence. And he's done it by the book. He still has those security classifications? He does. Okay. Can I summarize the Grusch story and see if I have it correct? Sure. So Grusch is a senior official. He has- Was.
Was a senior official. Has or had plenty of access to different secret parts of the government, secret activities. I'm trying to make this simple for myself and the audience as well. He's like, okay, I'm seeing something here that has to do with non-human intelligence. I'm hearing it through the grapevine. I perhaps have seen doc-
No, no. It's more than through the grapevine. He's spoken directly with people in the legacy program or people who at least purport to have had direct knowledge and contact with non-human technology. Okay. Then he's like, people, namely the public, should know about this. Okay. How do I go about doing this? Because I don't want to go to jail. So I'm going to go to a part of the government. There's a part of the government called DOPSR. So defense-
Defense Office of Pre-Publication Security Review. It's when somebody's got a security clearance, they need to get authorization to speak publicly about whatever it is they want to speak about. They write down in a proposal what they want to say, and then DOPSR approves it. And that's exactly what he's done here. He's gone to DOPSR, the Defense Office Pre-Publication Security Review Office, and they have approved him revealing what he's revealed. Okay. So then he tells them, here's what I want to tell the public. And then they say yes or no, but the parts they say yes to- Sure. And just to be clear, Curt, the fact that DOPSR gives that approval
is not an endorsement that what he is saying is necessarily true. All it is, is merely an endorsement that what he is saying is not breaching national security, because that's their role. Their role is to make sure that the statements that he makes don't breach his security classification. Okay. So they're not saying that it's true. They're just saying that what you're saying is not classified.
Okay. So then he goes on with you, and this huge news story breaks, and he says that there are non-human intelligences or non-human crafts and bodies. So what I was thinking is, there's this no-win scenario here. Because if he says extraordinary claims, then we can just say, yeah, but the government said that that's not classified. If that was going on, that would be classified. They would say, please don't talk about that. Well, that's what's going through my head and plenty of others. So how do you think about that?
Okay. I mean, I think he had to get DOPSR approval in order to do the interview that he did with myself, and that he did with Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal. And he did that. And as I've emphasized, that approval in and of itself doesn't mean it's a warranty by the Defense Department that what he's saying is true. But if the Defense Department had not wanted him to do the interview, then they would have had to have cited the laws that he was breaching by revealing what he knows. And then, as he's explained it to me, to be forced to... He would have taken them on in
court and challenged them on that, and he was ready to do that. Because if, as he asserts, there is a legal and possibly criminal withholding of evidence from the Congress, that legal challenge would have given him the right to present evidence that would then have validated his claims publicly in a way that would have been incontrovertible for the Defense Department. So the only choice that they had when presented with the DOPSR application was to give him the approval, because they couldn't risk, if he's telling the truth, they couldn't risk the damage that would be caused if they're trying to cover this up of this being forced out into the open in an open hearing in a court. Stop sending money to these
large insurance companies that profit off of not paying your bills. Did you know that 48 million claims on Obamacare last year were denied? That's one out of five claims that are getting rejected. Do you want to take that chance? Health insurance sucks. It's confusing, it's expensive, it's frustrating. However, there's a better way. What's the alternative? CrowdHealth was created
to get rid of the headaches of health insurance. For $175 for an individual, or $575 for a family of four or more, you'll gain access to a community of people who are willing to help out in the event of an emergency. You'll also get telemedicine visits, discounted prescriptions, and more. All this without doctors' networks getting in the way. Let CrowdHealth help with your healthcare needs. You can get started today for just $99 per month for the first three months if you use the code C-U-R-T. So Curt, that's Curt with a C, to get the healthcare that you deserve. CrowdHealth is not insurance. Learn more at joincrowdhealth.com. That's joincrowdhealth.com.
Use the code C-U-R-T. Because there are lawyers who are prepared to take this to the highest courts in the land. There are people in companies in America who are angry that they have been cut out of the vesting of technology that allegedly occurred 50, 60 years ago. And there is bitterness that a small cadre of private aerospace companies in the military intelligence community, with a long association with the US government, have been given alleged access to this technology in a way that other companies haven't. Not least because those companies feel they have a better job, a better capacity of developing the technologies than the private aerospace companies that have been trying to do it for 50 or 60 years. That's what's behind all of this. It's not really a public campaign. What's driving the moves in Congress is that privately, there are companies
that are bitterly angry that they have been cut out of the loop. It's part of American capitalism, free enterprise, good old free enterprise, that companies should be able to compete for contracts to help the American government do what it does well. If it's true that there are companies that have been given access to non-human, alien technology, and that they've had that technology now for 60, 70, 80 years, it's not a good thing. It's not a good thing. It's not a good thing. 70, 80 years. If that's true, and that's what Mr. Grusch is alleging, if that's true, then there are other companies in America that have every right to feel resentful and bitter that they've been cut out of the deal. It might explain the reason for some of the dominant
companies in defense aerospace today. This is what's at stake here. And so, what's going on behind the scenes is, yes, there is a formidable military and intelligence lobby trying to shut this whole Grusch stuff down, trying to stop the Senate Intelligence Committee from holding public hearings. And it's the Senate Intelligence Committee, by the way, that has the security appearances that would allow it to hear the evidence that Mr. Grusch has
got. But what's going on behind the scenes is, quietly and behind the scenes, there are other people who are not part of that defense aerospace loop, who are bitterly angry, and they are lobbying their congressmen as well. And they're saying, if this is true, and I think it is, because I've had conversations with some of these people, if this is true, this is outrageous. This is an abrogation of the good qualities of American capitalism
and free enterprise. Why should these private aerospace companies be given a free run? Hence, this groundbreaking legislation, which for once and for all, is going to force the truth to come to the open. If it's true that there is non-human technology of non-Earth origin held by private aerospace companies somewhere in the world, under this law that's proposed, they will now be forced to reveal it. That's why this matters. But as a separate issue,
I don't know necessarily that the public is going to get told this. I think that there is quite a strong opinion inside the Congress, even amongst some of the people pushing for disclosure, that if we can get away with revealing this to the Congress privately in oversight committees, inside secure compartmented information, secret compartmented information facilities, or whatever the word is for a SCIF, it might be the better way to do it. I don't think there is a push or a strong feeling in the Congress politically that it's a good idea for America to know if it's true that there are non-human intelligences engaging with this planet. I don't think that there is a strong political impetus for the politicians to feel that it's time for the existence of the retention of non-human technology to be brought to public attention. But I do feel, and this is what people need to understand, there is an imperative inside the Congress now for the truth to be brought to the attention of those oversight committees. And it's what those oversight committees decide to do with that information that will be absolutely fundamental. I mean, no disrespect to, I think, Mark Warner,
who's the chairman of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence. But he's, I think, based in Virginia. I mean, who are his constituency in Virginia? The military and intelligence community. What does the military and intelligence community likely
want done about some revelations of retained, highly advanced technology? Well, if I was them, if I was the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, I'd want it kept confidential so that we can develop it for our own advantage and try and develop a superiority over the Russians or the Chinese. That's not hard. I wouldn't want it made public. And I'd be lobbying the chairman of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence to keep it confidential. But I think that what's slowly happening is people misunderstand. And I think there's a large amount of the social media commentary at the moment on UAPs, who think that what we're heading towards is some mass disclosure event. I don't
think that's going to happen. I really don't. I think that what is probably going to be happening is a very controlled disclosure behind the scenes in secure facilities inside the Congress, where for the first time, congressional committees are actually brought up to speed with what's really going on. And I think they will learn that yes, there is retrieved non-human technology, and that there is a secret reverse engineering program going on in which your country, Canada, is involved intimately. And if people dug into that, they'd find a whole lot more if they only bothered to ask. Don't you find it, by the way, extraordinary, Curt? Absolutely extraordinary that this Larry Maguire letter can leak. Jeremy Corbell and Nat leak this letter. I've known about this letter for some time. And in fact, it was posted back in May by another source on Twitter,
and it was completely ignored by people. Daniel Otis, a very respectable journalist from Canada, has noted that this document was actually up online as early as May. But it actually says Larry Maguire alleges to the Minister of National Defence in Canada, quote, you may not be aware, Defence Research and Development Canada, DRDC, that's Canada's equivalent, if you like, of DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, has participated in efforts to analyze UAP, which is publicly traceable to circa 1950. This recovered foreign material is studied through the Five Eyes Foreign Material Program, the FMP, which in Canada is sponsored by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command, aligned with several intelligence sharing arrangements and treaties. Now, Maguire, who's not a senior member of parliament, but he's obviously spoken, and I know he has, he's spoken to people inside that program. I know he's spoken to scientists
and people with a direct knowledge of that retrieval program. But what's not happening is the spin is starting, people are now coming back and saying, oh, the only thing he knows is stuff that Grant Cameron's told him from public sources. That's not true. And Mr. Maguire needs to be pushed. And a good journalist in Canada needs to get on the phone to Mr. Maguire
or stick a TV camera in front of him and say to him, sir, what are you alleging? When you told your defence minister that DRDC has been working in efforts to analyze UAP, what is your knowledge based on? Is it just based on what you've read in somebody else's book? Or is it based on direct conversations with sources?
2023-12-14