TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The Pentagon hides billions of dollars, with no accountability or audits. We've never received a satisfactory explanation. To uncover the truth, someone will likely have to leak information online before being silenced—a scenario I've often predicted.

We used to have a sophisticated biological weapons program from World War 2 to the sixties, which ended in 1969. Many records of the program were destroyed, but some are resurfacing. Our offensive weapons program was massive and advanced, but not well-known by most people.

Research on potential pandemic pathogens, known as gain of function studies, has led to valuable public health insights. Previous NSABB reports support this. While I won't argue for the necessity of this research, there are many freely available studies showing how mutations identified through these studies have helped us prepare for epidemics and pandemics.

The discussion centers on gain-of-function (GoF) research, its regulation, and the motivations behind it. The first speaker notes the administration’s goal to end GoF research and asks where that stands. The second speaker says progress has been made, and the White House is working on a formal policy. He then defines the issue in stages: what GoF research is, why someone would do it, and how to regulate it to prevent dangerous projects that could catastrophically harm human populations. He clarifies that GoF research is not inherently bad, but dangerous GoF research is. He gives an insulin example: creating bacteria to produce insulin is a legitimate GoF that benefits diabetics. In contrast, taking a virus from bat caves, bringing it to a lab in a densely populated city with weak biosafety, and manipulating it to be more transmissible among humans is a dangerous GoF that should not be supported. The administration’s policy aims to prevent such dangerous work entirely, and the President signed an executive order in April or May endorsing this policy. Next, he discusses implementation: how to create incentives to ensure this research does not recur. He explains that the utopian idea behind such research was to prevent all pandemics by collecting viruses from wild places, testing their potential to infect humans by increasing their pathogenicity, and then preparing countermeasures in advance (vaccines, antivirals) and stockpiling them, even though those countermeasures would not have been tested against humans yet. If a virus did leap to humans, the foreseen countermeasures might prove ineffective because evolution is unpredictable. This “triage” approach—identifying pathogens most likely to leap and preemptively preparing against them—was the rationale for dangerous GoF work, a rationale he characterizes as flawed. He notes that many scientists considered this an effort to do bioweapons research under the guise of safety and defense. The work is dual-use. The U.S. is a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention and does not conduct offensive bio-weapons research, but other countries might. The discussion highlights that the GoF research discussed during the pandemic can backfire and may not align with true biodefense, since countermeasures might not match whatever pathogen actually emerges. The speaker concludes that this agenda—pursuing GoF to prevent pandemics—has drawn substantial support from parts of the Western world and other countries for about two and a half decades, but he implies it is not deserving of continuation.

It's been discovered multiple times but suppressed each time. However, this time feels different; there's a belief that it won't be suppressed. I've had both protective and threatening interactions with various agencies. If a government agent hasn't warned me to stop, then I can proceed. There are factions waiting for me to publish, while others are frustrated that I haven't listened to their threats from three years ago. I constantly navigate between encouragement to share my findings and warnings that I could be in danger for doing so.

The perception, not reality, leads to the killing of bio-threat defense projects. 50% of allies believe the US has an offensive bioweapons program, which is false. Since Nixon, there has been no such program. Developing countermeasures against bio-threats can be mistaken for an offensive program, causing public and political concerns. The information will be published in Science and Nature soon.

You don't need a secret lab or a massive complex to create bioweapons. Unlike nuclear weapons, biological weapons can be developed discreetly, blending in with legitimate activities like vaccine production. This dual-use nature makes it difficult to detect a biological weapons program.

Many journal policies were created during a time of biosecurity focus, neglecting population-level biosafety concerns. Transparency in the approval process is important, with the public having a right to know. If openness leads to disapproval, it raises questions about why approval was granted in secret.

The military industrial complex often evokes images of soldiers in combat, but it encompasses much more. In light of recent global events, previously taboo topics, including government secrecy around bio labs, have gained attention. One notable example is Project 112, authorized in 1962 under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. This project involved extensive testing of biological and chemical agents, including VX nerve gas, Sarin, and E. Coli, across various locations. The aim was to explore controlled temporary incapacitation as a military strategy. The government denied Project 112's existence until 2000, raising concerns about the safety of military personnel involved, many of whom were unaware of the risks. The project reflects a troubling reality where governments that condemn bioweapons may simultaneously engage in their development, leaving the public unaware of the potential dangers lurking in their midst.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

The Pentagon hides billions of dollars, with no accountability or audits. We need transparency. The only way to uncover the truth might be if someone leaks information online before mysteriously dying.

I find it interesting to ask if you have any personal frustrations with the October 19th statement. The agency's work is most effective when it doesn't attract press attention. Most CI officers would agree with this sentiment.

Opening up reviews to a wide range of people, like ethicists, security experts, and scientists, can lead to projects never getting approved due to delays. For instance, getting a building permit near the ocean in California can take years. Waiting that long is not feasible for scientific projects. If serious discussions involve various experts, the chance of approval drops to zero.

Speaker 0: There have been briefings to Congress that lead us to believe there is definitely an advanced technology out there that's not created by mankind. Speaker 1: About a decade ago I revealed on Joe Rogan that from my research in the Global Sun Admissions, aliens don’t come from distant star systems—they come interdimensionally. We have limited sight across our normal light spectrum and into other dimensions. I’ve spoken to high-level Pentagon people, CIA, scientists, physicists, who’ve said it’s an interdimensional invasion. The Bible and other ancient religions reference an unseen presence entering our universe, our domain, our dimension. There’s a clip of her on Fox News Friday night saying it’s interdimensional, but classified. A craft will show up 100 miles away instantly or fly Mach 20 and make a perfect turn—things that would crush solid stainless steel due to gravity. So we know they’re interdimensionally jumping. Now Trump talks about a big reveal; Obama says aliens are real. This isn’t just about UFOs—it's part of a broader awakening. It’s a distraction from Epstein, perhaps, but Trump said after reelection he’d disclose, and there’s a report due. Disclosure is happening on many fronts. We’re focused on UFOs and extraterrestrials, not taking away from exposing Epstein. There’s a lot of disclosure and crazy stuff happening on every front. Speaker 2: He (the other speaker) gave classified information and wasn’t supposed to. Speaker 1: Aliens are real? He gave classified information, whether they’re real or not. Speaker 3: Hours later, the president posted on Truth Social directing the release of government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life and UFOs. We bring in Florida Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, chair of the Oversight Committee Task Force on declassification of federal secrets. She has said there is evidence of interdimensional beings that can operate through the time spaces we have. You told Joe Rogan you’ve viewed evidence of interdimensional beings on Earth that operate through time spaces—can you explain? Speaker 0: Yes. In classified briefings we’ve seen evidence suggesting advanced technology not created by mankind. There are videos, including one where a UAP deflects a Hellfire missile, taken from ISR footage off the coast of Yemen. Some physics defy explanation; not the only government to examine this. I view it through national security: are these technologies adversarial weapons or not? The federal government denying access to Congress is alarming in a free society. We expect the American people to decide after reviewing the evidence. Gates has said that if you’ve seen what we’ve seen, you’ll believe it too. Speaker 3: So you’re saying the Air Force has covered up UAP sightings? Is it because we or others have advanced technology, or because a foreign actor has abilities beyond our understanding? Speaker 0: Based on our interviews and testimony, we have reason to believe this tech is not created by mankind. It’s possible there are advanced US weapons denied access to the public. Unelected bureaucrats denying access to Congress is problematic, and there have been whistleblower threats and even deaths discussed in testimony. There’s bipartisan momentum toward disclosure, and we’ll continue to explore with the American people. President Obama’s remarks and Trump’s anticipated declassification are fueling this process. Speaker 1: The elite seek transcendence and to know the secrets of the universe; some are good, some bad, some mixed. Einstein and Planck suggest multiple dimensions; top scientists and billionaires are now speaking of a false hologram, artificial constraints, and gravity bleeding into this universe, with dark matter as a sign of something deeper. Some say we’re in a computer-generated projection, a thought or dream in a programmer’s mind. There’s talk of a sub-transmission zone below the third dimension fighting to ascend. Some believe humanity is at a fifth or sixth dimension intellectually, while a war rages to determine whether humanity will advance or be controlled by a breakaway civilization merging with machines. Google and others allegedly contemplated building a giant artificial system—a hive-mind AI connected to billions of people—that could predict and influence the future, potentially erasing individual free will. A counterstrike is underway to block such systems and promote genuine debate about humanity’s path, including addressing alleged pedophiles and “psychic vampires” in control of AI before humanity is harmed. The interdimensional force behind these developments is said to grant advanced knowledge to certain groups, sometimes described in religious terms as Satan. There’s more to come as disclosures unfold, including anticipated declassification next week when Trump allegedly releases UFO files. Speaker 3: We’ll be watching and covering it next week as disclosure unfolds.

DARPA rejected a risky grant proposal to create a bat vaccine by spraying a live coronavirus in a cave. The plan involved infecting bats with the virus on sticky particles for self-vaccination. The potential consequences of releasing a live virus in a cave with millions of bats were concerning.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

There has been a media blackout on Pentagon files leaked recently, considered the biggest since Snowden. Fox News refused to cover it, citing sensitive Ukraine blueprints. John Kirby, Biden's spokesperson, urged media not to report on the leak, calling it a blueprint for war.

Why is there a classified briefing about hobbyist drones if they aren't military? I can't speak for Congress on that. We're sharing as much information as possible, but I don't have the details of the briefing to clarify what is classified. Rest assured, we are providing all the information we can based on what we know.

We struggled with risk assessment due to lack of factual data on accidents or deliberate releases. There is no reporting structure for accidents in labs, hindering transparency. People are hesitant to report accidents, like with TB, leading to risks and inhibiting data collection.

During the Cold War, entire areas of physics were classified and removed from the research community, halting progress in those fields. There is a concern that a similar approach could be taken with the mathematics underlying AI if deemed necessary.

There is a pentagon that hides a billion dollars without any accountability, and it has never passed an audit. To uncover the truth, it seems that someone may need to leak information from these labs online, potentially facing dire consequences afterward.