reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 notes that the last administration was not transparent on the issue, but with the task force created, they have guided members within what they're cleared for. He asserts that they have encountered alien beings and recovered vehicles, with physical proof, and that he was partially cleared into those activities, having read intelligence reports from those programs. Speaker 1 reflects that online discourse about encounters and videos is plentiful, and asks if there is belief that the US government knows about alien beings coming to Earth. Speaker 0 responds that he doesn’t like to characterize where they came from, but they are definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. He claims to have recovered vehicles and physical proof and says he had partial access to the data and to intelligence reports. He confirms seeing with his own eyes according to his account. Speaker 2 says NASA speaks for itself and claims transparency with data, and asks whether to believe David Crush or if he is lying, and where the evidence is. Speaker 0 asserts that members of the current administration are very aware of this reality and the current president is knowledgeable on the subject. He trusts the president’s leadership and believes the president has assembled a team; he says if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3 says he has access and has had meetings with very smart people who believe there is something out there, and it makes sense there could be. He is not convinced himself. He asks if the person believes one, that he knows, and two, that he’s open to transparency on UAPs. Speaker 0 reiterates that the president is very well informed on the issue, and avoids revealing more than the president might want to reveal. He notes a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 1 asks about years of threat and testimony. Speaker 0 says he was physically threatened even before submitting his intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration, and sought legal protection because of professional and personal fear. Speaker 1 asks about recovering pilots or remains and whether that was seen with his own eyes. Speaker 0 confirms there were pictures and says yes, there were remains. Speaker 1 questions whether the origin is from another planet or outer space, and if it is interdimensional, seeking clarification. Speaker 0 explains he has talked to many veterans of the program and keeps an open mind on origin. He acknowledges an extraterrestrial hypothesis but does not usually go there because he did not see the data, and he is not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government has. He is not aware of any remains or signs of extraterrestrial beings or technology by his department. Speaker 3 says the US government knows, but asks whether other governments know. Speaker 0 says they know and have their own programs, and notes that two and a half years ago the US has been in an arms race with peer competitors like Russia and China, who have their own programs. He says he was able to view intelligence discussing adversarial programs and will leave it at that. Speaker 3 states that they’ve recovered things, and Speaker 0 confirms, noting there were bodies and physical remains. They discuss whether the motive or intent of the visitors was peaceful or not, acknowledging a mixed bag of activity and motive. They consider whether Earth’s genetic material could be a reason for visits, even jokingly proposing Jurassic Park as a tourist attraction for genetic material on Earth.

The conversation centers on a hijacking incident and the immediate need for military involvement. Speaker 1 communicates urgency: “Nobody move. Everything will be okay. You try to make any move, the danger is self and the airplane, just stay quiet.” The request is explicit: “Boston Center team u. We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to we need someone to scramble some f sixteens or something up there to help us out.” There is a clarification about the situation’s nature: Speaker 0 asks, “Is this is real world or exercise?” Speaker 1 answers, “No. This is not an exercise, man. Okay. It’s not real world hijack.” The participants confirm the seriousness and immediacy: “This is real world hijack,” and “This is real world.” Speaker 2 adds their observation: “I’ve never seen so much real world stuff happen during the night. 1443. Look for it. Right there. Okay.” The details “Mode three. 1443. Last known. No. This is real world.” indicate ongoing tracking and status updates. With the hijack underway, the operational question becomes logistics and command: “Running the hijack. I don’t know where I’m scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, destination.” There is an attempt to confirm coordination: “Check with your arms. Do you know if anyone down there has done any coordination to scramble fighter type air plants?” The dialogue reveals multiple concurrent contingencies: “Is there a big Japanese scenario? No, We have several situations going on here. It’s escalating big, big time.” The conversation culminates in a request for authority: Speaker 0 states, “Just get me somebody who has the authority.” The exchange underscores the escalating crisis, the need to scramble fighters, and the urgency of authoritative command to coordinate the response as the hijacked aircraft advances toward New York.

Hi. My name's John. And despite how upset I seem sometimes, I have no intention or desire to take my own life. So a plane a private jet took off about twenty minutes, maybe less, after Charlie Kirk was shot yesterday. This is the jet, N888KG. Do you notice how it's only made literally one flight this entire year? One flight. That's the only listed flight. Here's the website for the company it's registered under. Looks like they're scrubbing that shit. Here's the building where the company is registered. There's all the companies associated with it. Here's proof that the registration is real. Here's the distance between the airport where the private jet took off and where Charlie was shot. It's walking distance. And here's the guy who owns the jet.

Speaker 0: Like, check my work. I mean, I went through and divided out frame by frame, and then I actually asked AI to, find me blacks black specks in the sky, and then I identified the frame. It's kinda freaky how I did this. And I identified each frame of where there was an anomaly that wasn't a cloud because it was a beautiful clear blue day with minimal clouds. So it was easy for AI to recognize. So it turned around and kicked out right where I should go. But I didn't like Yeah. I stopped looking after the shot until today.

Speaker 0 describes unidentified phenomena operating in the airspace over restricted nuclear facilities, stating that these are not ours and that they are “otherworldly things” performing maneuvers that have not been seen. He asserts that he has seen with his own eyes nonhuman craft and nonhuman beings. Speaker 1 emphasizes the extraordinary secrecy surrounding the matter, noting that there have been “very few people in our entire government” who have been allowed or provided access to it. Speaker 0 adds that even presidents have been operating on a need to know basis, but argues that the system is beginning to ramp out of control. He states that it is not acceptable to have secret parts of government that no one ever sees. He says that people have been hurt protecting and hiding this information, and that some individuals claimed it would cost them their lives, yet they spoke out about these things. He further claims that there was information being locked away that could change the trajectory for a species. Speaker 0 concludes by calling the matter “the biggest discovery in human history,” underscoring the enormity of the claimed revelation and its potential implications. In sum, the speakers discuss the presence of nonhuman, apparently otherworldly craft and beings operating in restricted airspace over nuclear facilities, the extreme secrecy and unprecedented access restrictions within the government, the personal risks and sacrifices of those who spoke out, and the belief that suppressing the information has prevented potentially world- or species-changing insights, culminating in the assertion that this constitutes the biggest discovery in human history.

Speaker 0: Doctor. Machio Kaku is a theoretical physicist. Doctor, on a scale of one to 10, how excited are you about this UFO release? Speaker 1: I would put it at a 10 because we're at a turning point. For decades we had to rely upon eyewitness accounts of housewives, truck drivers, people would snicker and laugh at them. Now we're talking about huge files that are top secret that for the first time in modern history are being given to the American public. So I'd like to congratulate President Trump for having the nerve to go against recommendations by the FBI and the CIA to release these files so that independent researchers, scientists can go over them and we can make up our own minds rather than having the CIA make up our minds. Speaker 0: And the CIA apparently is still flooding the full release When you hear or see about a UFO that goes like that, up, down, left, right at 90 degree angles so fast, you can't even believe it. What does that tell you? It tells me Speaker 1: that that the laws of centrifugal force should crush the bones of the people inside the flying saucer. So either there is basically an automated flying saucer, so there are no bones to crack as the thing goes zigzagging left and right, or it represents a very high level of intelligence to create something like that. So in other words, we humans cannot get into a spaceship that goes zigzagging like that. Only aliens can, but even their bones would break. So it must be a very high level of automated computer technology.

Speaker 0: Somebody finally found the confiscated video that the FBI took on the day of nine eleven, where it was proving it wasn't a plane. It was a scutt missile. There was talk amongst the community because I've been awake for twenty years since this happened. That there was a scud missile. The witnesses were silenced. The person who had this tape that turned it over to the FBI, the FBI concealed this information. And as you can see, that is not a plane. That is a scud missile as originally thought. Fucking deep state cabal. You sons of bitches. We already those who knew, we already knew you did shit. But this was the last piece of the puzzle for the evidence. With that whole entire crap with the 09:11 report, they said it disintegrated. That is a scud missile. So Swedish satellite saw that there was a marking target, and that was completely put aside, and you all bought the lie. Heavenly father, let truth prevail.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether the other is maintaining that there were no planes that hit the World Trade Center. Speaker 1 clarifies that this is not the claim they are making; rather, there is no significant wreckage from a large Boeing crash at any of the four events. This framing emphasizes a distinction between the presence of aircraft impact and the apparent absence of substantial debris. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 saw the videotape that others saw, prompting a response that encourages a frame-by-frame analysis of the South Tower. Speaker 1 asserts that what you will see is a “fake, a cartoon display,” arguing that an aluminum airplane cannot pass through a building like the South Tower as if it were thin air. In other words, Speaker 1 contends that the footage demonstrates a simulated or cartoon-like depiction rather than a real-time account of an aircraft penetrating the structure. Following this, Speaker 0 probes whether Speaker 1 is suggesting that the news media was involved in this fabrication, indicating a belief that media sources contributed to the apparent display. Speaker 1 affirms the suggestion by stating “Yes,” and notes that there was only one so-called real-time film, adding that “we don’t really understand how they did that.” This introduces a claim of media involvement and a mystery surrounding the production of the visible footage, implying manipulation or concealment of the true events. The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 mentioning that there are “video ex” (likely beginning to refer to video evidence or explanations) but the thought is cut off, leaving an incomplete reference to further material or evidence that would support the previous claims about the nature of the footage and the method by which it was produced.

This is Ashin Forbes presenting the MH 370X satellite video explainer. Our organization recreated the satellite position using amateur trajectories found online. USA 229, a pair of signals intelligence satellites launched in 2011, was in the correct position at the Nicobar Islands. The Malaysian minister of defense confirmed that they were in touch with US spy satellites in the region. The satellite video shows coordinates near the Nicobar Islands and the satellite designation as NRL 22. The video also reveals a MQ1C Gray Eagle drone and evidence of a computer-generated Battlefield map. The orbs in the video form an equilateral triangle and accurately illuminate volumetric cumulus clouds.

The video centers on Candace and a claim about Egyptian private military contractors being flown to America on a top-secret mission and landing at a private military base in Utah on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters show photos of private military subcontractors and describe them as the “baddest, hardest, most battle trained” soldiers, implying their involvement is significant to the Charlie Kirk case. They question why Egyptian military contractors would be in Provo, Utah, and why they did not return to Cairo, asking who they were planning to “take out next.” One speaker states that, according to a person close to someone who was aboard the flight, the aircraft did not simply stop in Utah for routine servicing. They claim the plane carried military subcontractors and that these individuals were dropped off in Provo, yet did not reboard for Cairo. They assert the flight departed Provo on September 10 and returned to Cairo on September 11, with allegedly missing people from the plane. The speaker emphasizes that the flight radar investigation shows a Cairo-to-Paris-to-France-to-Bannat, North Dakota route around that period, and notes that on September 10 the plane departed Provo at 07:14 AM local time. They insist the people aboard the plane were not the same individuals who later appeared on the flight’s return. The speaker contends this information was provided by a female source who knows an Egyptian military subcontractor personally. They acknowledge she did not claim the mission was related to Charlie Kirk, only that it was a top-secret operation, possibly a discreet joint military exercise, so hidden that people were urged to ignore it. The speaker describes the revelation as terrifying yet galvanizing, claiming it prompted bravery and a push to root out perceived evil in society. The discussion then shifts to Kash Patel, referencing a Daily Mail article about him shutting down a Charlie Kirk foreign intelligence probe in a feud with Trump’s counterterror chief. The speaker suggests Patel’s stance raises questions and asserts that Patel’s approach contrasts with what they would expect if there were genuine efforts to investigate Charlie Kirk’s murder, noting that Trump and Trump family members would presumably be involved in questioning the narrative. They criticize Patel for discouraging further inquiry, comparing him to Dr. Fauci in his alleged resistance to investigation. The speaker challenges Kash Patel to dispute the claims, asking him to confirm whether the plane truly came for routine servicing or for a discreet mission, and to disclose the truth about who was aboard and why they were in Provo, Utah.

The video shows strange orbs around a descending plane before it disappears. The formation seems purposeful, with a triangle and ring shape. The event is sudden, with no explosion or destruction. Details like launch coordinates suggest real satellite capabilities. The absence of drones hints at hidden US assets. The video raises questions about what truly happened to the plane. Translation: The video displays unusual orbs surrounding a plane before it vanishes. The formations appear deliberate, including a triangle and ring shape. The disappearance is abrupt, without any explosion or destruction. Specific details, such as launch coordinates, indicate genuine satellite capabilities. The lack of drones suggests concealed US assets. The video prompts inquiries about the plane's fate.

Candace Owens is presented as promising “the heat” and discusses a troubling incident involving alleged private Egyptian military contractors. The visual reference shows several men described as private Egyptian military contractors on screen, with the implication that they are connected to a secretive mission. Candace Owens is said to be about to explain a plane that flew over to America, landed in Utah, and carried military contractors or subcontractors who did not return on the plane that took off on September 11. The claim is that these individuals were involved in a private, secret mission so terrifying that the information source felt threatened for their life, yet felt compelled to share it publicly. The presenter urges viewers to check this information out. Speaker 1 asserts, with purported “absolute solid proof” from an individual close to one of the people who was aboard the flight, that on September 4 there was no routine stop in Utah for servicing. The speaker questions the claim that the plane’s stop in Utah was for routine servicing, arguing that an Egyptian military plane would not require tire changes or servicing in Utah and stating that the plane was carrying military subcontractors and that they were dropped off in Provo. The account claims that these subcontractors did not return to Cairo, noting that the plane left and then stopped in Wilmington, Delaware, before departing back to Cairo on September 11. The speaker emphasizes that, when the plane left, those people were mysteriously missing from the plane. The claim is reiterated: Egyptian military subcontractors were in Utah on September 4 (or around that date) for reasons not disclosed and not for routine maintenance. The assertion is made that the flight’s presence in Utah was connected to a discreet mission, to the extent that the person providing the information feared for their life but decided to present it because they were horrified like the rest of the world. The speaker contrasts this with criticisms previously leveled at Kash Patel, suggesting that such conspiracies are dangerous and challenging him to dispute the claims, framing the matter within a broader narrative of confronting perceived evil. The transcript closes by noting that the mistake was executing the information publicly, and that people felt something significant, which led to courage and action to root out what is described as evil in society, resulting in more people standing up and doing something brave.

The speaker discusses evidence that suggests the US government may have intervened with Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, which went missing in 2014. The evidence includes witness testimonies, satellite data, and videos showing unidentified orbs surrounding the plane. The speaker believes that the orbs are a form of advanced human technology and not extraterrestrial in nature. They argue that the government is hiding this technology and calls for further investigation and disclosure. The speaker also mentions a leaker, Lieutenant Commander Edward C. Lin, who may have released the videos without fully understanding their significance. They emphasize the need for truth and accountability in uncovering the secrets surrounding MH370.

Speaker 0 presents a very quick briefing and discusses the credibility of the different things they've seen. They say, "these files were made up by the sea. They were made up by Obama. They were made" as a claim about the files’ origin, with the sentence trailing off in the transcript.

Speaker 0 announces that they have released the most dangerous discovery that explains everything, and that the video is in their bio.

Speaker 0 (anonymous whistleblower): Government seems to be involved. They’re definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. We’ve recovered the vehicles and have physical proof. I was partially cleared into those activities and had access to the data, reading intelligence reports resulting from those programs. Speaker 1: And with your own eyes you’ve seen it. So when people say this is kooky, there’s nothing to back it up… Speaker 2 (NASA): NASA is open and transparent with our data. Do you believe what Mister David Crush said, or is he lying? Whatever he said, where’s the evidence? Speaker 1: What do you say? Speaker 0: Members of this administration are very aware of this reality; the current president is very knowledgeable on this subject, and I trust his leadership. I think he’s assembled a cabinet, and I believe if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, the capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3: I have access and have spoken to people about it. I’ve had meetings with very smart, solid people who believe there is something out there. It makes sense there could be, but I’ve never been convinced, despite that. It’s not my thing. Speaker 1: So you think, one, he knows, and two, he’s open to transparency on UAPs? He’s very well informed on this issue. Leave it at that. I don’t want to get ahead of what the president might want to reveal. There’s been a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 0: I was physically threatened even before I sent in my intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration. I had to seek legal protection because I was fearful professionally and personally. Speaker 1: And when you mention recovering pilots or remains nonhuman, that’s something you saw in the intelligence with your eyes? Speaker 0: Yes. There were pictures. It’s uncomfortable to discuss because it’s outside a normal worldview to understand there is a biological sentience that piloted these crafts and does not necessarily look 100% like us. Speaker 1: Were there pictures? Speaker 0: There were. Speaker 1: When I said from another planet or outer space, you said you don’t know where they’re from. Is it interdimensional? What are we talking about? Speaker 0: I’ve talked to a lot of graybeards about the origin. I leave an open mind. There is an extraterrestrial hypothesis, and they could be coming from elsewhere off Earth, but I didn’t see that data. I’m not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government had. I’m not aware of any remains the department has of extraterrestrial beings or technology. Speaker 1: Do other governments know? Do they have programs? Speaker 0: They have their own programs. Two and a half years ago we’ve been in an arms race with peer competitors—Russia and China—and they have their own programs. I viewed a body of intelligence that discussed adversarial programs. Speaker 1: We’ve recovered things—bodies and physical remains. Was there a sense of their motive or whether it’s peaceful or not? We’ve seen a mixed bag of motives. Speaker 0: Activity and motive vary; the reasons for visiting are not fully understood. Could it be because we have interesting genetic material on Earth and we’re a Jurassic Park tourist attraction? There could be a myriad of reasons. Speaker 1: For other people coming forward, what do you say about intimidation? There are reports of harassment. There’s hope. Congress values whistleblower information now, and there’s appetite to do the right thing. There are things happening behind the scenes that the administration may discuss when ready. Speaker 1: We’ll follow every element. It’s fascinating. Speaker 0: Thanks for having me. Speaker 4: Sean Hannity here. Subscribe to Fox News YouTube pay.

Discussion centers on drones and Jason Goodman's analysis, with speculation of "speculating maybe three, maybe four unmanned drones." While reviewing livestream footage, "I saw a drone just go right by in the footage." Speaker 1 says he "set on this inform" and "known about the drone since the weekend," trying to reach out to people "to bring it to their attention and say, hey." "We've got something here. Let me show you." He adds, "No one would give me the time of day." He references "one flyby that he, he's got referenced there" and notes "the drone comes crazy, crazy just right out in front of the crowd." He concludes, "just today, I found two new drones, and I just put them up on my Twitter page, about maybe two hours ago."

The original post of the crazy plane lady video was made by Juan Frank We, also known as Knuckles Lawn Care. Juan Frank We is a US Federal Government employee in Fort Hood, Texas, and claims to be a logistics manager for the US Army and a computer operator at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. I traced the route to her business site, which led to an army recruitment place in Ohio on DOD servers. The connections between all these dots are undeniable.

Speaker recalls in 2014 seeing a drone video and notes 'you can tell it's a drone because you can see the drone's nose in the video' and 'slots that are customizable on the wings where you can pull out, you can put a Hellfire missile on there, whatever' with cameras in that location, like MQ-1C Grey Eagle. They thought the media would pick up on this, but 'the media's job is to not pick up on that specifically' and 'the world had no idea.' He didn't know what he was looking at in 2014, following the case as a civilian, and this was before the DOD Navy released those UFO videos and declassified them, and before he knew we used forward looking infrared FLIR. In 2023, seeing those videos again, he thought, 'woah, remember seeing this.'

There are drones flying around New Jersey ports, and the government is aware of their origins. The military knows where they launched from and can trace them back to their source. However, there's a lack of communication about this situation, leaving people in suspense. It's unlikely that these drones are a threat, as any enemy activity would have been more aggressive. The public deserves transparency, especially since these drones have been spotted over areas like Bedminster. The truth should be shared with the people.

I'm Moneypenny and I'm British. I don't profess to understand the American legal system, though I know the British system fairly well. It is fairly harsh at the moment. But I know that if a high ranking, somebody who's been awarded a medal in the British military, who used to be a jet pilot, who used to work in the intel sector of the UK military, came to us and said he was aware of a misdemeanor, a crime involving the death of many people, and he had various evidence and other people that would corroborate that, that something could be done about it, it would be investigated. So this is where I'm stuck, and I want to appeal. Pam Bondi and maybe Cash Patel. If a member of the US military who used to be a pilot, who worked in sensitive intel, who had visited the Diego Garcia Military Base, who had a level of clearance such that he was free to explore that base, who was aware of the Black Navy and the operations that would require being signed in or read in at a very senior level. That individual to me sounds as though he would be somebody that would be taken seriously. So this is where I have a problem. This is where I don't understand. I do not understand how somebody of that caliber who has spoken out, who is recorded speaking out, giving evidence corroborating, giving names of other people. Who is able to tell us where a seven seventy seven airliner with two thirty nine souls on board went and who took it and how the whole operation took place down to the mechanics of it, the individuals that took part in it. Why isn't that information being taken seriously? Why isn't that information being investigated? We are talking about murder. I'm sorry to use that word. There are two thirty nine people, souls involved and probably thousands of friends, family and many, many interested parties over the past eleven years. Many people who have dedicated a lot of time to looking at this, myself included. There are videos that potentially are giving away some of the information about what happened. But the person who has those videos, a person called Ashton Forbes, has been given letters from the American military, American department saying in a matter of national security, they cannot confirm any of the detail. So now we have a decorated military veteran, a former jet pilot who flew into Diego Garcia, who was in Iraq, who has done a lot of very impressive military work on behalf of The United States, has spoken out, is on record. I will send you the video. Why? Why is nothing being done? Why is nobody investigating? I do not understand how The United States can overlook this because, frankly, I'm pretty angry. On behalf of all those people on board, predominantly Chinese and Malaysian people and all their friends and families, I demand that something is done about this. And I'm a nobody, and you don't have to listen to me. But I'm gonna put this on social media, and I'm gonna sit here and wait until somebody responds and gives a bloody good explanation as to why nobody is taking this seriously. Because frankly, it's inhumane, and I don't think the Trump administration, amongst anybody else, would allow something inhumane to take place. I hope you agree.

They're not moving; they're hovering. They look wide, and the lights are changing. But it is moving. No, it's not. It looks like it. That's an airplane. Which one? The one closest to the Capitol? Let me zoom in. Yeah, that's an airplane. But the one in the middle... That's an airplane too; you can see it moving. The one behind the Capitol isn't an airplane. Over there is, but look at that one. When you look to the left of the Capitol, those are not moving. I'm telling you, they're here. Can we go back to the car? They're here, Ella. What the heck?

I got it. That's a drone. No, that's a... Holy shit, I got that on video! Did I not get that on video? I wasn't... Shut up, shut up!

The speaker explains that recreating the video would require extensive knowledge and skills. They spoke to the lead VFX guy at Marvel Studios, who said that even if the video was faked, it would be extremely difficult to tell. It would take a minimum of 6 months to create a professional fake. The speaker then lists various elements in the video that would be challenging to recreate accurately, such as the clouds, lighting, aircraft details, weather, smoke, orbs, thermal imaging, military equipment, frame rate, specialized mouse, satellites, and 3D imagery. They conclude by saying that finding the plane would debunk the hoax.