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.

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.

A question was asked to survivors about what it means to have their story told at the Capitol and how long they have waited. One survivor said, “59 years,” adding that they have been lobbying Congress for 59 years but “no member of Congress will give us the diamond day.” When asked why that is, another survivor said, “I have no idea,” while also saying “Israel, I’m shocked.” The conversation turned to restrictions placed on the crew: one survivor described being “ordered to secrecy, not to talk to anybody, their wives, and any, even each other,” and said, “We weren’t allowed to talk.” They explained that the situation included threats of punishment. Their superior told the crew that if they talked to anyone, they could “plan on spending the rest of your life in the brig or worse,” warning them with that order. The survivor then described how this secrecy changed: the admiral who commissioned officers “only said tell the day he died,” and fifteen years later, “he died, and then we started fire talking.”

The speaker says they will hold a press conference at the Triangle, but thinks it is more appropriate that everyone be present and ready to proceed. They note that more than a dozen crew members of the USS Liberty are there. The speaker says they stood on the floor of the House and honored the crew for the first time, stating the crew deserve recognition and closure. They emphasize that the crew will not be with them forever, referring to the age of those who were 21 in 1967 and noting that the passage of time places them around 80 years old. The speaker adds that some of the crew members still have dozens of pieces of shrapnel in them, which caused a problem at metal detectors, and calls the individuals brave. They say the recognition should include those who have already passed away and those who died fifty nine years ago that day. The speaker concludes that they did this on the floor of the House and will take questions afterward, including “hard questions” directed to the crew.

The speaker was questioned about his duty station on the USS Liberty as a scene leader and member of the forward repair party. He saw two torpedoes aft but not the one that hit the ship, and believed the ship would sink. An admiral threatened the speaker, stating that if he repeated one word about the USS Liberty and who attacked it, he would end up in Leavenworth or worse. The speaker questioned why they were left alone. The speaker felt betrayed and worthless after the encounter, comparing it to the attack and worse than heartbreak. Another speaker stated the admiral knew everything and wasn't a nice man. 28 of the 34 people killed that day worked for him.

The speaker describes two competing, ongoing pressures around a موضوع they’re discussing. They say: “It’s been independently discovered for other times. He said, it has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time. And he said, I don’t think they’re gonna suppress it this time. He said you’re in the clear.” They claim “they obviously know about you” because they’ve had “multiple protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations.” The speaker explains that if the person hasn’t had a US government agent come to them to say, “stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then “they’re gonna let you do it.” They assert that “they’re waiting,” with “SSP motherfuckers” twiddling their thumbs, wondering, “Is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We’ve been influencing this bitch forever.” The speaker notes that “on the other side of the fence, there’s multiple parties looking at each other like, didn’t we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening?” They emphasize the persistence of warnings: “What is she doing? She’s still doing it? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” The speaker describes two persistent scenarios in their life: one where people say, “do it. Do it. You’re the one. Do it.” and another where “multiple people” tell them, “they’re gonna kill you. Don’t do it. They’re gonna kill you.”

The speaker mentions that the information has been discovered independently four times before, but has been suppressed each time. However, this time they believe it won't be suppressed. They mention having interactions with various agency affiliations, both protective and threatening. They state that if the US government hasn't intervened and told them to stop, then they are allowed to proceed. There are people waiting for them to publish, while others are questioning why they haven't been silenced yet. The speaker feels torn between those encouraging them to proceed and those warning them of potential harm.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1 with information about a cover-up that should be exposed. Speaker 1 advises them to pray about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. Speaker 0 questions how this protects against corruption and misconduct, to which Speaker 1 admits it doesn't solve the problem. Speaker 1 warns that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as examples. Speaker 0 concludes the hearing, acknowledging the gravity of the situation.

A friend of the speaker, now deceased, conveyed a sequence of decisions and reactions related to military aircraft and orders. The friend said that after the aircraft were sent off, they were recalled by Washington from McNamara. Even before they hit Horizon, they were called back. After reconfiguring, another volley was sent up. Then Johnson got on the phone and said, you better, turn those g d planes around. The speaker quotes the claim that, “I don’t care if, every sailor on that ship gets hurt or whatever killed, but they left us out left us out there to die.” The speaker asserts that “that’s what our government wanted. That’s what Israel wanted.”

Flying the Star of David. "We thought they were coming there to help us. No. They were coming there to kill the rest of us and sink our ship." They fired five torpedoes at us, four missed by the grace of God. "One did hit, a little bit." Forward midships, 25 American sailors, marines, National Security Agency, CIA personnel were blown to bits in the blink of an eye. The torpedo lifted our ship out of the water, slammed it down, and stopped on the starboard side. We had "three life rafts left for a crew of 294 souls." They shot them all up; "When we put the life rafts over, they shot two out of the water and took one aboard their boat as a trophy of their kill. The Israelis did." They circled the ship, machine gunning anything that moved. They sent troop-carrying helicopters to finish this off, then left. "They couldn't sink us like they planned with the blessings of, our government, LBJ, from his government onto the Biden government, and all congresses in between have never lifted a finger to, to get an investigation." We've been hollering for fifty six years because they're afraid of fending their ally.

In San Diego, while the speaker and his wife are at a bar waiting for a table, a man comes up and says, “oh, you run the USS Liberty.” The speaker asks, “How'd you know that?” The man replies, “I know,” and holds a large camera-watch in the speaker’s face. The speaker asks him to remove the watch, saying, “hey. But get that thing out of my face.” The man then asks for guidance on “the best thing to do about the Liberty,” and the speaker replies, “just leave it alone.” The speaker asks, “who are you, Mossad?” The man says yes, identifying as Mossad. The speaker describes this as intimidation. The question of whether he was really Mossad is raised, but the speaker notes that it didn’t matter to him because “I got the message.”

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1, seeking advice on exposing a cover-up to the American people. Speaker 1 suggests praying about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. When asked about the importance of shedding light on corruption and misconduct, Speaker 1 admits that it won't solve the problem. They warn that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as an example. The conversation ends on a somber note, with Speaker 0 expressing their sobering thoughts and yielding back.

The transcript discusses objections to merging defense bases and describes a preference for a “voice vote,” suggesting leaders want to avoid directly identifying “collaborators.” It then shifts to intelligence-sharing concerns, asking how proposed changes would be worse than “the Mossad running the CIA right now,” and stating the proposed change “enhances that control… by codifying it into law.” The speaker explains that, “right now,” the U.S. relationship with Israeli intelligence services is “mostly transactional,” and that the U.S. “pick[s] and choose[s]” what it shares, unlike the level of sharing with “those Five Eyes countries.” They claim that under the new law being pushed—citing “Section six twenty-two in the Senate”—the U.S. would “open up a floodgate of intelligence and information into the Israeli intelligence services, whether they ask for that intelligence or not,” and that “right now” Israel “have[s] to ask for it technically.” The transcript also argues that the new law would “hem in future presidents,” because intelligence sharing is currently controlled by a “pre— a given president,” who could restrict access. The speaker says the law would remove that “freedom of movement,” making presidential discretion less flexible. The speaker claims there is a “groundswell of people in both parties,” including “younger people,” who are skeptical of the alliance with Israel “in its current form,” and that, in response, “the Israelis and the Zionists in Congress” are “fearful” that future politicians from either party will limit intelligence sharing. They say efforts are being made to “rein in the president’s freedom of authority on this” and to “hermetically seal this.” A second speaker interrupts to say “It’s not gonna happen” and “We will never allow this to happen… to the United States of America.” The transcript then mentions an upcoming discussion with “Finell,” described as “one of the most renowned naval intelligence officers in the history of the United States Navy,” who is said to have warned the country about the rise of the PLA Navy and “gave up his career” during the Obama administration. The speaker connects this to “Intelligence in the year nineteen forty-one and forty-two,” referencing “Pearl Harbor” and “Midway,” and says the discussion will involve “investigations” into “what was the real intelligence and what was fed to the president back in June of last year,” including “who is responsible for presenting it,” with the claim that there will be continued efforts “till we get to the bottom of it.”

The atmosphere in the room was intense and shocking. Listening to a credible firsthand witness left many feeling unsettled and unable to sleep afterward. The senators were serious and attentive, absorbing the gravity of the information presented. While no one visibly collapsed in anguish, the seriousness of the situation was palpable. Reactions varied; some senators displayed real fear, reflecting the weight of what they were hearing. Overall, the experience was sobering and left a lasting impact on those present.

I was running portions of Guantanamo Bay involving high value detainees. We decided to conduct an experiment where a few of us would get into a skiff. We had a brown bag lunch, and we maybe thought we could try to remove you. I had been to the detention facility before. I got to be really careful what I say here. I can get a hell of a lot of trouble. Not realizing if we were effective or not, and then, lo and behold, not too long later, a major news media article came out, I'm not gonna say which one, that detailed this detainee's experience with what apparently the detainee perceived as five white figures over his bed, shaking his bed. That's And so I called up Hal Pudoff and I told him, hey, boss, I, you know, I think we need to stop because now the front page of the newspaper that might not have been the front page, but one of the front pages of the sections there. And he kind of chuckled and he says, Yeah.

One speaker states they jump at the sound of a horn and turn pale. Another speaker questions why a group would scramble four hours before an attack. Maintaining nuclear deterrents demands control. There was a plan to bring Russia into a potential third world war. One person states they elevated to battle preparedness level one in the entire fleet. Another speaker claims they were minutes from this happening when orders came from Washington to stop the attack. One speaker claims they were six minutes from World War Three, which would have been worse than anything in history. Another speaker tracked down David Ness, the acting ambassador in Cairo, who received urgent messages to evacuate the embassy and destroy secret materials because Cairo was going to be attacked in reprisal for the Liberty. The Navy was preparing a message.

The speaker recounts being injured during an attack on the USS America, where Admiral Giese took action to prevent further harm. The Admiral launched and recalled aircraft with nuclear weapons, then conventional armament, to avoid escalating the situation. Despite President Johnson's knowledge of the attack, the truth remains hidden. The speaker received a Medal of Honor, but believes it should have been awarded differently.

The speaker says they plan to hold a press conference at the Triangle, but believes it is more appropriate to do so when everyone is present and ready. They report that more than a dozen crew members of the USS Liberty are there today. The speaker says they stood on the floor of the House and honored the crew for the first time, and that the crew “deserve this recognition” and “closure,” because they will not be with the speaker forever. The speaker emphasizes that many of the crew members were 21 years old in 1967 and are now around 80, noting that the exact ages vary (with an example of 86). They add that at least one of the crew members still has dozens of pieces of shrapnel, which caused issues with metal detectors. They call the crew “brave individuals” and say they deserve the truth and recognition. The speaker also states that the honor extends to crew members who have already passed away, including those who died fifty-nine years ago on that day. They say they recognized both the living and the dead by doing so on the floor of the House. They conclude by saying they will take questions, including “the hard questions” directed to the crew members.

The speaker says the U.S. government covered up “murder against America on the high seas” and that officials “wanted us all dead to start a war.” They claim their ship was the most sophisticated in U.S. naval history and lists personal and unit decorations, including a Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars with a V, Purple Hearts, Combat Action Ribbons, and the Presidential Unit Citation “by that scumbag LBJ.” They describe combat conditions, saying the mess decks were full of broken and wounded people and “a sea of blood.” They were told to go to sickbay and help Doc, who was wounded in the abdomen and both knees while wearing a life jacket. The speaker helped operate, rubbed Doc’s feet after Doc asked to have his socks taken off because his feet were hot, and Doc reportedly told them to “cut him open,” asking whether the speaker thought he would live. The speaker said they told him “No,” and that Doc was cut open, his insides handled, and he died “right then.” The speaker says Doc was sewed up with a couple stitches and “put… over the side,” and that this repeated “all night.” The speaker says they contacted the FBI and CIA, and wrote every congressman and senator, but they received responses saying they were “full of shit.” They say the situation had been going on “ever since day one,” and conclude that “we the people” must bring together Americans to understand “the truth about what the history is already,” rather than relying on mainstream media or alternative networks.

Speaker 0 describes that it has been independently discovered four other times, and that it “has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time.” He says he doesn’t think they’ll suppress it this time and that “I think you're in the clear.” He asserts they obviously know about you because he has had multiple both protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations. He states, “If you haven't had a US government agent come to you and say, stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then they’re going to let you do it. He claims there are people waiting, saying, “there are SSP motherfuckers that are fucking twiddling their thumbs. Like, is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We've been influencing this bitch forever.” He adds that on the other side, multiple parties are looking at each other wondering, “Didn't we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening? What is she doing? She's still doing it? What? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” He describes two constant scenarios in his life: one where people are urging, “do it. Do it. You're the one. Do it.” and another where people are warning, “they're gonna kill you. Don't do it. They're gonna kill you.”

The speaker recounts a long-standing pattern of interactions with federal agents, noting that jokes about agents reading their chats stopped being funny for a period. They describe being pressured to work for these agencies for months, a pressure that left no paper trail and was deliberately concealed. Each time agents visited their home, they were asked to shut off their phone and told not to tell anyone about what was happening. The speaker explains that the only reason they can discuss the situation now is that they made a deliberate, fear-driven decision to do so. They recall sweating and nearly vomiting, and they went so far as to clip a DJI microphone to their bra before every visit, anxious that the device would beep or reveal what was being discussed. This precaution reflects the level of fear and the stakes involved in the interactions. They claim to have later confronted Parliament about the surveillance and pressure campaigns they faced, actions taken after they recorded evidence of these activities. The speaker asserts a broader possibility: there exists a very real world in which they did none of that—where they would still be online today as an independent influencer while privately secretly acting on behalf of Canadian intelligence agencies—because they were made to believe they would go to jail. They emphasize that they are not the only person affected by this dynamic, suggesting a wider pattern or network behind these experiences.

They discuss the status of a past torpedo incident. The officers say, “at least nine torpedoes in the water. All missed.” They quickly hedge on the precision of engagement numbers, noting, “we’d have to check it out here,” and that “many of the reported contacts and torpedoes fired appeared doubtful.” They propose possible explanations, including “freak weather effects on radar and overeager sauna men may have accounted for many reports.” The speaker then says, “I’ll tell mister Mike Merritt then. That’s the best I can give you, Dave. Sorry.” He adds, “It does appear now that a lot of these torpedo attacks were from the sonar man, you see, and they get keyed up to a thing like this. Everything they hear on the sonar is torpedo.” When asked directly, “You're pretty sure there was a torpedo attack then?” the response is, “Oh, no doubt about that. Yeah. I think. No doubt about that.” Then Speaker 1 counters, “No. It was just confusion.” He continues, “And events afterwards showed that our judgment that we'd been attacked that day was wrong.”

- "Retaliation was ordered for the attack." - "Condition November meant that nuclear armed a four bombers were to be used." - "Incredibly, The US was about to launch a nuclear strike against Egypt, the Liberty's presumed attacker." - "There was a flash message, as I recall, from one of the carriers that said they had launched ready aircraft." - "Cairo was about to be incinerated." - "McNamara directed Comm six fleet to recall the aircraft, and Comm six fleet said, are you sure? And he said, absolutely certain. Recall the aircraft." - "The attack on the Liberty had triggered an extraordinary response. Nuclear armed planes had been on their way to Cairo. A nuclear strike had been minutes away and had only just been averted."

Speaker 0 asserts that mass injecting more than half the world's population with that drug is the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of humankind, and that this event has happened now. The speaker emphasizes that this assessment is very difficult for many people to accept, especially for those who have received the injection, but contends that we are now living in the aftermath of the incident. The repercussions, the speaker warns, will continue for a very long time. The speaker predicts ongoing harm: people will keep dying, will become extremely ill, and will probably be infertile. They foresee a wide range of enduring effects on individuals for years and years. The speaker emphasizes the lasting nature of these consequences and expresses concern about a prolonged period of health and social impacts resulting from the injection. Additionally, the speaker urges listeners to accept that the event took place. They state that anyone who was involved at any high level with making that happen is not your friend, underscoring a belief that those who contributed to the event should not be trusted or regarded as allies. The message conveys a strong stance about accountability and trust, suggesting a division between those who were involved at high levels and the public.