TruthArchive.ai - 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.

Mitch Snow, Fort Huachuca whistleblower, joined a Diligent Spaces edition hosted on X with his cohosts and guests, describing a two-day sequence centered on his attempt to obtain prosecutorial records and the extraordinary presence he observed at Fort Huachuca. Context and purpose for Fort Huachuca visit - Mitch explained that for years he has been trying to obtain records related to his military service, alleged targeting, and a custody fight involving his son. He has been collecting records across the country (Florida, East Coast, Washington DC) to reinforce a prosecutorial case and defend his reputation. - The last records he needed, he said, were at Fort Huachuca, where there had been prosecutions connected to a tunnel associated with a drug trafficking operation involving the Sinaloa cartel. Mitch described laying sensors (seismic and acoustic) as part of a Joint Task Force Six mission in May 1990, discovering an underground tunnel near Douglas, Arizona, with evidence implicating U.S. members. He testified in an army CID deposition related to that case, and described being flown back to Fort Drum after the deposition. - He stated that the tunnel raid led to the tunnel’s partial shutdown, but that it also caused the cartel to redesign distribution methods (submarines, various ports) and that evidence included photographs showing U.S. members with cartel figures. He asserted that he was targeted and harassed for reporting these findings over the years, including attempts to access his clearance information and threats linked to debt-tracking techniques used by cartels. First day at Fort Huachuca (evening of September 8) - Mitch traveled to Fort Huachuca for the records he needed, planning to stay at Candlewood Suites on base. He arrived around 5:00–6:00 PM Mountain Time, checked in with his girlfriend (Amy) via video call, and went to the lobby to speak with staff about access and the building layout. - In the lobby, he noticed a man who seemed like a professional, possibly a special forces contractor, wearing a distinctive watch; he did not approach or engage with the man. - A woman joined the man on a corner couch; Mitch described the woman as having a “sheen” of being well put together, blonde with a ponytail, and noted the eyes as particularly striking. He observed them leave in a green GMC SUV with the woman entering the passenger seat and the man driving, while he headed off to find a place to eat. - Mitch and Amy had dinner off base at a place described as a Mexican sushi restaurant (Takimaki-like name) and returned to the Candlewood Suites. He reported that the base was navigable but had a lot of speed traps; he did not report being stopped or harassed by MPs on arrival, and he described the gate staff as helpful. - A key moment from this first day was Mitch’s observation in the lobby: the woman sitting with the contractor appeared to be a high-profile figure; he was unsure of her identity but described her as distinct from the military guests, not in uniform. - Later, a panel of listeners asked about the exact appearance and actions of the people Mitch observed, including whether the two individuals were romantic or simply meeting, and whether the female wore rings. Mitch answered with limited detail, saying he did not want to discuss some specifics at that time. Observations at the base and the private meeting later that night - On the first night, Mitch described witnessing the duo in the Candlewood lobby, then later seeing the woman with the contractor in the same lobby as he returned. - He described a potential private discussion between the woman and the contractor, with the two leaving together in the vehicle; the following morning, Mitch provided a rough timeline (5:30–6:00 PM for the lobby sighting, with departure around 7:00–7:30 PM MT). - The Host participants, including Sam, Noxie, Destiny, and Lemair, pressed for precise details and identifiers (make of the vehicle, exact times, and the identity of the people), while Mitch occasionally deferred to not reveal certain details yet, citing comfort and safety concerns. - The host and guests discussed Mitch’s prior experiences, his memory, and the fact that a militarized environment often accompanies high-profile investigations. Several speakers affirmed Mitch’s credibility, noting that his level of detail resembled trained observation (salute reports: size, activity, location, unit, time, and equipment). Second day and the escalation - On the morning of September 9, Mitch woke early (around 05:30) to try to catch the sunrise and continued documenting with Amy via video calls; he described continuing to record selfies, videos, and notes to share with Amy. - Mitch retraced his attempts to locate the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) building to retrieve the records, describing a lack of clear visitor information and multiple detours across post as he sought the proper location. - He encountered a series of baselined rooms, offices, and signs; at one point, an officer suggested a different building and a different path to obtain the records. Mitch found a room with a podium and two soldiers at a desk; he identified it as a near-time, transitional office with a sign-in log. - Mitch reported the appearance of an entourage of high-ranking officers (captains, majors, lieutenant colonels) and a congressman as the group passed by him while he waited. Detainment, questioning, and consequences - Mitch described being escorted outside the building with his belongings, including his bag of documents and passports, while a security/escort team questioned him about his purpose there. He provided his documents and explained his purpose: to obtain the records and file a report. - The officers suggested bringing in a sergeant major, but he did not return; instead, a group of officers and soldiers surrounded him, including a captain, and a bomb-threat-like scenario unfolded: a vehicle investigation was initiated, and a bomb threat was insinuated as part of the unrelated escalation. - Mitch recounted being driven off post to CID for interrogation; he described the interrogation room with one-way glass and the presence of Captain Neff. He provided his detailed life history and his case history, including the NDA he believed had expired and his request to produce a report number for the encounter. - The post commander reportedly trespassed him from the installation for 24 hours, a decision made after the interrogation; Mitch insisted he would not return if trespassed further and stated he would proceed with his records via other channels. He described a variety of law enforcement vehicles at the scene (marked and unmarked police vehicles, federal agents, and a Park Ranger-type officer) and an elaborate, sometimes surreal, sequence of questioning. He documented his own records, including the OIG number (277 episode) and other documentation, and later traveled back to Tucson to regroup with Amy. - Mitch described that he believed the bomb-threat and the post lockdown were part of an overreaction to his attempt to obtain records, noting that such reactions had occurred in the past when his records were sought. He claimed not to have been charged with any crime, but was escorted off the base and told not to return for 24 hours. Aftermath and ongoing implications - Mitch and Amy returned to Tucson and then continued the process, continuing to seek congressional inquiry and prosecutorial review; they also contemplated FOIA requests. They discussed the reality that Candlewood Suites’ ownership was privately operated, complicating direct FOIA access to hotel footage. They mentioned a separate FOIA attempt by a lawyer (Slickdog) to obtain records about sightings of named individuals on Fort Huachuca, with a focus on gate logs and signage. - The pair connected their experiences to broader political events, including the Charlie Kirk incident, Candace Owens’ involvement, and the allegations around Erica Kirk, Brian Harpole, and Mark Amaday, noting the difficulty in obtaining corroborating evidence. Mitch spoke about Candace Owens’ role in amplifying the story, and his own preference to keep certain details private until appropriate. - Throughout the conversation, Mitch’s credibility was repeatedly supported by the other participants who emphasized his memory and attention to detail as evidence of his lived experience. Several speakers stressed the importance of cross-checking facts against the timeline and urged caution against disinformation and attempts to discredit credible testimony. Closing notes - The space concluded with expressions of support for Mitch and Amy, praise for their courage, and a plan to publish and share Mitch’s full story beyond the space. The host highlighted ongoing efforts to verify details, to preserve the record, and to bring attention to Mitch’s experience as part of a broader pursuit of truth. The event was described as a significant, if contested, documentation of a whistleblower’s eyewitness account at a sensitive military installation, with calls to action for audience members to share the narrative and support Mitch and Amy as they continue their efforts.

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 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.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

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.”

People reacted strongly, demanding action, but the speaker says they have sacrificed for two years, facing ostracization, harassment, and threats. The speaker states that while others lived normal lives, they risked everything. The speaker emphasizes that nobody got hurt on their watch, and the allegation concerns something from six years ago that was hidden from them. The speaker also claims the alleged victim wasn't even harmed.

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 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.

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.

Based on personal experiences, the speaker acknowledges the seriousness of claims made by US government employees about the government killing individuals who speak out or plan to speak out. These claims were even made in front of senior officials on Capitol Hill. The speaker suggests that people are paralyzed by fear because this is a reality. Many individuals interviewed expressed their willingness to support the speaker in reporting these incidents to the inspector general, but they did not want to be named due to fear. The speaker and the other person in the conversation both admit that they never believed in UFOs until recently, but now they believe that the US government has made contact with extraterrestrial entities.

The speaker warns of dire consequences for the listener and their plan if they inquire further or speak to anyone about what they have seen.

Speaker 0 addresses Don, saying it’s better to say nothing than answer the question, and that honoring Charlie Kirk for any reason is to simply say nothing. The speaker notes discomfort with a clip and asserts knowledge of Don’s identity, describing Don as a hunter who loves the wilderness and hunting, and recalls a past fishing experience fighting sea lions or seals in British Columbia. The speaker urges Don not to lie and to be truthful about his beliefs regarding the investigation. The speaker asks Don to make a video stating that he believes Charlie was shot by a .30-06 in the neck and that, through a miracle, Charlie’s neck stopped the bullet, remaining in good shape and not destroyed. The speaker highlights Don’s knowledge of hunting and guns and requests Don to sit down and say to Candace, “I really do think that Charlie, our friend, because you are his friend, you were his brother, stopped a .30-aught-six with his neck which stayed intact.” The speaker notes Don won’t say that because it is untrue and suggests it would spiritually affect him, asserting that hunters know Don does not believe that. The speaker acknowledges ties and pressure from Jared and Ivanka and “the Zionists” to stay quiet, while urging other brothers, sisters, and people in the movement, who may not even know Charlie, to get to the bottom of this because “everything we’re being sold is absolute BS.”

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."

A speaker claims an event was a thousand times worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis but unknown. He told his crew they were facing a serious action, and only one man opted out. Another speaker states he was ordered to prepare air squadrons to bomb military and communications targets in Israel. Dick Thompson, a retired CIA agent, was told by Shotsky that he was ordered to launch nukes against Israel as soon as a nuclear weapon detonated in Cairo.

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.

The speaker expresses concerns about American aircraft carriers, referencing the USS Liberty and the Israeli government. They mention “allegedly, the Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft… they did end up paying out the American government.” The speaker worries about a false flag operation: “a missile comes out of Gaza… hits one of our aircraft carriers, but it was actually Israeli missile.” They say, “we should get out of there.” In response, they remark, “It doesn’t matter where the missile comes from,” and then react, “that’s weird, Holy shit.”