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 speaker admits to being scared to cover two specific topics: the 2020 election and the UFO story. They acknowledge that there may be some merit to the claims made about the election and that some of the ideas about UFOs are dark and difficult to understand. The speaker believes that the government has known about non-human entities for a long time and that there is evidence to support this. They also discuss the government's reluctance to disclose this information due to fear of scaring people. The speaker understands the impulse to hide such radical and heavy truths but still believes in the importance of truth and disclosure.

The speaker was asked if they ever wished they hadn't worked for ICE, and responded no. The speaker stated that everyone in their family thinks voting for Biden is right of center. Some employees left over the ICE work, and some protesters raised legitimate questions. The speaker has asked themself if they would protest their own work if they were younger. The most valid criticism is whether involvement in anything that has one instance of injustice taints all instances of justice. This question applies not just to ICE, but also to work with Clandestine Services. Their product is used on occasion to kill people. If someone is looking for a terrorist, they are probably using the speaker's government product and another product to take out the person.

Speaker 0 suggests there was potentially the biggest setup and one of the greatest crimes against the American people in the history of the country. Speaker 1 agrees it's important to get the truth and states they are working to uncover the cover-ups that happened after January 6th. Speaker 0 asks about Republicans involved in those cover-ups, acknowledging it's hard to address one's own party. Speaker 1 responds that they're going to go where the evidence leads, no matter what. Speaker 0 states they will hold Speaker 1 to that.

The speaker expresses their concerns about the UFO story, acknowledging that there are fanciful ideas without evidence, but also mentioning dark and unexplained aspects. They believe that the public can't handle the truth due to its profound implications. Another speaker agrees, describing the information as deeply disturbing and too dark to share with their loved ones, including their children. They both acknowledge that the US government has known about non-human entities for a long time, but the justification for secrecy is debated. They understand the impulse to hide such information, despite believing in truth and disclosure. The government's involvement adds to the heaviness of the situation. They conclude by affirming their agreement and acknowledging that they used to discuss these topics during commercial breaks.

Dan Bongino posted on X that something he learned from his time at the FBI shocked him to his core, stating, "we cannot run a republic like this, and I'll never be the same after learning what I've learned." Speaker 1 responded that they have seen up close the tactics used by those who care more for themselves, their ambition, their job, their influence, their political interests, and their selfish, self-serving interests than they care about the Constitution. They stated that every law enforcement and intelligence community professional swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Speaker 1 expressed their own frustrations but affirmed their resolve is rooted in love for the country and belief in its founding values, and therefore, they feel a responsibility to do something about what they are revealing, seeing, and experiencing firsthand.

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.

Speaker 1, a government official, expresses dedication to uncovering the truth about historical cover-ups, particularly regarding the JFK assassination. They express distrust in agencies like the FBI and emphasize the importance of transparency. They hope for the release of all relevant documents to the public. The speaker questions the motives behind past cover-ups and stresses the need for full honesty and accountability.

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.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the administration’s response to the incident, noting that very quickly, very high up people, including Christine Ohm, Donald Trump himself, and Shady Vance, started calling the killed woman a domestic terrorist and saying she deserved it. The speaker argues that when a relatively young mother of three is killed by a law enforcement officer, government officials should say this was a tragedy, that they will conduct an investigation, and they will see what happened, instead of “running cover for the officer,” because such conduct erodes public trust. The speaker emphasizes that many things about the response freaked people out and describes it as disturbing to have people calling the woman a domestic terrorist. The question is raised: “What the fuck does that even mean?” The speaker notes that even if she did try to run the officer over, it’s not terrorism, and questions what people are talking about when they use that label. There is a critique of how words like “terrorist” are used loosely and how they have “lost meaning,” with the speaker asserting that this is the kind of rhetoric that is used to paint people in certain ways. The speaker draws a comparison, suggesting that labeling someone a terrorist resembles tactics used against Palestinians, where everyone is painted as a terrorist. The rapid labeling is described as part of a broader pattern of invoking terrorism to justify actions or narratives. The speaker concludes with a conditional reflection: if someone is a terrorist, then “actually anything goes,” signaling a perception that the label is being used to bypass normal standards or accountability.

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.

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 always wanted to broadcast in their hometown. However, they became bothered by the media's direction, even before George Floyd, due to moral and ethical concerns. After George Floyd's death, mandates required that half of interviewees had to be non-white or from a protected class. CBS News allegedly prohibited using the term "riots" in reporting. The speaker feels blessed to be on the other side now. The other speaker believes the net effect was the death of many people and the destruction of an American city. They are bothered that it's been memory-holed and no one has been held accountable.

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk was murdered, they have avoided public commentary on the murder investigation out of care for Charlie and respect for the people involved, many of whom they know personally and admire. They emphasize that their goal is truth and justice, and they would not criticize anyone sincerely trying to uncover what happened, recognizing that good motives can lead to wrong conclusions. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan that touched on distrust of the FBI. They clarify this did not mean they accused anyone of involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, but it gave them the chance to state that they do not trust the FBI. They distinguish personal trust in individuals (e.g., Dan Bongino, whom they like, and Cash Patel) from trust in the FBI as an institution, noting that parts of the FBI can act independently within a large bureaucracy, separate from leadership. The speaker argues that distrust is not about a general attack on political leadership but about systemic issues. They reference the 2024 election as evidence that major institutions may be corrupt or rot, and they point to January 6 as, in their view, a setup in which the FBI played a key role. They question whether everyone involved in that setup has faced consequences. They insist that no American is morally obligated to believe everything the government says, especially given a history of the FBI's alleged crimes, illicit participation in politics, manufacturing crimes, or distorting justice—claims they assert as part of the FBI’s track record, which, in their view, is counter to its mission to obtain justice through facts and then explain its conclusions. They argue that it is not enough to have government officials declare the truth; the public has the right or obligation to demand proof. A central concern is that the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s murder could be overshadowed by debates about what happened, allowing the FBI to go unchallenged or unaccountable. The speaker asserts that the FBI should tell, show, and convince the public about what happened, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. Ultimately, they commit to avoiding statements they don’t understand, to staying out of the case, but to maintaining love for Charlie and a desire for justice, while urging others to remain skeptical. They conclude that skepticism is a duty and not something to be ashamed of.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

The speaker discusses a series of alarming claims related to political violence and distrust in U.S. institutions. They reference online activity on social media and a book that appeared prior to what is described as the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The speaker states that the book “was put up, I believe, twenty four hours or within a certain period of time before he was assassinated,” and they recall seeing it but are unsure if there was any follow-up. Turning to broader issues of trust, the speaker asserts that skepticism toward the government, and specifically agencies like the FBI, does not arise from nowhere. They frame this distrust as grounded in “decades of the federal government and elected officials' failures and actually being transparent and honest with the American people.” In their view, there has been a history of corruption within the FBI, described as “corruptness that exists within the Department of the FBI previously,” which they juxtapose with references to “the deep state individuals in various branches of government that have engaged in coups against the American people.” The speaker then suggests a possible topic for discussion, stating, “We can talk about Kennedy if you want,” implying that discussions about government overreach or conspiratorial actions could include the Kennedy assassination as a point of reference. Overall, the points highlighted are: (1) a book about the assassination of Charlie Kirk appearing online shortly before the alleged event, with uncertainty about follow-up; (2) a claim that distrust in government institutions stems from long-standing failures and lack of transparency by federal authorities; (3) allegations of FBI corruption and deep-state actors across branches of government who have engaged in coups against the American people; and (4) an invitation to discuss related topics such as Kennedy.

Speaker 1 describes a decision to follow conscience after twenty years in the military, mostly deployed to the Middle East. He explains that after multiple deployments he realized “we weren't there for the reasons that our government told us” and that there was no vital national interest in the current fight. He made a promise to himself about twenty years ago not to send young Americans off to die on foreign battlefields if he ever had a position of responsibility. When given that opportunity, he decided to resign, stating he did not want to send others to die in wars he believed were not in the nation’s interest. Speaker 0 notes their Catholic faith and mentions recent comments by the Holy Father highlighting concerns for innocent civilians harmed by conflict, including the killing of Father Pierre in Lebanon. The question is asked whether faith community or religious leaders’ support has helped. Speaker 1 responds that the support has been huge and that the resignation gained more traction than he expected. He emphasizes that although the decision was not made lightly, faith helped him hear “God's voice” and guided him to take action, which made the act feel easy and liberating. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has hope for America. Speaker 1 affirms having a great deal of hope, calling this an exciting moment. He highlights the power of technology to connect like‑minded people and give them a voice, despite potential downsides. He notes the significant presence and enthusiasm of young people in the room, expressing optimism about the next generation. Speaker 1 outlines what he believes must happen moving forward: during the midterm season and as the war progresses, people should be on their knees in prayer, then take action once upright. He argues that leaders must hear the public’s stance against this war and the lack of a vital national security interest, calling for the troops to come home and for efforts toward peace in the region. He asserts a desire to avoid “twenty plus more years of bloodletting” and urges people from all political parties to pressure representatives to oppose continued overseas wars. Speaker 1 clarifies that he is not advocating pacifism; if the country is attacked or there is an imminent threat, actions will be taken. The core message is that the nation must not continue down the current path, and making this stance clear to leaders is essential to preserving hope.

The speaker distrusts the government, claiming the CIA has lied since 2001, regardless of who is president. They allege the White House killed 424 uncharged people in August 2015 based solely on the CIA's word. An attorney for a drone whistleblower recounted an incident where the operator refused to launch a drone strike because the target was a child, not a goat as claimed by CENTCOM. The operator now faces court martial for refusing to kill the child. The speaker questions whether America has abandoned civil liberties in the name of national security since 9/11. They believe Edward Snowden's courage in revealing information opened doors for discussion, but he faces severe repercussions. The speaker advised Snowden not to return to the US, as a fair trial is impossible due to the jury pool's ties to intelligence agencies.

People are afraid to come forward about government surveillance because they fear the same fate as Snowden. The speaker urges people to speak up and expose the truth. They mention weather modification and weaponry as possible reasons for surveillance, but their main focus is on the importance of compliance with laws and the need for professionals in the field to address the issue. The speaker warns against disinformation sites like Metabunk and Contrail Science, run by Mick West, who lacks credentials in relevant fields. They also caution against sharing articles without verifying their credibility, as some people are paid to spread false information.

Speaker 0 recounts an argument with a friend during the Edward Snowden revelations about mass surveillance. He challenges the idea that “you can look at my shit. I’m not doing anything wrong. What do you care?” and questions who the so‑called perfect overseers are. He emphasizes that these are unelected bureaucrats who could have financial or power-based incentives to monitor, silence voices, or manipulate individuals by accessing emails and phone calls. Speaker 1 suggests that even if the current government is honorable, there is a risk that a future government could abuse surveillance. He warns that the next administration might come after people who dissent, like Joe Rogan, by digging through emails and targeting individuals for actions or statements they dislike. Speaker 0 recalls the debate around the NDAA during Obama’s presidency, describing it as the indefinite detention concept that did not require charging someone or timely trials. He notes the push for this provision and questions why it was pursued, implying it could be used to detain people indefinitely. Speaker 1 adds that they are concerned about who might wield power in future generations, asking “how many generations are we away from Hitler?” He argues that the founding fathers designed checks and balances precisely because they understood how corruption and tyranny can emerge when power concentrates. Speaker 0 asserts that eroding protections through measures like the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, or the NDAA undermines the Constitution’s core idea, which is based on the belief that government must serve the people and that power corrupts. He emphasizes that those in power would act as tyrants if left unchecked, and warns that granting broad surveillance and detention powers threatens the “fabric” the country was created with. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 together highlight a core concern: the risk of surveillance and detention powers being exploited by unscrupulous leaders in the future, undermining democratic principles and the safeguards designed to prevent tyranny. They stress the importance of checks and balances to prevent government overreach and the potential erosion of civil liberties in the face of expanding surveillance and security powers.

Many people are afraid to come forward about important issues because they fear the consequences, like what happened to Snowden. The speaker has been speaking out for three years and wonders why others are so afraid. They believe that those who are willing to die for their country should also be willing to speak up. The speaker addresses the audience and those watching online, urging them to come forward and help expose the truth. They mention disinformation sites like Metabunk and Contrail Science, run by someone named Mick West, who tries to discredit those who question persistent contrails. The speaker warns against sharing articles without verifying their credibility, as there are people paid to spread disinformation and make others look noncredible.

The speaker expresses their concerns about the UFO story, mentioning that there are some dark and unexplained aspects to it. They believe that parts of the government are suppressing information about it, and that the public may not be able to handle the profound implications. The speaker and another person agree that the subject is deeply disturbing and they haven't even shared it with their loved ones. They discuss the government's involvement and the potential reasons for keeping it hidden. Despite believing in truth and disclosure, they understand the impulse to protect others from such heavy information.