UFOpedia

burlison-fresh-freedom-73-loeb-puthoff-gerb-2026-06-30

64 min read

Fresh Freedom #73 “Science vs. Secrecy” — Rep. Eric Burlison with Avi Loeb, Hal Puthoff, and UAP Gerb (30 Jun 2026)

Source: “Fresh Freedom” podcast, episode 73, hosted by Nate Lucas (communications director, Office of Rep. Burlison) with Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO), and guests Dr. Avi Loeb, Dr. Hal Puthoff, and UAP Gerb (on-screen graphic: “Sam Gerb, independent UAP researcher & journalist”). URL: https://youtu.be/tZHuAZpLdFw (channel “Fresh Freedom”; 2026-06-30; ~1:02:30). Also posted by Rep. Burlison on X (https://x.com/RepEricBurlison/status/2072001147347308695). Captured: 2026-06-30. Speaker-diarized transcript via Antigravity CLI (agy + Gemini Flash) on 600s video chunks, then speaker labels content-corrected by hand. Caveat on the labels: Gemini correctly read the on-screen name graphics for the five participants in the opening, but in later chunks (where no graphic anchored it) it hallucinated roughly ten famous UAP-world names — Ryan Graves, Christopher Mellon, Tim Gallaudet, James Lacatski, Colm Kelleher, Jay Stratton, Shawn Ryan, Matthew Pines, Matt Ford, “Yuan Fung” — and mapped them onto the five real voices. There are only five people in the room: Nate Lucas, Eric Burlison, Avi Loeb, Hal Puthoff, and Sam Gerb. Those ~56 mislabeled turns were collapsed back to the five by content (the document/legacy-program/Kona-Blue/DOE-AEA/Elizondo-AATIP questions are all Gerb; the SAP/Kona-Blue mechanics answers and “I’ve never been part of the legacy program” are Puthoff; the ODNI-briefing recollection and the higher-dimension question are Burlison). A few short host interjections in the 36-45 min range (Nate Lucas vs Burlison) are best-guess. Names spoken inside the dialogue (Stratton, Lacatski, Kelleher, Mellon) are genuine references to people discussed but not present. Provenance only; analysis: gerb-uap-open-source-researcher, puthoff-network-physicist, loeb-galileo-project. What this is: a sitting congressman (Burlison) and his office convening the new White House UAP Science Advisory Council chair (Loeb), the AAWSAP/AATIP senior scientist (Puthoff), and the open-source legacy-program researcher (Gerb) together — itself a notable lineup. The substantive core is Puthoff, on the record, detailing the exact institutional-secrecy mechanisms that Gerb’s open-source thesis is built on, from the inside:

  • The DOE / Atomic Energy Act shield. Gerb asks whether DOE is “a really good place to hide exotic materials… because of the statutory authority… completely different than the standard executive-order-based classification system.” Puthoff agrees, citing “the 1954 Atomic Energy Agreement, special nuclear material, transclassified foreign nuclear information… restricted data, formerly restricted data” and DOE’s separate security system — the precise mechanism at the heart of Gerb’s thesis, now affirmed by an insider (Puthoff says “I’ve seen some of your podcasts… glad to see you’re pursuing that option”).
  • The IRAD contractor shield. Materials handled by aerospace contractors under IRAD (internal R&D) were “not accessible by FOIA”; compartmentalization/stovepiping “off the charts.”
  • The DIRD-commissioning process, first-hand. As Bigelow Aerospace senior scientist on the DIA-funded program, Puthoff commissioned ~36 papers from leading world experts framed as a “where will your field be by 2050” survey — “I didn’t tell them it had anything to do with… ETs or UAPs” — put on a classified JWICS website, since FOIA-released (the AAWSAP DIRDs). He adds that “in some of the cases, we got really great papers from people who we knew were involved in the legacy program anyway” — an insider tying specific DIRD authors to the alleged legacy program (no names given; he says ~36, the set is usually cited as 38).
  • A detailed Kona Blue origin. Puthoff narrates the divestment attempts to OSAP/BAASS, the Harry Reid funding that got “snatched” by an official who didn’t know what it was really for (cutting the program off mid-stream because revealing its true purpose was “absolutely forbidden”), and the pivot to the DHS Kona Blue SAP. See ryder-lockheed-uap-transfer and the Kona Blue material.
  • The 1989-shutdown disambiguation. Gerb pushes back (“I vehemently disagree”) on the “program was ceased in 1989” framing; Puthoff clarifies they are “really two programs” — a specific defense-contractor/divestment effort was halted (he is unsure it was 1989), but “the legacy program didn’t get shut down… it’s really a deep program going on for a long time.” Gerb and Puthoff converge that the deep legacy program remains active.
  • Loeb on dual-use sensors, and the methodological split. Loeb frames UAP detection as riding on national-security sensor programs (the Vela satellites’ 1967 gamma-ray-flash detections; interstellar meteors in USG fireball data), and references his new Science Advisory Council role (loeb-galileo-project). He also pushes back on the gatekeeper focus with a Galileo analogy (“I’m not a fan of history… we should focus on getting to the bottom of what these things are rather than obsessing with the past and trying to blame bureaucrats for being gatekeepers”) — a direct methodological contrast with Gerb’s secrecy-architecture project. Weight Puthoff’s account as a first-hand insider narrative (he was there) that materially corroborates the DOE-AEA / IRAD / DIRD / Kona-Blue structure — distinct from the unproven NHI-payload conclusion that structure is invoked to support.

[Nate Lucas, 0:00] Coming up on episode 73 of Fresh Freedom, if the truth about UAP exists, does it come from a telescope, laboratory, or a classified vault? We’ve got three of the most influential minds in the field with us to discuss science, secrecy, and the search for answers. [Visual, 0:15] Animated intro showing the “FRESH FREEDOM PODCAST” logo. [Nate Lucas, 0:20] Welcome to the Fresh Freedom podcast featuring freedom-focused representatives and policy experts who are fighting for conservative values and defending your constitutional rights. I’m Nate Lucas, joined by Congressman Eric Burlison of Missouri’s 7th District. And today, we’re joined by three men who need little introduction in the world of UAP. Dr. Avi Loeb recently took the helm of the new UAP Science Advisory Council, and Dr. Hal Puthoff has spent decades at the center of some of the most consequential research in the field. And last but not least, a returning star, UAP Gerb, an independent researcher, and he happens to hold the crown for the most watched Fresh Freedom episode of all time, so you’ve got that going for you. [Visual, 0:27] On-screen text: NATE LUCAS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF REP. BURLISON. [Visual, 0:31] On-screen text: ERIC BURLISON, MISSOURI 7TH. [Visual, 0:39] On-screen text: AVI LOEB, UAP SCIENCE ADVISORY COUNCIL CHAIR AND HARVARD ASTROPHYSICIST. [Visual, 0:44] On-screen text: HAL PUTHOFF, FOUNDER OF EARTHTECH INTERNATIONAL AND DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES AT AUSTIN. [Visual, 0:53] On-screen text: SAM GERB, INDEPENDENT UAP RESEARCHER & JOURNALIST. [Sam Gerb, 1:04] Oh, thanks Nate. I appreciate that. [Nate Lucas, 1:05] This is going to be a wild episode of Fresh Freedom, and I don’t think I need to say a whole lot. But, uh, what brings everyone to DC this particular week in the, in the UAP world? [Hal Puthoff, 1:21] Well, the Disclosure Foundation, uh, invited us to, uh, come and, uh, make presentations on whatever our experiences were in dealing with the, quote, “UAP world”. And so, there was a, a fantastic group of people addressing every issue, whether it’s science, or investment, or, you know, whatever. So, it was, it was really, and we were, uh, at the, uh, over in the, Congress, uh, it was the Senate, uh — [Eric Burlison, 1:48] Yeah, the Kennedy — [Sam Gerb, 1:49] Kennedy — [Hal Puthoff, 1:50] caucus room, where there’ve been many, uh — [Avi Loeb, 1:54] Historic events. [Hal Puthoff, 1:55] …historic events that, that took place. So, it was, it was, it was an amazing event. [Nate Lucas, 2:00] So, I mean, this topic has certainly — the needle has been moved. I mean, even to think maybe five or 10 years ago that there would be a forum held in the Kennedy Caucus Room of the United States Senate on unidentified aerial phenomena, it’s hard to imagine that here we are today in June of 2026, and that, that, that forum took place. [Avi Loeb, 2:23] You know, it’s not so much, uh, about, uh, the audience and, uh, the fact that, uh, we discuss it in public and people comment on it on social media. Uh, we need to keep our eyes on the orbs and figure them out. And this is the beginning of a very interesting process, because now the US government is cooperating with, uh, scientists like myself, and I feel, uh, privileged to serve, uh, the US government in, in cracking down this mystery. What is it that we’re dealing with? Because, uh, there are two possibilities. Uh, either, if these are technological objects, either they are human-made or non-human-made. These are the two possibilities. And if they are human-made, then we have a serious breach of, uh, national security, because these are objects that are not identified by the Pentagon or the intelligence agencies, yet they hover over strategic assets. And we need to understand them as a matter of, uh, national security. We need to invest funds in, in researching them and, uh, derive better data, because currently we don’t know what they are. Uh, and that is the down-to-earth approach that any, anyone within government should be concerned about. And then there is, of course, the possibility that maybe one out of all of these objects — it’s enough to have one — that is not human-made, in which case it will be the biggest discovery ever made in the history of science. Now, you may say, “Oh, national security is focused on down-to-earth matters, whereas cosmic discoveries about the universe are focused on things far away from Earth. They have no overlap, there is nothing in common between these things.” But that’s not true, because when the US develops new sensors that are state-of-the-art for national security purposes, sometimes they make cosmic discoveries. There was an example of the Vela satellite program, uh, in the ’60s, that was aiming at, uh, detecting gamma-ray flashes from nuclear explosions. The suspicion was that the Soviets may be cheating. There was a ban, uh, a treaty that, uh, the Soviets signed with the US, banning any nuclear explosions. And then the Vela satellites were supposed to monitor and check if there are any gamma-ray flashes from nuclear explosions. Then they found, in 1967, a gamma-ray flash, and then a dozen, uh, about 16 more in the coming years. And, uh, then they realized that these flashes are coming from the universe. Turns out, these are the signals from the collapse of massive stars to make a black hole. You end up with jets, uh, of high-energy radiation pointed, uh, in a very narrow cone. And sometimes we see them all the way to the edge of the universe. This is an example of a discovery. There was another discovery made by the suite of satellites that the US government employs to look for, uh, flashes, infrared flashes, from ballistic missile launches. Right now, it was extremely useful in the context of the war with Iran. But every now and then, these, uh, these satellites detect, uh, a fireball from, uh, an object colliding with Earth. And that’s a meteor. And, uh, they release that data to the scientists. And, uh, I found within that database, uh, several examples of interstellar meteors, meaning objects that came from outside the solar system. They were moving very fast. They are not bound by gravity to the sun, and they collided with Earth, roughly the size of a person. And there are several such examples. So what I’m trying to say is the US government, when it makes state-of-the-art sensors for national security purposes, could, by chance, discover something really important about the universe. In this case, we are talking about UAP or unidentified anomalous phenomena. Maybe they are indicative, uh, of non-human intelligence, of, uh, some other civilizations that might be more accomplished than we are. [Nate Lucas, 6:14] Gerb, the last time that you came on, there had been no files released, uh, under, uh, pursuant. The administration has now since released three, uh, batches of documents. Uh, we spent a lot of time talking about federally funded research and development centers that are like private partnerships with the federal government. And there does seem to be some movement, and, Congressman, you have led multiple letters to various FFRDCs. And it seems like, uh, some information is trickling out even if through the first three releases we haven’t gotten like the smoking gun videos or evidence yet. [Sam Gerb, 6:53] Right. So, of course, I’m on the Fresh Freedom Podcast, I’m not just blowing smoke here. Uh, but I think the, the files and the videos pale in comparison to the disclosure efforts out of your office, by yourself and David Grusch. I think the legal interrogatives, uh, sent to the MITRE Corporation, MIT Lincoln Labs, cabinet-level agencies and services, are far more effective in pursuit of disclosure. And as we’ve kind of seen of late, um, these interrogatives are likely leading to a domino effect of, of discovering other records, other materials within other private companies, semi-private companies. So, I really admire the pursuit that you and Mr. Grusch are doing, and I think if there’s an avenue to disclosure, it is through these legal interrogatives, uh, especially with the file release, we’re probably going to run into some trouble with Department of Energy held records. And I’d love to talk with you about that as well during this, Dr. Puthoff. But, uh, the, the fall of the dominoes with the legal interrogatives is something special. And, uh, I commend you for having the guts to go after the MITRE Corporation. [Visual, 7:43] Wide shot showing all five panel members seated around a circular table. [Eric Burlison, 7:54] Thank — well, thank you. Um, I want to — so, go — go ahead, go into detail about the, how the — that there’s an, a, a — aspect of the Department of Energy that we may have a difficult time getting information out of. [Sam Gerb, 8:07] Oh, sure. So maybe we could talk about this, Dr. Puthoff. Um, and I say this because today at the UAPDF event, you stated if you revealed everything you knew about the subject, you would go to jail. Uh, so I’m going to take that as assuming you may have worked in a, a specific national program capacity on such projects of exotic, uh, technologies of unknown origins. So maybe we could spitball about this. Um, would you share the, kind of the same idea or a different idea that the Department of Energy would be a really good place to hide exotic materials, anomalous materials, because of the statutory authority that the Department of Energy is subject to, which is completely different than the standard executive order-based classification system that exists within the DoD? [Hal Puthoff, 8:51] Well, that’s, that, that, that’s true. And, uh, since they have their own, uh, security system, which does not fall into the usual, uh, Pentagon and DoD, uh, security apparatus, uh, that really has to be pursued separately. And, uh, I’ve, I’ve seen some of your podcasts, so, actually glad to see that you’re, uh, pursuing that, that, that, that option. [Sam Gerb, 9:14] Yeah. So, whether it’s, uh, information protected under broad and liberal interpretations of the 1954 Atomic Energy Agreement, special nuclear material, transclassified foreign nuclear information, which comes later, restricted data, formerly restricted data, how do we crack into that? [Hal Puthoff, 9:29] Boy, that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s tough. When I consider some of the things that we did in the AATIP program — I was a senior scientist, uh, you know, for Bigelow Aerospace on, uh, looking at, uh, what was happening out of the DIA-funded, uh, program — and, so we interacted, uh, mostly with aerospace corporations. And, so they had arranged to get, uh, access to materials — [Visual, 10:00] Close-up of Hal Puthoff speaking at a podcast table. [Hal Puthoff, 10:00] …and so on, which they handled under IRAD. So in fact, uh, they were not accessible by FOIA. And therefore, uh, you know, that, that was a problem. So in that program, uh, as we tried to dig out some of this stuff, that’s when we saw that the compartmentalization and the stovepiping was just so far off the charts that you sort of weren’t going to get anywhere with that. So in fact, one of the things that I was responsible for was that, okay, suppose we had gotten access to all of this, uh, pieces of material and so on that they had, uh, what would we do with it? Well, we would, uh, try to declassify it to a level where we could send it out to scientists all over the world, top people in whatever, materials or, you know, various forms of propulsion and so on. Uh, but since we couldn’t get access because of the compartmentalization—I mean, they, they tried hard, because they were not making progress, because they couldn’t get access to any good scientists, which is, I’m so glad to see what Avi Loeb is doing now, uh, and that he has that opportunity. So anyway, uh, I sat there and said to myself, “Okay, well, suppose I had gotten access, who would I send this materials to if we could get them downgraded?” So we made up a list of people who are tops in their field for anything that would have to do with these exotic kinds of technologies. And so I just went to them. And actually, uh, I commissioned, I think it was 36 papers from leading experts all over the world, asking them, uh, saying I was just doing a survey for Bigelow Aerospace: “Where would your, uh, area of expertise be by the year 2050?” I didn’t tell them it had anything to do with, quote, “ETs,” or, uh, UAPs, or whatever. And so we got back some fantastic, uh, papers. And they were all put up on a classified, uh, website, a JWICS website. But by now, most of those, uh, papers have, uh, been released through FOIA. So there’s a lot of good data in there. And in some of the cases, we got really great papers from people who we knew were involved in the legacy program anyway. So anyway, that, that was really quite a, you know, a, a find, a catch. [Visual, 11:08] Wide shot of the five-person panel seated around a circular table in a wood-paneled studio. [Sam Gerb, 12:22] This is your podcast, sir, but I think this is a pretty monumental opportunity for some, like, transparency and more information on this topic. So if you don’t mind, I’d love to ask a few questions just about that. [Eric Burlison, 12:30] Please, please, yes. Yeah, that’s why we have you on here. [Sam Gerb, 12:34] You’re talking about the Kona Blue, um, Department of Homeland Security prospective special access material transfer, correct? [Hal Puthoff, 12:40] Well, that was, uh, at the end of it. Right. That was following on… [Sam Gerb, 12:44] Right. And was there a, was there a initial effort in 2008 that was stymied or, stonewalled by, um, Clapper or other officials that were senior in the USDI? There were several attempts to, um, divest materials to the AAWSAP or to, to BASS? [Hal Puthoff, 12:58] It’s complicated. Uh, actually, Senator Harry Reid, who is, majority leader at the time, majority Senate… had set up the next part of funding that was supposed to go forward as part of AAWSAP. But because the money was for this very SAP, originally just TS/SCI kind of program, uh, the language that went into the congressional, uh, you know, uh, beef up of the funds, just said, well, it’s for aerospace, uh, investigations and that kind of stuff. So actually, what happened was that it was supposed to come down through a particular chain of command, and as it came down, uh, the person who knew what it was really for and was going to then give it off to the AAWSAP program, happened to be off on a trip someplace. And so, uh, somebody else in his office saw it and said, “Oh, is this general aerospace stuff? Well, yeah, we, we, we do aerospace.” So they, they snatched the money. And so then the program got chopped off for that reason. And so then the question was, okay, well, do we say, “No, no, now wait a minute, that’s not what this money was for.” But then you would reveal what the program was all about, which at that time was absolutely forbidden to do. So that’s why suddenly, uh, the program got cut off right in the middle. So we searched around, and that’s when we ended up, uh, going to DHS. And, uh, now it’s, it’s known that, you know, we’re going to do it at an SAP level called Kona Blue. But that, that, that went along. We, we spent, well, for one thing, we, we spent at least, I’d say, two years. We generated, uh, our program plans that would go from the floor to the ceiling. It was tremendous enthusiasm from their DD S&T, from their security people. I mean, that, that was really going to be the winning program. And, of course, from our standpoint, we said, “Well, defending homeland security, well, we should definitely be defending homeland security from UAP.” Uh, but at the very end, uh, it ran into, uh, some, uh, pressure against not funding it by a couple of individuals which I don’t feel like I can name. And so… [Sam Gerb, 15:19] Gerry Gafney at the DS&T, one of… [Hal Puthoff, 15:21] Well, that was earlier. That… [Sam Gerb, 15:23] Okay, earlier. [Hal Puthoff, 15:24] That, that was earlier on trying to get, uh, materials out of, uh, the Aerospace Corporation. [Sam Gerb, 15:31] Lockheed Martin Space Systems. [Hal Puthoff, 15:33] So anyway, this, this, this, this was, uh, you know, some, somebody else, uh, on the Kona Blue situation. It was a separate, uh, issue. So anyway, that got stopped, and that was, that was the end of it. Think it’s really important to find ways to move forward anyway because, for example, our, uh, as, as you would know, our nuclear missile sites have been shut down, and least in the Soviet Union, a nuclear missile site was turned on and went through the countdown and almost, uh, you know, we thought it was going to start World War III, uh, but then it got shut down. So, so there are these major security issues that we really can’t let just kind of sit off to the side. So, I’m really glad that the President has, uh, you know, made the, uh, issue of, well, we, we, let’s get more scientists involved, because that’s what we were missing in all of our activities, of getting a lot more scientists involved, because we just had a few scientists that are in the defense, uh, community, and, you know, they’re not the best scientists, necessarily. [Avi Loeb, 16:35] The executive summary of what Hal just said is: the future can be better than the past. Let’s make it better. [Eric Burlison, 16:42] Can I ask? So, we had… the President has set up this, and which I can’t be more happy with, because when I was briefed about the event that happened recently in the Western United States, the military installation where they saw those plasmoid type things… Sitting in that room with ODNI, I asked the question, ‘What in the world are these things?’ And they said, ‘We don’t know.’ I said, ‘Well, surely you have your top scientists looking into this. What do they say?’ They said, ‘Sir, we really don’t.’ And I said, ‘Well, that’s got to change.’ So, I’m really glad to see that that has changed, that they’ve engaged you. Can you kind of tell us about the team you’ve put together? [Avi Loeb, 17:19] So, um, they… I had a visit to my home, as I often do. Uh, most of the time it’s, you know, billionaires, uh, interested in the science that I’m doing and willing to support it. But this time it came from ODNI, and, um, they asked if, uh, I’m willing to serve to lead, uh, a Science Advisory Council. And, uh, they got me at hello, uh, because for me, I, I felt just like a kid in a candy store. Uh, you know, that’s an opportunity of a lifetime to first, serve the nation and at the very least help national security. But there is a potential bonus if, because I would expect, uh, Dr. John Kosloski, the director of the, uh, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, instead of releasing in the third tranche on June 12th, uh, this report about, uh, the event that lasted two days in October 2023, instead of releasing it to the public and admitting that 40% of the phenomena are not understood, uh, he should have written a memo to the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, uh, that would have been classified because if he suspected that it could be human-made and, I mean these objects, these orbs, uh, then, um, it’s a matter of national security and you don’t want the adversary nations to be aware of what we know and so forth. Instead, he released it to the public, and in the same week, I was asked to lead this council, which is very indicative in my opinion that, uh, that it’s clear to whoever examined the data that, uh, we’re dealing with, with something that is probably not human-made. Okay? Because otherwise it should be classified. And then, uh, at the same time, they, they can’t, they can’t figure it out. Now, we’re talking about recent events, not historic events. And nowadays, of course, we have much better sensors. Uh, just compare the photographs taken by the Artemis II astronauts when they went around the moon compared to the Apollo astronauts that had these fuzzy Kodak images. So, if people are detecting those things, then they must be there, okay? There is no doubt that there is something there and that they cannot figure it out and that it doesn’t look like it’s a threat to national security because these things are not, you know, doing something that is obvious, you know, like… Uh, and so, um, I think it’s an amazing mystery and, uh, the work of a detective in, in a mystery case, uh, is to collect enough clues to figure it out. It’s not a philosophical question. So, I decided… [Visual, 20:00] Close-up of Avi Loeb speaking. [Avi Loeb, 20:00] to, um, to assemble a group that includes about 15 people. Cuz if you have a team that is too small, then, um, it might not represent all the expertise that you need. Also, it’s very sensitive to the composition of the team. Uh, a team that is too big, uh, suffers from a different problem, that there is regression to the mean. The, they, you know, you must have that experience, when the, when a committee is too big, then it never reaches, uh, innovative decisions, um. So, sounded to me like 15 is the right number, and then I selected a few nerds, uh, these are young people that, uh, would look at it with fresh eyes, and, uh, in addition, people with expertise in physics, um, oceanography, statistics, and psychology, because we’re dealing with interaction with humans. And so, um, it’s an, I mean, amazing group of people, and they all, uh, agreed immediately, and I had three times, uh, the number of people approach me with, even today, uh, asking, giving me their card and asking me if I’m, I’m willing to consider them, but, but what we did, within six days after I assembled the team, I, uh, after we had the first Zoom call, which was last week, we came up within six days with more than 50 items of information, and I, I can share it with you, uh, particular items of incidents, uh, data that we know exist, and that was not released, and we submitted it to the UAP, uh, um, uh, there is a governing board, uh, that includes representatives from, uh, ODNI, from the White House, from, uh, the FBI, from the intelligence community. And so, um, those representatives have access of course to all the classified material and… [Visual, 21:54] Interviewer and Speaker 2 sitting at the table. [Speaker 1, 21:54] Are you on the governing board as well? [Visual, 21:56] Close-up of Avi Loeb. [Avi Loeb, 21:56] I will be. [Speaker 1, 21:57] Okay. [Avi Loeb, 21:58] Um, so, um, so then we’re asking them for sharing of information, whatever can be shared without compromising national security of course, that’s the constraint. But we were very specific in a very long list that I’m happy to share with you. And I was amazed at how prolific the team was. And so, I think we are now starting the process by which, you know, if the government shares with us relevant information, that we can analyze it scientifically speaking. And the good thing about scientifically speaking is that when you see a phenomena, okay? It’s not just about saying, “We saw this.” I, my mind immediately goes into directions, how to explain this, okay? And then, if, if, so we have several theories of how to explain what you observe, and then, you can do additional experiments, collect additional data that will tell you which, which interpretation is the correct one. And you go down that path, eventually, you’ll figure it out. So, the key is, let’s just figure it out! And I’m sure the government would like to do that, first because of President Trump’s directive, which is in favor of transparency, and also, um, it’s a matter of national security at the very least. So, I think we are going in the right direction, and hopefully we will not be subjected to the same barriers that existed in the past. And, most importantly, we don’t need to rely on past data. We can collect new data, because now we have much better instruments. Uh, so, I’m very hopeful. I, I’m an optimist. I think the future can be better than the past. And I think life is sometimes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe that the future will be better, you can make it better. [Visual, 23:41] Interviewer and Speaker 2 sitting at the table. [Speaker 2, 23:42] So, uh, of course, this administration cares very much about public perception and interest in the topic. So, I think for the future to be better we have to learn from the sins of our past. So, uh, first I’d like to get Dr. Puthoff’s opinion on this and then, then yours, Dr. Loeb, because, uh, myself and I’m sure many others fear that the governance board and council will be a repeat of the 1953 Robertson Panel, in which the CIA, uh, predetermined that a, a certain committee was going to reduce public concern about the topic of UFOs and relegate everything to, uh, you know, swamp gas or prosaic sightings. But on the subject of, uh, UFO-focused activities or programs, Dr. Puthoff, this has been something that has been, I think, purposefully, uh, misleading the topic for a long time. Could you please touch on the differences and similarities, um, i- in terms of just hierarchical structure, personnel, program funding, etc. of the AAWSAP versus the AATIP? [Visual, 24:09] Wide shot of the five men sitting around the table. [Visual, 24:14] Close-up of Speaker 2. [Visual, 24:36] Close-up of Hal Puthoff. [Hal Puthoff, 24:37] Well, basically, AAWSAP was the program to actually try to get the answers, although it was at a, at a classified level. AATIP was just kind of a follow-on, um, semi-official program and not, not really structured the way AAWSAP was, was structured. So… [Visual, 24:52] Wide shot of the five men at the table. [Speaker 1, 24:55] Was it funded? [Hal Puthoff, 24:57] Not really. I mean, AATIP was sort of, uh… I mean, you can say there are people in the, in the Pentagon, um, who were getting a paycheck for pursuing it, but it is, isn’t that there was a congressional, uh, mandate to, to fund it. So, no, AATIP was not actually funded. It was those of us who once the, the original AAWSAP program got shut down, uh, we nonetheless continued to collaborate, uh, on our own funds or whatever to try to go out and, and sell this program somewhere else, with Kona Blue being, uh, the example at, at DHS. So, so, that’s, that’s, that was a period in which, uh, there was no funded program, really, and, uh, we just had support from, well, Bigelow Aerospace and, and other places. Uh, so, that, that’s how, how, how that went. The error in, in all of that, I think is really being changed by what, uh, Avi is doing. Uh, this idea of bringing it, uh, into a public situation where you have scientists that are examining, uh, data and getting access to data that’s not classified. I do not see this as another, uh, shutdown panel because, well, for one thing, Avi Loeb, if he even smelled the beginnings of a shutdown, uh, activity, he would say, “I’m, I’m done. I’m out of here.” So, so, so, I, I think this is, this is the very best, uh, solution. I wish we’d had that kind of solution earlier because we were totally hamstrung by the classification. [Visual, 25:01] Close-up of Hal Puthoff. [Visual, 25:55] Wide shot of the five men at the table. [Visual, 25:59] Close-up of Hal Puthoff. [Visual, 26:21] Close-up of Avi Loeb. [Avi Loeb, 26:32] So, I, I actually, just half an hour ago, I was asked by someone about exactly this question, and I said there are two possibilities: either I’m being used as a puppet, you know, for some other purpose, or government is sincere and we are dealing with, uh, cooperation, a cooperative, uh, approach, and, uh, you know, I think President Trump is definitely, uh, uh, sincere in the way that he pursues it. Uh, and I think that, uh, sentiment penetrates throughout all branches of government, because I spoke to people and, uh, my sense is that we are now in a new era of cooperation. So, instead of building distrust and, uh, saying the other side is trying to hide things, I’m trying to understand them. They obviously have constraints, uh, associated with national security, they can’t release all the information, right? We need to understand that constraint. And I, I feel from speaking to them that they’re really baffled. They, they don’t understand what these things are, okay? So, here we are to work together, figure it out, because it will be at least important for national security, if not more. And, you know, if the US is the first nation to discover that we have neighbors, you know, that will be remembered in history for millennia in the future, and President Trump will be remembered for millennia in the future. We’re not talking about some, some small achievement. [Visual, 27:56] Interviewer and Speaker 2 sitting at the table. [Speaker 1, 27:56] Dr. Puthoff, so help me understand the difference between AAWSAP and what people describe as the legacy program, because it seems like they aren’t necessarily the same thing. [Hal Puthoff, 28:06] They’re not the same thing. That’s, that’s true. It’s… [Speaker 1, 28:08] And if there is a legacy program, then how do we… how do we… who do we talk to, what steps do we go to get that information, because it seems like we’re… right now it feels like we’re rediscovering historical records that have been, that have been forgotten or lost. [Hal Puthoff, 28:26] Right. Right. I would say the best opportunity you might have would be to go to somebody like, uh, Jay Stratton, who was in charge of the UAP Task Force for like 16 years. And he was dealing with, uh, all of the various, uh, elements, and then he ran into the quote “gatekeepers” for the legacy program. And so, that’s, uh, so the AAWSAP program was started by Senator Harry Reid and a couple of other, uh, senators, uh, at the time… [Visual, 28:58] Interviewer and Speaker 2 sitting at the table. [Speaker 1, 28:58] Kind of a look… kind of looked from the outside into the legacy program, but then when you got… [Hal Puthoff, 29:02] Yeah, to look outside in, into the phenomenon. And so, at the beginning, I don’t think they recognized that there was a legacy program, and it’s only that in the process of carrying out the requirements of the AAWSAP program, began to realize, “Oh my god, there’s… there’s more behind the scenes that… that we didn’t even know about when we set up this program.” And that, that’s why I would suggest talking to Jay Stratton, uh, part of the UAP Task Force, because he was the one that began to collect data from here, there, and everywhere, and then identify gatekeepers and find out that there was a legacy program. So, uh, AAWSAP and, and what we did, uh, starting in 2008, is completely separate from the legacy program. And we never got access, I mean, the gatekeepers of the legacy program, uh, even though we were, you know, even going for Kona Blue, we’re supposed to be an SAP program, we still couldn’t get access to the legacy programs, uh, the security [Visual, 29:03] Close-up of Hal Puthoff. [Visual, 29:51] Wide shot of the five men at the table. [Visual, 29:56] Close-up of Hal Puthoff. [Visual, 30:00] Roundtable shot of the five-person panel around the table. [Hal Puthoff, 30:00] Really the personnel involved in the Kona Blue thing, found the gatekeepers, and the gatekeepers said, yeah, yeah, you’re not going to talk to us until you have an SAP. Well, we didn’t get the SAP, so that never went anywhere. So those are really two completely separate enterprises. [Avi Loeb, 30:17] But you know in recent years, there were much better sensors being used by the US government, right? By the military. So there should be also fresh data that was collected over the past decade since those programs were, the evidence is even clearer. So I would, I would recommend looking at that as well. [Sam Gerb, 30:32] Sir, in the past reports, I think this was 2009 or 2010, you can correct me on this Dr. Puthoff, Bigelow Aerospace dedicated some money to build out actual facilities in Las Vegas to house some of the materials they expected to receive from Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company. And I know that was actually a directive from the AAWSAP program to basically be a container. But, sir, what was… [Hal Puthoff, 30:54] That was the plan, but it never materialized. [Sam Gerb, 30:58] But to me the real question is, okay, if there is was a program that has already done all this work and does have the, the truth, and know, probably, you know, knows what these glowing orbs are that we’re seeing, wouldn’t it be, wouldn’t it make more sense that we crack the nut of who was in the legacy program? Where are those files stored? How do we get, how do we open that, so that we can, instead of doing all this reinventive work to try to rediscover it from another angle? [Hal Puthoff, 31:27] I’m not sure that they actually have the answers either, because they’re also hamstrung in the legacy program of not being able to get to the best scientists. So that’s why what Avi Loeb is doing, I think is, is the key to getting this to the next level. So I’m not, I’m not convinced. I mean, the legacy program people obviously know a lot more than many of us, but… [Visual, 31:38] Wide shot of the entire roundtable with all five participants. [Sam Gerb, 31:51] Is it your conclusion that they did have, like, that that program did have crash material that they were working with and, and, and biologics that they were, that they were studying? [Hal Puthoff, 32:01] They certainly had access. [Sam Gerb, 32:02] But they didn’t have the right scientists to even understand what they were looking at. [Hal Puthoff, 32:05] That was the main problem. [Avi Loeb, 32:07] And that’s probably why it, it died somewhere, you know. So, I think it’s key to involve people that can help them figure it out. It’s really key. [Hal Puthoff, 32:17] Absolutely. Absolutely. The program got shut down, actually, I don’t quite remember the date, but because no progress had been made, because they couldn’t get materials in front of scientists who could do a good job of evaluating them. So it just, it died, more or less. But that’s, that’s why this new approach, I think, really is a fresh approach. This is not a put-up job to get another way of shoveling it all under the, under the table. [Avi Loeb, 32:46] And I would not, I will not subject myself. If I realize that it’s a setup, I will… [Hal Puthoff, 32:52] Yeah, I think this is the real deal, way to go. [Sam Gerb, 32:55] Sir, when you say the program was shut down, are you echoing the sentiments of some of your compatriots, like Eric Davis and Christopher Mellon, that the program was ceased in 1989 due to lack of progress? [Hal Puthoff, 33:05] Yes. And of course, you know, Eric Davis worked for me, and I was involved with Chris Mellon as part of To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences. [Sam Gerb, 33:17] Well, I mean, I got to push back, because I do vehemently disagree with that. Is that first-hand information that that shutdown is coming from in 1989? Second-hand? Or kind of where is that idea based off of? [Hal Puthoff, 33:32] Based on… [Sam Gerb, 33:33] That the program was shut down in… [Hal Puthoff, 33:34] Based on the people who had the program and had it shut down from them. [Hal Puthoff, 33:40] I mean, it was, it was really shut down. They couldn’t even get access to their own reports that they had written, or their own materials. And when they were going out of their way to say, well, we need to share it at a lower classified level so more scientists can get involved in looking at it, they said, you know, if you even think of doing that, we’re going to come and gather all those materials back from you, you’re not even going to be, and you can’t even read your own reports that you wrote. So, I mean, it was, it was a real shutdown. [Sam Gerb, 34:08] I, I think what I don’t understand about that, sir, is in the “Age of Disclosure” documentary, Lue Elizondo, Jay Stratton stated that in the late 2010s into the early 2020s, they stumbled upon the legacy program which was active. [Hal Puthoff, 34:19] Yeah, the legacy program didn’t get shut down. I’m just saying… [Sam Gerb, 34:22] A certain program got shut down. [Hal Puthoff, 34:24] The attempt, the attempt to make progress via AAWSAP. [Sam Gerb, 34:28] Oh, okay. In 1989? [Hal Puthoff, 34:30] No, that would not have been in ‘89. Well, it’s, apparently the program got, not the legacy program, but the program involved with some of the defense contractors got shut down. So then later on, when we, we came on board, we said, well, let’s start it back up again, and we’re here to help if you can declassify some of the, some of the stuff. [Sam Gerb, 34:57] So a specific aspect of the legacy program was halted in 1989. Not the whole legacy program, but a specific component of it. [Hal Puthoff, 35:05] I’m not sure I would call the component that got shut down part of the legacy program. I mean, there really two programs. [Sam Gerb, 35:14] Two programs. [Hal Puthoff, 35:15] Yeah, I mean, the legacy program is really a deep program going on for a long time. But, nonetheless, they did try to get help and assistance from all the defense contractors. So, that effort then got shut down. [Sam Gerb, 35:32] Well, that’s, that’s really interesting you say that, sir. In the “Age of Disclosure” documentary, the legacy program is outlined as the CIA Directorate of Science and Technology, Department of Energy, DIB prime contractors, and the Air Force. But like you’re saying right here, the legacy program is deep, it’s robust, there’s multiple… What other entities are culpable in the legacy program that could help Representative Burleson with his investigation? [Hal Puthoff, 35:54] Well, we can’t find out… I mean, I don’t know, I don’t know the answer to that, because the gatekeepers are very sequestered, and who they’re involved with is very sequestered. So, you just have to go digging. That’s why I say, maybe if you talk to someone like Jay Stratton, who headed up the UAP Task Force, and he’s just a very effective guy. He got all kinds of different defense contractors and intelligence units, all 16 or whatever, involved in trying to move the program forward, beyond what the legacy program was doing. And, you know, they were not successful. [Avi Loeb, 36:35] Yeah, he has a book coming out. [Hal Puthoff, 36:36] He has a book coming out, yeah. [Nate Lucas, 36:37] Where do NDAs come into all of this? [Nate Lucas, 36:40] I mean, have you had to sign an NDA with your new role? [Avi Loeb, 36:42] Not yet. [Hal Puthoff, 36:43] Not yet. [Avi Loeb, 36:44] Not yet. So… [Nate Lucas, 36:44] And, were you ever pressured in any of your UAP-related work to sign an NDA? [Hal Puthoff, 36:49] Well, we sign security documents for, you know, SCI accesses and all that kind of stuff. I didn’t have to sign it with corporations. [Nate Lucas, 36:59] So when you say gatekeepers, just to back up just a second, that’s vague to me. [Hal Puthoff, 37:06] Okay, there are, there are certain people who, their job is to make sure that the deep legacy program doesn’t get exposed, or doesn’t, you know, come to light. [Nate Lucas, 37:18] Unelected individuals? [Hal Puthoff, 37:19] Unelected individuals, yes. They’re, they’re security-type people. [Sam Gerb, 37:24] Are these people still here today? [Avi Loeb, 37:26] Well, I hope I will not need to deal with them. [Hal Puthoff, 37:28] Yes. Hopefully, you won’t have to deal with the legacy program, because what he’s going to do, I think, is going to fix what the disasters of the legacy program are. That is, getting open scientific investigation. And, and he’s right from what Avi just said a couple minutes ago, and that is, when all of these things were occurring—I mean, some of this was decades ago—but because our sensor systems have gotten so much better, better to just put the past behind us, get new data from new systems, put good scientists on it, that have open access and can report what they find. I mean, that’s why I think this program is, is the answer. [Avi Loeb, 38:05] Yeah, I’m not a fan… I’m not a fan of history. I always believe the future can be better. And that’s why I usually work with young people. [Sam Gerb, 38:14] But wouldn’t you, if they, if you found out that the legacy program has physical craft… [Avi Loeb, 38:18] That’s amazing. I would like to see it. [Sam Gerb, 38:20] Yeah, that, that would be, still today… I mean, that still would be very effective. It probably would bring your efforts forward much quicker. [Avi Loeb, 38:25] I know. You know, Steven Spielberg’s movie is based on his artistic freedom. It’s not… I think the reality is probably more impressive than his script. But, we have to see it. [Sam Gerb, 38:40] And sir, your discussion of gatekeepers is very apropos. I mean, one of those gatekeepers that stopped some of these material transfers to the AAWSAP was Glenn Gaffney, former CIA directorate of science and technology deputy director. There’s, there’s many gatekeepers that have been named publicly, and I’m sure privately to you. One name that comes to mind is of course, Mr. Steve Cantrell, who’s the special assistant to the deputy under secretary of the Air Force. And there’s many such individuals. The legacy program control group, legacy programs should I add because there’s not one singular, involve a cadre of senior executive officials. Dave Grusch actually testified to this. Many of these being SES-level, Senior Executive Service individuals, DARPA SAPCOs, very senior figures within the Secretary of the Air Force like we just spoke of, and this, this has been kind of a, a weaponized control group to provide program protection and program exposure mitigation. [Avi Loeb, 39:34] But let me just bring a historical example that would guide us better. You know, when Galileo Galilei used his telescope to look at the moons of Jupiter, the Vatican, the Church didn’t like that conclusion that they are not moving around the Earth, right? So, what did they do? They wanted to suppress this whistleblower. They tried him and put him in house arrest. It didn’t work out, because eventually, 1992… [Visual, 40:00] Avi Loeb speaking in a close-up profile. [Avi Loeb, 40:00] …so the church released a public statement admitting that he was right and they were wrong. [Avi Loeb, 40:06] And, the other lesson from this history is not only that when good enough data is available, nobody can deny it. That’s, that’s one lesson. The second is, nobody put the bureaucracy of the church, of the Vatican, in jail for hiding existential information from the public, right? And, so, my reading from that history is that we should focus on getting to the bottom of what these things are, rather than obsessing with the past and trying to blame bureaucrats for being gatekeepers. [Eric Burlison, 40:43] Can I ask a question? [Avi Loeb, 40:44] Yeah. [Eric Burlison, 40:44] So, I’m going to get a little bit nerdy here, but, it was explained to me by someone smarter than myself that, you know, if you live, if you exist on a, on a two-dimensional plane, and a sphere crosses through that plane, it appears… [Avi Loeb, 40:59] As a circle. [Eric Burlison, 41:00] Yes, it appears as a dot, then a circle, and then a dot. But, we, we exist in a three-dimensional plane… [Avi Loeb, 41:05] Right. [Eric Burlison, 41:05] space, yeah. Could it, if, if something of a higher dimension were to cross through our three-dimensional space, what would that appear like? [Avi Loeb, 41:15] Well, it depends on how, the structure of that thing, but it will be projected into three dimensions. So, you will see just a projection of that thing. [Eric Burlison, 41:23] Right. [Avi Loeb, 41:23] But… [Eric Burlison, 41:24] And so the question is, like, if, if what we are encountering is something of a, of a higher dimension, has that been, has that been contemplated, and if so, how could we even understand it? [Avi Loeb, 41:34] Well, so, in terms of extra dimensions, that was a popular idea for 50 years, that string theory has suggested in order to marry quantum mechanics and gravity. These are two pillars of modern physics that were separate from each other, and we want a theory of quantum gravity because then we can understand what happens to matter at very high densities and so forth. Unfortunately, you know, we, we haven’t detected any evidence that string theory is right, okay? But, and, and people have tried to measure the existence of extra dimensions in the laboratory. There are laboratory experiments, and they concluded that any extra dimension must be curled up, tiny, to less than a millimeter in size, because otherwise gravity would not be an inverse square law. They notice that they could measure the gravitational influence if there was leakage to extra dimensions of gravity, then they would notice it in the laboratory. So, they put a constraint on any extra dimension being less than a millimeter. It’s curled up. It’s not, so, that’s from laboratory experiments, but I don’t exclude anything, you know? So, the point is it could be things we, we don’t even imagine because our imagination is limited. You know, we have just one century of science, modern science, since the time we discovered quantum mechanics. And, all of the instruments we are using, including AI, are based on quantum mechanics. Just think where we will be in a thousand years, in a million years, in a billion years. Most stars are billions of years older than the sun, so other civilizations had the, even if they had the same size brain, you know, they had the benefit of time relative to us. We’re just at the beginning. So, we cannot imagine what it, you know, imagine a cave dweller finding a cell phone. A cave dweller would say it’s a rock of a type that I’ve never seen before. And, only the kid of the cave dweller will start playing with it and figure out that it has apps, you know? So, I’m trying to be that kid, okay? So, the point is the adults in the room will always dismiss it and say, “oh, it’s a rock, leave it alone.” And, the point is we need to, to dig deeper, and in, we don’t need to guess it’s extra dimensions or something else. We don’t need to guess that. [Eric Burlison, 43:44] Right. [Avi Loeb, 43:44] First of all, let’s establish the fact that it’s not human-made, if we are dealing with a piece of technology, and then we can start asking, okay, so what is it good for? How does it operate? You know, like a kid. How does, how do things work? But I, I suggest not jumping to the conclusion before we actually examine it. So, just think of, of this process as the process of learning, you know? And, in the process of learning, the best thing to do is watch the evidence, or, or listen to whoever is on the other side because you may not have good enough imagination. [Eric Burlison, 44:22] I love it. [Visual, 44:23] Host Shawn Ryan speaking. [Sam Gerb, 44:24] Was Lue Elizondo ever part of AATIP? [Visual, 44:29] Hal Puthoff speaking. [Hal Puthoff, 44:29] Well, he was kind of an advisory kind of role, but he wasn’t officially part of AATIP, although when Harry Reid went forward to try to get an SAP set up, he said, “well, the people I want in the SAP are these people,” and he included Lue’s name. So, he was kind of on the edge, associated, but, uh, not directly funded by AATIP. [Sam Gerb, 44:52] Did he ever ask about the legacy retrieval systems or did you think he had any involvement with those or… [Hal Puthoff, 45:00] Well, I think he dug around like we all did, but, uh, didn’t get very far. [Sam Gerb, 45:04] Interesting. [Visual, 45:05] Wide shot of the roundtable table showing all participants. [Hal Puthoff, 45:06] By the way, I think also, another, another thing to support why what he’s doing may be successful as compared to previous cases is, I’m also familiar with people in ODNI, and they, they are good people. They’re good people actually trying to, to do something positive. [Eric Burlison, 45:23] And I think that that’s a giant difference. [Avi Loeb, 45:26] That’s my impression. Yeah. That’s my impression. [Eric Burlison, 45:28] I would agree with that. That’s my impression too. [Avi Loeb, 45:31] Yeah. And, and, the other reason that we are doing the right thing right now is that, you know, I get hate messages from people who know the answer already. [Avi Loeb, 45:40] So that means we are doing the right thing because we don’t know the answer and we’re trying to find it. [Eric Burlison, 45:43] Turned out we’re probably all going to be wrong in some way. [Avi Loeb, 45:46] Exactly. It’s a learning experience. That’s what makes life fun. You don’t need to pretend you know the answer in advance. [Visual, 45:53] Jay Stratton speaking. [Sam Gerb, 45:53] Dr. Puthoff, to, to expand on the AAWSAP AATIP conversation, so, there’s the legacy program, there’s the AAWSAP, which was not part of the legacy program, existed outside of it, largely, in terms of its later years, attempted to pry craft, materials, data, etc. out of the legacy program through now-deceased Dr. Jim Ryder. What was AATIP’s role in this? [Hal Puthoff, 46:16] Well, Lue Elizondo was, you know, basically was, you might say, the kind of leader of AATIP. In other words, as, as things were getting shut down under AAWSAP, we didn’t want to just say, “oh, okay, then we’re done,” you know? And so, you know, what activity he was doing, we, we just used, AATIP actually had been a nickname for AAWSAP along the way, but, uh, you know, it was not itself an independent program. So anyway, what, what Lue did under the AATIP label was to, for example, gather up, you know, the, the videotapes, some of which have come out and so on, and gather data from what had been successfully carried through under the AAWSAP program. So, he, he was, he was just, just a collaborator, and, uh, he and Chris Mellon, you know, took on the task of trying to get this further up the chain of command to General Mattis, who was Defense Secretary, and they couldn’t get through his gatekeepers. So anyway, that, that was, that’s what that was about. [Visual, 47:36] Jay Stratton speaking. [Sam Gerb, 47:36] So, transitioning to about 2017 when yourself, Mr. Elizondo and others embarked on To the Stars Academy, TTSA. Back in the 2010 AAWSAP reports, I think this was the 10-month report, there was an idea for something called Project Forum, which was to essentially attract pop culture figures, pop stars, superstars, in California specifically, and use them as a vehicle to kind of push disclosure, push awareness, global awareness on the topic. Was this something that AATIP took Project Forum to use in TTSA? Was this a guideline? Was this a holdover program? Did it influence how TTSA was conducted, or how does that factor? [Hal Puthoff, 48:18] As far as I know, not. I mean, the people who, you know, went ahead in setting up To the Stars Academy, I mean, did involve Chris Mellon, involved Lue Elizondo, Jim Semivan, Steve Justice from, you know, Lockheed. So anyway, and, and me. So, that seemed to me, as far as I know, to be a really independent activity, you know, driven by, by Tom DeLonge’s brilliance in terms of, I mean, he’s really a genius, actually, at some level, because he got talking to people in aerospace industries and saying, you know, it was hard for aerospace companies at that time to get new students to graduate and then come and work for them because nobody wanted to work for these defense industries. And, he was the one that made the pitch to say, “well, look, you know, you should open up the whole idea that we’re going to go into space and all those kind of stuff, and there’s stuff out there that we should be taking a look at.” So anyway, he was just kind of, he was that kind of a figure. So, but, but it, it wasn’t really, quote, officially part of AAWSAP. [Visual, 49:30] Avi Loeb speaking in a close-up profile. [Avi Loeb, 49:30] By the way, speaking about approaching the public, I get a huge amount of, of, uh, people interested in the kind, in these questions, approaching me, and they include movie stars, you know? Like, uh, I was at an event a year ago where Margot Robbie noticed me and said, “are you Avi Loeb? I want to learn more about your Galileo Project, and can you tell me more?” And, so, we were chatting for 20 minutes, and then Jensen Ackles… [Visual, 50:00] Close-up of Dr. Avi Loeb speaking. [Avi Loeb, 50:00] One shows up, and says to her, “Oh, it’s such a great pleasure to meet a star like you,” and she said, “Very nice to meet you,” and turned to me and wanted to hear more about… So, it’s not about the money, that’s the point. And there are many, you know, and just a month ago I was on a movie set in New York City because the director decided to put in the script, you know, the main character is meeting, having an alien encounter. So he, in the script it says he wanted to speak with Professor Avi Loeb to figure out what this means. So then, there I was on a camera roll, you know, next to an actor that played Superman in 2006, Brandon Routh. And he was asking me questions and I answered. I played myself, you know, it was, and it shows you that the public now is quite aware and extremely excited. And that includes a lot of artists. I get like pieces of art, paintings, sculptures, all kind. People are sending it my way because they think this is a very, that’s a fascinating, so it’s not just the billion views of, of the Department of War release, it’s there is a excitement associated with artists being inspired by this. So, we should all tap this moment, you know, we should celebrate. Instead what I see is a lot of people grudgy about the past and worrying about, yeah, instead of that, let’s celebrate the moment and move forward in a more ambitious… [Visual, 50:08] Wide shot of the table showing all five participants. [Speaker 1, 51:33] This is, this is absolutely. [Eric Burlison, 51:34] This is the way. [Speaker 1, 51:35] This is the way. [Eric Burlison, 51:35] This year I think could go down as, people will look back and say this is when it all began. [Sam Gerb, 51:39] Exactly. Right. [Eric Burlison, 51:40] So thank you. Yeah. [Visual, 51:41] Close-up of Sam Gerb asking a question. [Sam Gerb, 51:41] Let me ask you this, Doctor Loeb. There seems to be a beautiful dataset for your council, the perfect thing. Um, this would be what some whistleblowers and others have alleged is a National Security Council activity called Immaculate Constellation that was established in 2017. [Avi Loeb, 51:55] That was mentioned in the Congress. [Sam Gerb, 51:57] Yeah, allegedly, and I, I do believe this is fact. Uh, this activity out of the National Security Council, again, is a basically catchment for a trove of very high quality, uh, imagery intelligence, signals intelligence of both non-human technical vehicles and, uh, reproduction vehicles, uh, meaning our copycat, uh, vehicles of these systems. This data, of course, would be held in the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. So how does your council plan to address that sort of imagery and, and those sort of allegations? [Avi Loeb, 52:27] Well, the UAP governing board should have representation from those, uh, sources, and, uh, so we are requesting information to be declassified or, um, at the very least shared, uh, with me or my council. Um, and we specified a lot of events. I don’t know, obviously that’s all that we know right now, but there might be more in the program that you just mentioned. And so my hope is that this will gain some inertia that, uh, the agencies, the people in those agencies will realize that now the, you know, the sentiment is different, coming from the top, from President Trump, you know, so that affects the entire system and my hope is that they will be in a mode of cooperation rather than blocking. As long as it doesn’t jeopardize national security. You don’t want to compromise… So, every item released has to be examined in this light. But then, if there, if we are talking about decades ago, everything that was found decades ago is irrelevant for the battlefield nowadays, right? Because we have much better technologies. Therefore, if you go back enough, these things should be released in full. [Visual, 53:33] Close-up of Sam Gerb asking a question. [Sam Gerb, 53:33] So, Doctor Puthoff, you’ve addressed the subject of gatekeepers quite a bit. What do you plan to do when you inevitably come across these gatekeepers if you’re pursuing specific records, specific data, that could be super, super helpful to the, the efforts? [Hal Puthoff, 53:45] Well, I will do my best to, to push through these, these obstacles. I had a lot of challenges in my life and, uh, my skin is made of titanium right now. Uh, and frankly, I don’t, I’m not about maximizing the number of likes that I get. I don’t know if you follow me, but, uh, I don’t pay attention to the audience. I just try to do the right thing, so I will do my best. If I’m not successful, and I cannot achieve anything, uh, which is a possibility, I’ll just give, I’ll just say, “Okay, well, what’s the point?” [Speaker 1, 54:21] I’d ask, I’d ask the Y-12s. Like say, “Mr. President, we got a problem.” [Visual, 54:25] Close-up of Eric Burlison speaking. [Eric Burlison, 54:25] When you run into the gatekeepers, you’re going to come back on Fresh Freedom and you’re going to expose all of their names at once, and put them on blast. How’s that? [Avi Loeb, 54:32] I, I never manipulate people, and they will hear from me quite clearly if I, if I know who they are, yeah. [Hal Puthoff, 54:39] No, they’ll either play ball or they won’t. If they, if they won’t play ball, well, just forget them, and, and, let’s pass, let’s go on into the future as, as, as his plan, uh, program will be. [Eric Burlison, 54:51] The celebrity now. All I can think about is Ringo Starr when he put that video out and he’s like “no more fan mail”. Peace and love, peace and love. So, you might have to put out a video out saying “no more fan mail” for you. [Avi Loeb, 55:02] Well, it goes somewhere, depending on the content. [Visual, 55:05] Wide shot of the table with all five participants. [Sam Gerb, 55:06] Can I ask one more question before we close out? [Eric Burlison, 55:08] Absolutely. [Sam Gerb, 55:08] Okay. Doctor Puthoff, up until recently, the discussion of the legacy programs, why have our semi-private institutions, federally funded research and development centers, and university-affiliated research centers, GOCOs, government-owned contractor-operated institutions like Air Force Plant 42, why have these been missing from the conversation? There’s so much focus on like the defense contractors, the Lockheeds, but in reality, as, as Representative Burlison has been beautifully pointing out, such semi-private systems like the MITRE Corporation that receives 99% of its funding from the U.S. government, is the perfect method in which to keep programs outside of government control, but for the U.S. government to still retain possession of the program, of materials, of institutional knowledge even. So why has that, why has it up until now, why have these not been discussed? [Hal Puthoff, 55:57] Well, in our case, we, we didn’t involve ourselves with the FFRDCs, which is what, what these organizations are. So, I just never ran across that issue. We were pursuing other options, so, so I don’t, I don’t know the answer. [Avi Loeb, 56:12] What about the national labs, do we know anything? [Sam Gerb, 56:14] Oh, absolutely. It’s, which, which one? [Avi Loeb, 56:18] Well, whichever you heard about. [Sam Gerb, 56:20] Oh, I mean historically, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge have been extremely culpable in these operations, um, especially right after World War II once the Manhattan Project was kind of translated onto what you could call the Manhattan Project 2.0. You can actually thank one of the greatest scientific minds in U.S. history, Doctor Vannevar Bush, for establishing the relationship between the scientists and between the U.S. government. So… [Avi Loeb, 56:43] And there was a conference that Edward Teller coordinated with the most distinguished scientists discussing UAP back in 1950s. [Sam Gerb, 56:53] So there are serious credible allegations that within the late ’40s, 1948 to be specific, President Harry Truman established classified presidential executive orders, also referred to as by our colleague Dr. Eric Davis as PEADs, presidential emergency action documents, that relegated custody of recovered discs to Atomic Energy Commission national lab control to be studied under Vannevar Bush, um, his soon-to-be JRDB, or Joint Research and Development Board and the Research and Development Board. And I, I do think that is factually correct, that kind of spiralled out into… [Avi Loeb, 57:23] Vannevar Bush lived in Belmont, which is just next to where I live in Lexington, Massachusetts. [Sam Gerb, 57:29] Wow. [Avi Loeb, 57:30] And, um, isn’t it time for the U.S. to gain global leadership in both science and technology by discovering what they were talking about, these guys? [Sam Gerb, 57:41] Well, I think they’ve already discovered this, and this is the real problem with these programs that Dr. Puthoff and myself and Representative Burlison’s been trying to pursue—the legacy programs. The secrecy apparatus of these programs, which were largely established as a centralized effort in 1947, have compounded and grown and spiralled so out of control. Um, that’s why, yeah, when, when Dr. Puthoff is talking about the program being shut down in 1989, there was so much confusion. And we, I think we reached a good point today where it wasn’t the program that was shut down, but a specific element of the legacy program that was shut down because this has spiralled out so much, and there’s serious allegations, maybe Dr. Puthoff can comment on this as well, that specific aerospace contractors, I’ll name them, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, established their own retrieval and recovery activities with self-fund through independent research and development funds. Have you come across similar allegations, Dr. Puthoff? [Hal Puthoff, 58:30] I’ve come across similar allegations, yes. [Sam Gerb, 58:33] Interesting. [Avi Loeb, 58:33] I had a high-level executive from Lockheed Martin visit, former high-level executive, visit my home. And, um, I asked him, “Is there any truth to these claims?” And he said, “It’s not wrong.” [Speaker 1, 58:49] Whoa. [Sam Gerb, 58:51] Whoa. That’s… Would you connect him to Representative Burlison? [Avi Loeb, 58:53] I have to, that was like a few years ago. I have to find the name, yeah. [Eric Burlison, 58:57] Yeah, that would be fantastic. [Avi Loeb, 58:58] Yeah. [Avi Loeb, 58:59] But I asked another one… [Visual, 59:00] Wide shot of the table with all five participants. [Speaker 1, 59:00] Making progress right here on Fresh Freedom. [Sam Gerb, 59:02] That would be, that’s amazing. [Sam Gerb, 59:05] Doctor Puthoff, one more question. If there was one more institution Representative Burlison has not investigated yet that he should, it can be, it can be a service or agency within the U.S. government, it could be an FFRDC, a UARC, prime contractor, subcontractor, what should it be? Number one that Representative Burlison has not discussed yet or investigated yet. [Hal Puthoff, 59:26] How about going back to DHS and asking to talk to the people involved in security there? [Sam Gerb, 59:33] Okay. [Hal Puthoff, 59:36] Because then they had links and connections. If they could reveal them, then, then that could be useful. [Sam Gerb, 59:42] Industrial security personnel, PSOs, program security officers? [Hal Puthoff, 59:47] The DHS government security officers. [Sam Gerb, 59:51] Um. [Hal Puthoff, 59:52] Who went searching for gatekeepers. [Sam Gerb, 59:55] They went searching for gatekeepers? The DHS folks? [Hal Puthoff, 59:58] And they found them. [Visual, 1:00:00] Eric Burlison hosting the podcast. [Eric Burlison, 1:00:00] Wow. [Sam Gerb, 1:00:00] But they couldn’t get access. [Hal Puthoff, 1:00:01] But they couldn’t get access. [Visual, 1:00:03] James Lacatski speaking. [Hal Puthoff, 1:00:03] because even to begin to get access, you’ve got to have SAPs, and Kona Blue had not yet been turned… it was a PSAP, a proposed SAP. [Sam Gerb, 1:00:11] Right. [Hal Puthoff, 1:00:12] Proposed, yeah. [Hal Puthoff, 1:00:13] It had not, uh, made it across the goal line to become an SAP, so in the absence of that, it didn’t go anywhere. [Visual, 1:00:21] Sam Gerb speaking. [Sam Gerb, 1:00:21] So you have to have SAP credentials, but you also have to have additional need to know credentials that the legacy program deems, um, the individual institution has a relevant need to know… [Hal Puthoff, 1:00:30] And I suspect that—I mean, I don’t know for sure because I’ve never been part of the legacy program—but I imagine that, you know, the legacy program people sit back there and if somebody comes along, like, say a proposed Kona Blue, uh, they may—they may share information if they feel it’s going to help them do whatever they’re supposed to be doing, or if they think it’s not going to help them, they’ll—they just won’t cooperate. I mean, they—they really have power. [Visual, 1:00:42] Wide shot of the podcast panel: Eric Burlison, James Lacatski, Avi Loeb, and Colm Kelleher. [Sam Gerb, 1:00:56] So what about—you came across some gatekeepers. What about another gatekeeper’s name for Representative Burleson’s office to investigate that may need some, uh, public… [Visual, 1:01:03] Avi Loeb smiling. [Hal Puthoff, 1:01:05] I mean, I don’t know the names of the gatekeepers. I just know the names of, you know, some people who… [Hal Puthoff, 1:01:10] who encountered the gatekeepers. [Hal Puthoff, 1:01:11] who encountered the gatekeepers. [Visual, 1:01:13] Eric Burlison speaking. [Eric Burlison, 1:01:13] Last, last thing. Do any of you feel like worried or nervous or feel threatened by anything or anyone or… [Visual, 1:01:21] Avi Loeb speaking. [Avi Loeb, 1:01:20] I jog every morning at sunrise, and I—I see only ducks, wild turkeys, and birds. I—I don’t worry about anything. You know, we live a short life anyway. Why not make the best out of it? [Hal Puthoff, 1:01:31] Exactly. [Eric Burlison, 1:01:33] Sounds good. Very nice. [Visual, 1:01:34] Colm Kelleher speaking. [Sam Gerb, 1:01:34] If you were to be concerned, I’d be concerned about DARPA’s Security and Intelligence Directorate, DARPA SID, and, uh, AFOSI PJ, the Office of Special Projects. So if you have any reason to be concerned, I would, uh, look at those elements for a bit of worry. [Eric Burlison, 1:01:48] Well, if I had any vote, I would put Mr. Gerb on the, uh, council. I think he has, clearly, a lot of knowledge on where to look and who to talk to. [Avi Loeb, 1:01:57] We’ll definitely consult with him. [Eric Burlison, 1:02:00] All right. I think we all need a burning cold one after this one. All right. Thank you all. Great stuff as always. You can watch or listen to Fresh Freedom on Spotify, Apple Podcast, YouTube, Facebook, or X. Be sure to subscribe to our YouTube page at Fresh Freedom Podcast. And as always, stay strong, stay informed, and keep fighting for freedom. [Visual, 1:02:18] Logo transition with a glowing letter F. [Visual, 1:02:22] Title screen: “FRESH FREEDOM PODCAST”.

Graph View

Backlinks