Need to Know #75 — “Is the Tic Tac Really Lockheed Martin Technology?” (Bryce Zabel & Richard Dolan, Jul 2026)
Source: “Need to Know” podcast (Stellar Productions), hosts Bryce Zabel and Richard Dolan. URL: https://youtu.be/A7t5jd2FDJ4 (2026-07-04; ~1:16:49). Captured: 2026-07-03. OpenAI Whisper (whisper-1) via scripts/speech_to_text_remote.py; two speakers (Zabel, Dolan), not diarized; merged into timestamped paragraphs. Analysis: dolan-ufo-historian · coulthart-career-and-claims
[0:00] One is, you know, the phrase for GOATs is, you know, G-O-A-T, GOAT, greatest of all time. Who’s the greatest of all time UFO researcher? Do we have a GOAT? Aside from you and me? Aside from us? Yeah, exactly, we have to, actually, I wouldn’t include myself, but I would include you. I might vote for you if it was an open deal, but we have to go with a classic. I was just, yesterday, by James Ian Doley, who I’ve liked for many years, he has a little podcast, he said, I am the last great ufologist. I think I’m thinking of, like, there’s not a lot of ufologists, people who you think of as ufologists, are they still out there? But anyway, the GOAT ufologist,
[0:46] I mean, here are some names, I guess. You could say Stanton Friedman or James McDonald, or, you know, if you want to go weird and wild, you go with Valet or Kiel or somebody. I don’t know. I think of it like when I think of baseball. I’m into baseball statistics sometimes, and they have the same arguments. And you can judge by peak performance, or you can judge by total sum, sum total of one’s career. You can judge by the impact someone had on the field, all of these things. I might go with Valet. Yeah. I think of Valet, not that I agree with him on everything, because I don’t agree with him on everything. But A, in terms of sheer intellect, he’s got to be up there. I mean, McDonald is up there with intellect as others,
[1:35] but Valet, certainly. But Valet’s done this for 50 years plus. And he’s kind of walked in all the uppermost circles of ufology, but also beyond that. You know, he’s hung out with Lawrence Rockefeller and all the other big shots. So I might say Valet. This is Need to Know. News, context, and analysis about anomalous phenomena. Here’s some real talk from two authors who literally wrote the book on disclosure. From New York, Richard Dolan. From Los Angeles, Bryce Zabel. Let’s get started. The only issue I have with Valet is that he’s sort of, I want him to be more conclusive. I want him to sort of tell me a little bit more about what’s going on. I want him to sort of tell me a little bit clearer what he thinks is really going on. You’ve spent his lifetime researching it. I want to know a little more. I didn’t know James McDonald’s work intimately.
[2:34] I’m aware of him and how incredible he was. Well, McDonald wrote no books. He wrote a couple of papers, and he had a massive impact for about, while he was alive, for like five years. Or four years. Actually, because he was involved from like the mid-66, really, until 1968, 69. And then he kind of got out, and then two years later he killed himself. Yes, so I think we’re going to sadly remember him, but also like let him go away. I think a couple others. You know, Stanton Friedman is many people’s, but, and again, I knew Stanton well, and I know you knew Stanton well. I just feel, again, he, in his, particularly in his later years, he got to repeating his, what he had to say, rather than leading the way with new stuff. Plus, he’s got to lose some points,
[3:32] in my opinion, on Lazar. And just in general on his, he had certain rigidities in his willingness to go certain places and not others. And so I think he has to lose a little bit. I think for that reason alone, he can’t be considered the GOAT. Yeah, I don’t think he’s the GOAT. But Valet, Valet made a lot of mistakes too, you know, but I still, I leaned toward him just because he’s so intellectually fertile, and he’s so willing to engage with the subject on many different levels. Yeah, he’s very snooty, and he can be difficult to relate to, but he’s done, he’s written so many books. Oh, for sure, and each one is kind of a gem in its own. I do think you threw a name out, though, that definitely is interesting, which is J. Allen Hynek, because what makes Hynek so interesting
[4:26] is he didn’t set out to be this guy. He got drafted into the position, if you will. And he started as a skeptic, and his journey is one of having an open scientific mind to it, and saying, I’m going to follow where things take me. And by the way, just another name I want to throw out there, because in terms of UFO research, it also, you know, that’s got a journalistic quality. You got to say George Knapp has worked his ass off on this topic over the years, and broken some stories, right? Knapp, I didn’t think of George, but yes. And also, I have a real soft spot for Leonard Stringfield, who I think really could be, because even more than Stanton Friedman, Stringfield is the guy who really opened up the entire genre of crash retrievals, in my opinion, and did more and better work,
[5:17] even than Stanton on that subject. He didn’t publish any single book on it until posthumously. In fact, it’s right here. This, to me, is one of the most important books in ufology. It’s all of seven of Stringfield’s investigation status reports, one through seven, and they are invaluable. There’s nothing like them anywhere. This is him, like all these people who contacted him about all these aspects of crash retrieval program. Which is really coming into its own now. Yes. The biggest impediment to that book, though, Rich, I think is its cost. Isn’t that an enormously expensive book to get in your collection?
[5:59] Like 80 bucks. Or am I wrong about that? No, it’s like $80 plus on Amazon. So a lot of people are like, they’re used to the 20 to 30 range, and they see that and they go, yeah, I’m not. But it is worth it, if you’re serious about it, because, again, crash retrieval’s a very big deal. Hey, I got some news. I got something to bring to your attention here. Happy anniversary, Rich. I have two pieces of cake here that I’m showing you. It’s been one year to the week since we have started doing Need to Know together. And- Oh my God! We’ve only done- That long? No way! It has been. And we’ve done 10 shows, which isn’t even quite one a month,
[6:42] but we’ve been consistent. And the problem is, I would love for you to share this cake with me, but because we’re virtual, I can’t really, I’m gonna have to eat your cake too. Eat it for me. Yeah. Now, here’s the other thing. Tomorrow, I turn 64 years old. Tomorrow’s my birthday. So I will consider that a slice of birthday cake. Thank you. Well, in fact, it is birthday cake. Let me tell you that story. This is, what a, you know, we didn’t even plan this, folks, but boom, here we are. First, happy 64th birthday, because of course, when I’m 64 is that fantastic Beatles song written by Paul McCartney that everybody who ever turns 64 has to pay attention to that one. But here’s the birthday connection. Okay.
[7:28] Why do I have birthday cake sitting here? I guess you could say, well, because you wanted to show it to Rich and it’s a prop, but not true. My son just celebrated a birthday this weekend. And so we had a big birthday cake. And the one thing I’ve learned is that you can buy a giant birthday cake for a party and half the people go, I don’t eat birthday cake, right? You know, because people are all on their diets or whatever, they’re not. So I had some leftover birthday cake, which I do eat. So I’ve had a couple of these pieces. But what’s interesting about it, on the day of my son’s birthday, with no warning, no notice, no nothing, 200 goats were delivered to the hill outside our house, outside the fence of our house for everyone to watch.
[8:14] And we should be looking at some of those images now. And you can see these are like, it’s sort of like goats marauding across the hill. And they’re there as part of brush clearance. But what was so great is they get delivered to this birthday party and everybody is oohing and aahing, sort of like they think it’s the equivalent of, instead of Bryce getting a pony, he’s gotten 200 goats. And it was the greatest thing. It’s just so great because it’s so environmentally helpful. Are we gonna show this or did we already? I don’t know. We are looking at it right now as you were talking to me. So pretty amazing, right? Yeah. So it was interesting to talk about the real goat,
[8:54] the greatest of all time for that. I had one other weird thought though, Rich, while I was watching these goats, and I just want to run it past you. I think once you start doing what the two of us do, you sort of fall into that thing where it’s like you try to just have a good time most of the time, but sometimes these thoughts about UFOs and UAP and aliens and NHI just won’t leave your head. So I’m watching these goats, right? And I should just be enjoying the birthday goats helping to save my house from brush fire season. But instead, there are 200 goats. There’s one goat herding dog and one man who is the goat herder
[9:37] who put the 200 goats on my hill. And I start thinking, those are three very different species, but they’re all working cooperatively together and isn’t that lovely and nice? But then I thought also, what if we’re the goats? What if there is an NHI that is as far advanced from us as we might be from goats intellectually, and yet the goats are still doing a nice job. It’s good that the goats and the humans are working together. I mean, one of the ontological shocking things about disclosure may very well be our realization that we’re the goats and not goats as greatest of all time, but goats as just like, we’re the goats that clear the brush. I mean, weird thought.
[10:25] Your thought was a lot more profound than mine. Well, sure. My thought was, I was thinking, well, you got 200 goats out there, so it’s gotta be, is there a greatest goat? So that would be the goat goat. And then there is their greatest goat herding dog. You see, he’s a goat dog. And then you got the greatest goat herder, the goat goat herder. That’s how my bizarre mind went. But your thought was far more profound. I’ll just say this. I was just thinking about this. There was a Soviet USO thing from many, many years ago. And I think Soviet submarine commander or someone made this remark. He said, yeah, I think these aliens that are in the water, they look at us the way that we look at the fish in the sea,
[11:13] which is very similar to what you’re kind of suggesting here. I tend to think that you’re probably right about it in that speculation. I think that they can recognize that we have a couple of things in common with them, which is the ability to do some level of mathematics. And we have some science. We have, in other words, abstract thinking, symbolic thought, which I have to assume that they must have that. We have a society that can communicate now, especially large amounts of digital information to a fairly large bandwidth, but I have to assume their bandwidth is vastly greater. So I think it’s probably orders of magnitude that we’re, like, if you think of it this way, wherever they come from, if it’s another planet, if it’s another dimension, whatever that would even mean, they have to have mastered what we would call space-time metric engineering or something like that, which means that they can manipulate space
[12:17] and presumably time. And if they can do that, then their science is doing things that we, I don’t think we really can conceive of at the moment. Maybe we can conceive of it, but we can’t engineer it. So they’re well beyond us. And it is fascinating, though, because again, the mistake, when I run across people quite often, when they start saying aliens, what they really mean is there’s, if they’re willing to admit anything, there might be an alien visitation going on, but they’re thinking one. What if it’s not one? It’s something we’ve talked about on this show. But at the same time, that’s sort of what was going on in the hill. You had a dog, you had goats, and the dog worked for the human who was,
[13:05] and then there were the goats who were doing the work. And then there were even humans outside of the goat-herding human who had a different job. And we were just looking like we were looking at animals in a zoo. I just, anyway, it just reminded me, and not to make too fine a point of it, but at some point, hopefully in our lifetimes, Rich, there’s gonna be some clarity about the specificity of what might be going on. And it’s apt to have layers to it like that, that we don’t even, we’re not even conscious of right now. And I can’t wait. I mean, that’ll be very interesting, for sure. One last thing, I know, because we have a main topic,
[13:45] but I’m sure we don’t wanna get into it. But sometimes you hear skeptics say things like, well, you know, these UFO researchers, they don’t have an interest in solving the mystery because then they’re out of a job. And you hear this all the time. And it’s crazy. You hear it enough. And it’s like, it’s so stupid. It’s stupid because even if we were to have disclosure tomorrow morning, does anyone honestly think that’s gonna like, what, solve the mystery? No. Like, not even close. Like, there are aspects to this phenomenon that no amount of government disclosure is likely to resolve. So I think this is a genuinely profound subject
[14:30] that we are into here, this UFO, UAP, whatever you call it. And, you know, let’s just not forget, like, it involves an intelligence that does not appear to be from humanity, for one, that is operating worldwide. There is no part of the world where they don’t operate, it seems to me, on a level of precision and capability. And let’s just add confidence that is really quite remarkable with very specific patterns of behavior and with what is clearly, at least as far as I can tell, an agenda that’s very important to them. Yeah. Like, that’s all profound stuff. A couple of interesting things. Let’s just catch up since last we got here, since, as we pointed out, we’re making up, hopefully, in quality
[15:26] what we don’t do in quantity. But like, in the last month, since I last saw you on our show, I had a chance to be on a couple of our friends of the show’s podcast, The Y-Files with A.J. Gentile and American Alchemy with Jesse Michaels. And the reason I was on those is because of Disclosure Day coming out, the Spielberg film. And we had talked about it before it came out. Yeah, we have not had this conversation. And what I thought was interesting, because I did see your video the other day, and you thought you’d hate it, but you didn’t. I thought I’d love it, but I didn’t. So maybe we’ve met somewhat, well, actually, no, you did love it. You said you were won over.
[16:08] Ah, love is a little too strong a word. But I did not hate it. And I did, I mean, despite myself, I found myself kind of liking it. I’m not gonna lie. And you know, the funny thing was, I like to watch all of these YouTube movie critics. I enjoy them. Some of them are really funny. So one guy, I think his channel is NerdRodic, he’s a UFO guy. And he said, in fact, I want to show you I’m a UFO guy. And he said, I’m a big follower of Jacques Vallée and Richard Dolan. And he had a picture of my book. So when I saw that, I’m thinking, oh, I really, I’m supposed to hate this movie now, because he hates it. But I went in there, and I did not hate it.
[16:51] I did not hate it. We could probably get in a lot of trouble just talking about the movie, because the one thing I’ve realized is it’s such a polarizing film. This is one of the more polarizing films I’ve ever been aware of, because there are a lot of people that love it. I turned to Jesse, I saw the film in an IMAX with Jesse Michaels, and when it was over, I turned to him and said, so what’s your take? And without missing a beat, Rich, he goes, I loved it. Okay, so unapologetic loving it, whereas there are other people that go, I hated it. You said a couple of things in your, it wasn’t actually a review. It was more just kind of a reaction, right? But what you said that I thought was so intriguing, it has nothing to do with UFOs except modern society, you said you felt like going to the theater is not something you do all the time, and it felt like going in was like going into an abandoned shopping mall. And I thought that was, so was the theater,
[17:46] how many people were in the theater? What was that experience like? A movie? Less than 10. Oh, wow. It was almost empty. That was during the week. It wasn’t like a major movie time. But man, it was depressing as hell. And it’s like, no people, everything’s automated now. It’s like, shit, man, I gotta get on you. You buy your ticket on the phone. You gotta do all that crap. I hadn’t gone to a movie theater in a little while. Tracy, thank goodness, she had her game on. So we got our tickets, and it’s like walking through an abandoned, yeah, like an abandoned shopping mall. So, and then the three previews,
[18:26] because I bitch about everything. I am a crusty, cantankerous person at this point. I’m gonna admit it. So I saw the trailer for Dune III, and I made a real big mistake. So I did not like the trailer for Dune III. And I said this, because everyone does this fake whisper, you know? Right. Talk like this, because that’s what sounds good in a movie. It’s like everyone in the stupid trailer is talking like that. I’m like, oh, for God’s sake, I’m out. So I said this, and all the Dune people are like, don’t leave Dune alone, man. So I left Dune alone. I’m like, okay, I actually am not a fan of Dune.
[19:05] Tracy loves Dune. So we have, this is our disagreement. I’m not a Dune guy, whatever. Then I saw the trailer for Spider-Man III, was it? No, they’re still making these? Are we like, can we be done with these stupid superhero movies? Can we finally please put a bullet in these things, and be done with them? I can’t handle it anymore. The answer is, of course, no, we cannot be done. And there’s an alien superhero movie out right now, Supergirl, that’s not doing too well. But remember, she is an alien, like Superman came from Krypton. Oh, yeah, so we have to like it. No, we don’t. But the one thing, another thing you said, because, and I thought this was so insightful,
[19:49] because, you know, I’m a screenwriter. That’s my gig, and I’ve made a living doing it. I think about what works, what doesn’t work, the writing process, all of this. And the one thing that you said that really rang true, you said, if you wanted to deconstruct any individual scene, you realized they were either difficult to believe, very difficult to believe, or impossible to believe. Now, I found that fascinating, because yet the total experience for you was I liked it, which goes to prove that the believability factor is not necessarily what makes a movie good, bad, or indifferent. It appealed to you on a far different level, Rich, than just what’s the sense here. Yeah, first of all,
[20:37] this is my old snobby English lit major coming out here. So, because I was that too. I did history, and I did English literature. We all think we know better than everyone else, like plot construction, character development, and all of that. I drive my wife perennially crazy, because I’m always nitpicking. The thing that really I hate in movies is when I cannot believe in the psychological realism of a character. Like, I must have, for me to enjoy a movie, I’ve got to be able to believe the character is somewhat believable. And when they’re not, like when they’re doing the checklist things that they often do, or when they have to force fit someone into a character that’s just not credible,
[21:22] I’m just like, I’m out. I have nothing to do with that. And I honestly do believe overall, and this is not a criticism of any specific person, including yourself, but I do think Hollywood increasingly has lost the thread here, and they do not create psychologically credible characters generally. But on this one, with this movie, I thought, you know, crazy to say this, but I thought that the characters were at least psychologically plausible. Yeah. Hey, listen, you’re a good friend and have been a good friend for years. So I have to stand up for my writing brothers and sisters. I’m a member of the Writers Guild of America. There’s many thousands of us.
[22:05] And I just want to point one thing out. I’m not saying you’re wrong, particularly on the blockbuster films, which have to be, like, I’m not proud of it, but I wrote Mortal Kombat Annihilation. And it is not gonna, it’s not a character study of anything. And it’s one of the worst reviewed films in the history of cinema. However, that’s because it was based on a franchise. Somebody said, we want you to write this thing, but don’t change anything and blah, blah, blah. So I do think when you say that Hollywood’s incapable of creating psychologically real characters, and that we’ve lost touch with real human beings, part of that is the executive commercial function of Hollywood where it’s so difficult to make money in today’s environment with streaming and everything that if you’re gonna get something in a theater,
[23:01] it better move people out of their homes into their seats. And so what happens is in the studio system, people study this to death. And in a way that most writers that I’m aware of, myself included, just hate. I don’t want you studying something to death, telling me the way that my film has to be before I’ve even thought about it. And I would just guarantee you this, if there’s, I don’t know how many members of the Writers Guild there are, but like it’s 12,000 or something like that. All of those writers, every single one of them, Rich, has at least one and probably five what we call trunk scripts, which is the script that they haven’t been able to sell that’s in their trunk someplace
[23:40] that’s full of all these rich, wonderful characters. And the problem is they haven’t been able to sell it in a blockbuster economy. But I would also say one other thing in their defense, which is if you’re only exposing yourself, folks, to the sort of the blockbuster stuff out of Hollywood, you’re gonna feel exactly as you do, Rich. But if you go to some of the streamers, Netflix and Amazon and Hulu and- There’s some good material out there. Well, yeah, there’s also a bunch of shitty material. Think of it this way. There is a spectrum of material. And on one side of the spectrum are the people who are saying,
[24:18] how can we pay our bills and keep the lights on? So we gotta give people something that has all the right keywords in it and has the right formula. But then, here’s the thing. There is so much material out right now that anymore you don’t have to watch bad material. You can literally just say, I’m just gonna find the things that seem promising to me and watch those. And that’s good. I think that’s- When I run out of stuff, I’ll probably re-cue Breaking Bad and then Ozark. And I mean, I love those shows. I can always dust off Godfather. And remember, Rich, back when you and I were young, and now I can say this because you’re 64, but back when you were a younger guy, you were watching TV probably with your parents
[25:01] in a three-network environment, right? And so what happened when people were watching things back then, their choices were go to the theaters, but people have always had a hard time going to theaters. It involves money and cars and babysitters and all that stuff. So they would sit at home, and what would your family do and my family do? We would watch the least objectionable programming. So you got three choices. You watch the one that sucks the least, and that’s what TV used to be. Now TV is the opposite. It’s this gigantic smorgasbord where you can’t even figure out. My wife, and I’m sure you and Tracy do this, Jackie and I will be zapping around on TV going,
[25:43] does that look good? I don’t know, keep going. And we could go an hour looking at trailers and still, and at the end of it go, I don’t know, let’s just go to bed, right? Same here. It’s crazy. My wife, growing up, we went from Sanford and Son to Love Boat to John Wayne reruns. So basically, yes. Okay, one other thing that happened in the last month besides you and me seeing disclosure date of varying degrees. And by the way, I didn’t hate all aspects of disclosure date by any means. I just, there were some issues. It’s a long car chase, that kind of thing. You’ve heard all the things, but whatever. I’ll just say this. Our hopes, everyone’s angry all the time. I’m like, what has happened?
[26:26] Everyone’s mad about everything. Everyone’s mad about the White House UFO releases because they expect disclosure. Everyone’s mad at the disclosure movie, at least if you’re a UFO person, you hated it because, if you did, because it didn’t fulfill, sorry, but like your utopian, I would also say naive expectations of what might’ve been expected out of this film. So, and then people, they get their hopes built up, and then of course it’s not gonna fulfill the expectation. You know, since we were in the theaters ourselves, something has happened that you actually should comment on right now. This thing called the Disclosure Forum happened, and you’re one of the few people on the entire planet that watched all of it, because by my take, it was about seven hours worth of stuff. Seven and a half?
[27:15] I probably watched five hours of it. I’ve watched enough. Okay, good for you. I had it on, look, I’m cleaning up, I’m listening, I’m doing things, but it was on, and I heard it, yes. I thought it was actually- Tell the audience, though, what was the Disclosure Forum first? What was it? The one thing it was, was long. So it was, like I said, seven and a half hours. This is in Washington, D.C. at one of the Russell- The Russell Senate Office. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, like, there were no revelations. No, there were really no revelations. But what I thought was, the thing that struck me is that you’re seeing, if you believe in disclosure, this is a process, not an event. That is the one thing I would just say.
[28:05] Like, disclosure is a process more than an event. And I realized that this is now, it’s becoming institutionalized in a way. You’ve got members of Congress there. You’ve got people in the scientific community there. You’ve got some political activists that were there, some journalists that were there. Very different from, like, a classic UFO conference. You know, it was a very different kind of a thing. This was a Washington policy conference around a UFO issue. And so, I think that was kind of interesting because this could never have happened even 10 years ago. Kind of a minor miracle that it happened. Now, I’ve heard people criticize it because they thought it was far too conservative, which, yes, you can criticize it for that, but you gotta keep in mind, like, these people,
[29:03] they’re not coming in to blow up the room. Like, they are government or ex-government people. They believe in the system. They believe in the establishment, as far as I can tell. I’m sure that my politics are very different from the politics of many of those people there. But the fact is, I think they’re going as far as they feel that they can go in talking about the reality of this phenomenon, which is what they were doing. I heard guys like Christopher Mellon, he’s saying, like, there is very important data that is locked behind layers and layers of classification within Air Force and CIA. And he mentioned the Department of Energy. I’m like, yes, right on. No one really talks about that enough. So, he and others, just so I’d like,
[29:53] said there’s ongoing military encounters. This has not stopped. There’s sensor data that’s missing. Where is it? Mellon has been talking about this for quite a few years, actually, particularly, as I recall, in relation to the Air Force. So, I guess all I’m saying is that there were important points that were made. It was easy to lose sight of them in the space of kind of sometimes a boring-sounding seven-plus-hour public event in D.C. I mean, that’s going to happen. They talked a lot about whistleblower protection as well, as I recall, and I think that’s, if you’re gonna do one thing for disclosure, I would think whistleblower protection would probably be the most important thing you wanna do,
[30:35] and I think it’s right to push that. So, you know, I mean, it was fine. It was good. I’m glad they did it. How much will come out of it? Honestly, there was almost no, I didn’t see almost any significant media coverage of this thing. I don’t know, did I miss it? Absolutely, although I just wanted to say one thing. I’m a big fan of Christopher Mellon because he can be a little dry because he’s burrowing in on this policy stuff, which is so important, and just to give you an example, I got a call last week from Dr. Phil’s people asking if I would be on a show with Christopher Mellon with Dr. Phil because I believe they think with Christopher Mellon, they have the stake,
[31:19] and with me, they’re looking for a sizzle or something. I don’t know what they’re looking for, but they’re trying to, which I think, I took as a really positive thing. In other words, they are willing to listen to the policy. Now, you listen, I don’t even get into Dr. Phil positives or negatives, but it is kind of interesting that Mellon is accepted in the mainstream, and he’s a very calm, discerning voice about the political- Is Dr. Phil’s show truly mainstream any longer? I mean, I don’t know where- No, it’s not, no, it’s not. So, I withdraw the characterization of Dr. Phil as mainstream, he was.
[31:57] Still, he’s got a large following still. I was on his show once before with Lou Elizondo, so I keep getting paired with these guys, I don’t know why. Anyway, I watched your YouTube, and I just want to put this out there, and you made it something because you told me it’s your birthday, so now I have to say this. I’m reading, I watched your YouTube, and then I started reading the comments because I thought, well, it’d be interesting to see what people have to say about what Rich is laying down about the disclosure forum. And the one that really stood out to me was a guy just made this very, very simple statement. He said, quote, “‘The problem with doing disclosure so slowly is we’re wasting time, and I don’t have any more time.‘”
[32:42] And I thought, I can relate to that because people have said that historically. Going back to the goat of ufology, Alan Hynek felt that way, right? Why won’t they tell me even now some of his last words? And Stanton Friedman, I was adapting a movie about his life, and he was like, well, can you hurry up and get it made because I’d really like to go see it, right? Things don’t move fast enough. And the thing is, I understand the cautionary note, like, hey, this is gonna take a while, and I certainly understand that, right? But I also understand the inflammation it brings to people to have to hear that because they’re going, for crying out loud, guys,
[33:27] just give us a simple confirmation. Just say, yeah, it’s real, and the rest of it’s classified, so we’ll get back to you, or something. But the needle, we have these events like the disclosure forum, and I think there’s something else going on right now. Dr. Avi Loeb just was chosen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to lead this new organization, and I’m just like- Advisory group, yeah. Yeah, what’s gonna come of all this stuff, and what does it take to sort of kickstart it? I think that’s the frustration people feel. Yeah, I hear you, but I mean, there’s a lot of ways I could respond to that. I guess, look, I, like you, probably like almost everyone listening, I’m gonna assume,
[34:17] think that we’re better served by having honesty about this subject out there, a recognition of the reality that there’s non-human intelligence operating these craft. And maybe that’ll happen, but I’ve always felt like you can’t, I think we talked about this when we wrote our book years ago. It’s like, how do you tell someone, I’m a little bit pregnant? You really can’t, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. So you’re gonna have a disclosure, and it sounds great for a government to be able to say, yes, this is real, the rest is classified, sorry, you’re out of luck. I doubt that that’s gonna work.
[34:58] I just don’t think that that would be easily attainable. And so, I think there would be a tremendous amount of pressure to reveal more and more and more information, and that may not even be bad as well, however, even under the best of circumstances, like we have to just recognize, okay, for our own intellectual honesty, that disclosure is gonna be highly disruptive if it’s actually a full and true disclosure. And none of us really know how deep and how profound that transformation will be or how disruptive it would be. For example, weapons, okay? Like, that’s one thing. So, like, if any of, like, if the government were to say, okay, aliens are here, so that doesn’t mean that they’re giving up any technology, but it may not be difficult for people to infer certain things, that certain types of weapons are possible, and it might not be difficult for some of this stuff to leak out
[35:58] if someone knows how to get it. So, like, stuff will come out, and I don’t know. I mean, we pretty much have a good idea that you’ve got various nations probably in a secret weaponization of some of this tech, whether it’s America, Russia, China, who knows who else. So, there’s a possibility, to be fair. Stanton Friedman used to talk to me about this. This is why Stanton, for all of his prominence in this field, I don’t really feel that you could say he was a true disclosure advocate, because every time that I talked to him about this years ago, he would always bring up the fact that we engage in tribal warfare all the time, and we would probably weaponize the technology,
[36:45] and it’s probably not a good idea. That was Stanton’s opinion. So, you could agree or not with it, but it’s not a completely illegitimate point of view. And then there’s just other disruptions. We can go on and on about this. Yeah, you’ve actually segued into our next segment, and I would only put this out there. You and I have been having this conversation for 16 years now, and we’ll probably have it another 16 years, knock on wood, right? And I look forward to that. But, and again, the one thing that you can always say, though, is it kind of depends on what’s disclosed. If you actually disclose, yes, they came during Roswell, and they’re gone, and all this other stuff is nonsense, well, or our stuff, then I guess you could maybe, that might not be as terrifying as they’re here now,
[37:33] and there’s lots of them. But anyway, I want to shift gears for a second, because there’s something that I haven’t talked about on this show yet in detail. You and I have just skirted around the issue a couple of times, and it’s this. I told you I did those two podcasts, and on the Jesse Michaels American Alchemy, toward the end of his show, he just out and says, well, what went down with you and Colthard? And I realized, Rich, that if it’s our anniversary of doing this thing, it’s also a year since Ross, on his last show, for need to know, came up with a pretty shocking revelation in the final part of that show. And I’ve been sitting with this for a while, to be honest with you, about like,
[38:18] well, how do I handle this? I don’t want to be, you know, I don’t want to be mean, and I’m not looking to pick. fight or anything like that. But I do think that what Ross brought up in that last episode was shocking and then has been largely ignored. So let’s play this clip of what he said on his last Need to Know, which was again about a year ago, I think July 2nd of 2025 is when he said this. So let’s just take a look and then we’ll dissect. I’m going to leave you with one thought today, Bryce. I now know categorically that the Tic-Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. The Tic-Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Why are we being lied to?
[39:06] Wow. So I want to pick your brain about that, but first I want to put a little context in. He didn’t tell me he was going to say that, obviously. And that’s what took me by surprise and what I ended up admitting to Jesse Michaels. So I feel like if I’m going to say this to Jesse Michaels, I have to at least say it to you and to our audience, which is I didn’t know that it was coming when it was over because it came at the end of the show and he really didn’t offer any examples or anything. I said, you know, Ross, you’re a big believer in journalistic rigor. We’ve got to get another show going right now and you’ve got to let me interview you about why you would say this and all that. And he declined. He declined. And I asked him last week to come on this show with you and me and he declined. Okay. He has every right to decline. He doesn’t need to be on a show with the two of us. That’s fine. He can make his own decisions about
[40:00] that. But the one thing that he did say to me last week that I found very intriguing, because I noticed during the entire show, you know, you can see us in split screen right now. Right. And so when one of us is talking, the other is often looking at the screen. But what was going on between me and Ross during most of the show, he was doing this. He was looking off screen at a second screen. So when he finally turns and says, I can now say I know categorically that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology, I always went like, why did he wait till then to say it? And why did he say it not once, but twice? So I said, Ross, at least if you’re not going to
[40:43] go on the show, at least tell me, were you waiting for someone to give you the go ahead to say that? And he said, yes, he was. I said, who was that? He said, I’m not going to tell you. So so there we are. So that’s the thing now just to set this up, because then I do want to I want to dive into this with you and sort of dissect it, not as a Ross Coulthard thing and not Ross versus Bryce, but just like Tic Tac being NHI versus man-made technology. I mean, he then softened his position the very next day and he did it on his own. He had another podcast at the time that he still does now called Reality Check. And I’d like everyone just to listen to
[41:29] that and this will set it all up and then we can chew it over. So let’s play that clip right now. You see, one of the other things I want to clarify here as well is there are NHI Tic Tacs. A lot of people seem to be thinking that I’m suggesting that all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. That’s not the case at all. I have to confess, I don’t necessarily buy that walkback because I mean, hearing him say, I now know categorically that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology implies to me pretty strongly they made it or they were behind it. And in the thing he said afterwards, it was like it was psionically controlled and maybe NHI technology. So okay, there’s the table, my friend. It’s been set. Let’s hear your analysis. What’s going on?
[42:21] I think the key thing here is to separate, there’s several different possible claims that are collapsed into that one sentence, all right? Saying that Lockheed is involved in exotic aerospace research, that’s one thing that’s historically very easy to accept. Saying that Lockheed may have been involved in studying non-recovered human tech, that would be a stronger claim, but there’s a long history of testimony pointing in that direction also. No shocker. Saying that Lockheed has achieved breakthrough propulsion is stronger still. And then he comes to this categorical part of it, which did imply and does imply to this day that the 2004 Nimitz Tic Tac, saying that that’s Lockheed Martin technology, that’s a very specific claim.
[43:15] And that would require a massive amount of evidence that we do not yet have. We would need, and there’s no logic to that as well. You really would have to ask a lot of questions. If someone signed, who’s the person who signed off on having two weeks of operation of these multiple anomalous craft? By the way, let’s keep in mind, you have Kevin Day’s testimony and other people saying that for two weeks prior to the encounter with Fravor and Alex Dietrich, that you had multiple cases of these multiple objects loitering over military exercises of the Nimitz carrier group in the Pacific. So, is that Lockheed Martin? To say
[44:05] in public that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology, it strongly implies that that is what you mean. That is, I have to just say, highly irresponsible and almost certainly, in my mind, untrue. It can’t be true. I shouldn’t say it can’t be true, but I’m just going to say, in my mind, it can’t be true because it’s not just the Nimitz Tic Tac. We’re dealing with an entire history of these interactions that these objects have had with U.S. Navy pilots. You have Ryan Graves talking about 10 years later, in 2014, on the East Coast, objects for months and months at a time, interrupting and disrupting and becoming a safety hazard for U.S. Navy operations on the East Coast there. Now, those are not described as Tic Tac shaped objects, but I just have to say,
[45:02] what Tic Tac are we talking about here, man? Did Lockheed build it? Does Lockheed operate this? Does Lockheed manage the program? Did they reverse engineer the propulsion? Did they receive recovered tech from years ago and then develop their own version? Or is it even looser than that? Does it mean that just Lockheed understands the technology better than anyone else? There’s a lot of ways you can go here. They have very different implications. Until that’s clarified, I think people are going to be arguing about different things without even realizing it. There is a serious historical reason why Lockheed always comes up in this conversation. That’s not random. I’m going to stop here and let you jump in, but they have a long history of probable interaction with UFO tangential things, right down to Kelly Johnson
[45:59] and Ben Rich, both of whom we know for a fact were deeply interested in the UFO phenomenon. There’s a lot there, but to say categorically… One more thing I just want to say here. No, please. I do think there’s probably a tie-in here with the claim, which I personally believe, that probably around 2008-2009, I’m guessing, Robert Bigelow attempted to acquire Lockheed’s legacy UFO tech. No one said tic-tac there, but it’s not impossible that something like that. The Bigelow Aerospace, really through the OSAP program, it seems to me, is probably why OSAP was created. Bigelow tried to get this transferred to his possession. There were people within Lockheed, apparently, who were okay with it, and it was stopped not once but twice by a senior CIA officer by the name of Glenn Gaffney. That claim has been out there for several years. As I say, I believe that it’s probably true. That may be related to this, as well, for all I know. There’s a lot to dig into here. I’m not going to say Ross is completely
[47:10] wrong here, although he should not have sprung that on you. Sorry. I don’t see any excuse for that. Well, I appreciate you even saying that. At this point, it’s immaterial to the discussion of whether they’re man-made or not. I move on. I would say this, just like you. Ross is a fine guy. I enjoyed my association with him. I learned a lot. I worked with him for three years. It was just a fine thing. I have to say, in trying to research this, Rich, I found that this whole idea that the TIC-TAC was Lockheed Martin technology or even psionically controlled by God knows who working for Lockheed and what craft would that be, it seems to have disappeared a little bit. You would think when this happened a year ago that this would have sent ramifications of people wanting to follow this up. I haven’t seen real hard evidence of that. I would welcome, by the way, Ross onto this show anytime. I would love a three-way conversation where the three of
[48:17] us could kick it around and shed more light. I’m not interested in shedding heat. I’m interested in shedding light. It is obvious to me as well that if the TIC-TAC was man-made or operated by men and was something else, that would be almost as shocking as the NHI explanation because that would mean a technological evolutionary step that would probably change the world just by itself. Honestly, if it was operational Lockheed Martin technology, I keep thinking it would be used in Iran. If the Russians had similar, they would have used it in Ukraine. There’s just a lot of markers that don’t quite lay up. The one thing that I would say is that Nimitz case remains such an institutionally strong case among UAP cases. It has
[49:19] firsthand Navy testimony. It has radar visual confirmation. Even the Department of Defense and the Navy have clarified that it was a real event and those videos are authentic. At the end of it, there is a human factor to it as well. David Fravor, who I think has always come across as a pretty sober individual, a person who certainly knows his craft, which is flying jets, and seemed extraordinarily well-informed about what was possible and what wasn’t. To the best of my knowledge, Fravor has never given this sort of human, man-made thing any credence. He has always said, beyond any doubt, the stuff that I saw it doing could not
[50:12] have happened. I’m kind of at sea on a couple of things. Just the sheer possibility of it happening is disturbing, if that was the case, because that would mean sort of this blue-on-blue kind of stuff where we’re allowing to be flown near our people without telling them this stuff. At the same time, there’s a couple of things in Ross’s defense here. Not in his defense of springing this the way he did, but in his actual statement. Remember Senator Harry Reid? He made highly provocative statements about capabilities. He was told Lockheed had received materials, and then he had to walk it back. That’s what I’m thinking of. You have Eric Davis talking about legacy aerospace corporations. I don’t know if he mentioned Lockheed by name, but I think it’s a very obvious implication, and crash-retreat programs and things like that. But I think the strongest
[51:20] argument in favor of Ross’s claim, it’s not that he said it, it’s historical plausibility. If recovered technology entered the classified corporate world, Lockheed would have to be one of the most plausible places for it to go. It had the clearances, it had the facilities, had the talent, it had the culture of secrecy already by the 1950s and 60s, and it had a relationship with the Air Force and the intelligence community. It was embedded in all of that. If someone said a private aerospace contractor inherited the most sensitive technology in modern history, Lockheed would have to be at or near the top of that list. It doesn’t prove
[52:07] what Ross said, but it does mean the claim is not absurd on its face. Absolutely not. Now, the fact that he walked it back makes me think he was walking back specifically from the Nimitz case. That to me, because when he said, not every Tic Tac is Lockheed, I think that’s what he said, basically. It might seem to imply that the Nimitz case wasn’t Lockheed. Well, when I heard the reality check, though, version, Rich, I didn’t think he was walking it back. I thought he was walking it sideways, right? Because suddenly, it’s not like he’s denying what he said. He’s just saying, I think you guys may have gotten this wrong. I was saying, and that somebody, yeah. And remember, going back to the Nimitz case,
[53:00] wasn’t there that famous quote from one of them? It’s raining UFOs or something. Was that during Nimitz or was that another case? But the thing is, there were more than one sighting going on. This was going on for days, which would have meant, you know, a level of deceit. Yeah, two weeks of testing our Navy without their knowledge. Now, on the pro side of that, I’m sorry, go on. Yeah. Well, I was just going to say, on the pro side, isn’t there the story of the one of the Navy, is it a captain, admiral, I don’t know, whatever, but didn’t seem shocked. You know, when people are like, oh my God, it’s been flying around. And he seemed very sanguine about, yeah, I knew about that. So that would sort of imply they knew, but just, I just want to accept one of your statements, which is the pro-Lockheed is involved in this argument is plausible, but only in sort of the broadest historical sense, right? That, yeah, certainly Lockheed’s been up to its eyeballs and advancing technology in aviation, can’t deny that, but it
[54:10] lacks the evidence in a specific sense, right? Because clearly Lockheed Skunkworts has had a real record of secret aerospace breakthroughs. You mentioned, you were talking about that, and certainly they’ve been listed as a government contractor of merit in this area. And nobody was surprised to hear their name brought about by any of this. But the argument against the claim, I think, comes down to there’s no public document or program name or budget line or flight test record or chain of command or engineering data or a firsthand Lockheed Martin source. And that’s where I actually wanted Ross to sort of address those issues. It’s a great statement. You know, I was actually, in retrospect, looking, going, well, that’ll open up a dialogue for sure, but it really didn’t. And those are the, those things that I just mentioned are the ones that honestly have to be addressed. If for a claim that, you know, I hate to quote Carl Sagan, because I think he wasn’t completely honest about his own ideas about the reality of
[55:20] UFOs, but he is famous for saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is that evidence for this Lockheed thing? Other than I have a source who told me. Yeah. Look, I want to make everyone understand and Ross understand too. I respect Ross and I like Ross. You too. And I think he’s done important work. So I’m sure he knows that I think that. And I have no reason to assume he’s making things up here either with what he’s saying. But the public statement itself is really not useful in its present form when you really think about it. It’s way too categorical. It’s way too undefined. And it’s unsupported. He did not support it. So if he had said, how would we put this? If he had said like, I have sources telling me that Lockheed may have been involved in the technology behind the Tic-Tac, that would
[56:14] be one thing. But saying I know categorically that raises the bar a lot. And it has to be stated. Like when you say the Tic-Tac in a public manner, everyone’s going to be thinking about the Nimitz encounter, because that’s where the phrase was invented from the Nimitz encounter. That is what we all associated with. So when you say the Tic-Tac is Lockheed, people are going to think, oh, you’re saying the Nimitz encounter was Lockheed Tech. And that’s a huge thing to really state. And it seems to me not true. I mean, if it were true, you’d have to ask, like, who the hell authorized it? Was the Navy read in? Were the pilots unknowingly used as targets? Because Fravor certainly had been told about it. He was as surprised as anybody could be surprised. I’m sorry, who? Fravor. David Fravor. He certainly, you know, he’s out there encountering it. He doesn’t have any clue what it is. I mean, the problem against it, though,
[57:17] like you can say, well, maybe it was an accidental encounter with a black program, which doesn’t seem that because you have two weeks of interaction with the Nimitz carrier group. This was clearly intentional. And by the way, I’ll just say that behavior is exactly in line with decades and generations of UFO, UAP encounters with all kinds of military exercises. Going back to hell, 1952 Operation Main Brace in the North Sea, you had days and days of successive activity by unknown objects over NATO’s very first naval exercise in the North Sea. And unless these tic-tacs that Lockheed Martin is making are controlling our time traveling devices, that would be hard to hard to understand that in 1952, anything of that level of capability could be doing that. I mean, that’s just insane. I mean, we’re only seven years removed from World War Two
[58:18] at that point. We didn’t have we didn’t have that technology. Russia didn’t have it. China didn’t China barely had an air force by then. I mean, so now it just raises a lot of questions. I was just going to ask you, though, if we go back up and look at this on an even more generic level, aside from Lockheed Martin specifically, what would you say the arguments are or are not for this phenomenon being explainable in large part by manmade technology? Because that is something that people who are skeptics, whether they be like the Wall Street Journal, you know, or or skeptics on X or whatever, they tend to fall back on that saying,
[59:03] you guys just don’t get it. We have so much better technology than you think that we have. So when you see these things or hear these reports, they’re encountering us. They’re not encountering NHI. So I’m just kind of curious where you come down. I wonder about this frequently, of course, the biggest obstacle I run into. Well, there’s a couple. So, one, you’d have to throw out every single claim of every single person who stated that they saw a non-human entity. And that’s not the majority of UFO cases historically, but it’s enough of them to at least give you some pause. But the main objection I would have is the sheer quantity of these types of cases. I mean, we are talking about an infrastructure
[59:50] that if it were fully human based, I can’t even begin to imagine how massive it would have to be. You have sightings being recorded around the world in every part of this globe literally every day, literally every day. I’m not saying every one of those is a genuine alien crap, but I would encourage people to just look at the various databases that are available of raw reports. You start with the National UFO Reporting Center. It’s publicly available. MUFON has a very large database, too. Some people can get access to that. And there’s an enormous amount out there. There’s thousands and thousands of sightings every year. Most of them are not that exciting, but I would actually say,
[60:35] you know, people like to say 5% or less. I would go higher and say probably one out of 10 sightings that I read at random. Usually, I’ll just say, oh, wow, that’s interesting. I can’t say that’s proof of alien crap, but there are some interesting cases out there. And then for everyone that’s reported, you have to assume there are many that are not. Just anecdotally, when I talk to people about their sightings, most people never report it. They never report their sightings. So I think there’s a lot of activity out there worldwide. And it doesn’t strike me as plausible or credible that you have a totally human infrastructure responsible for this, and no one has a hint of where or what that infrastructure is. And by the way, as you point out, this isn’t pick on Ross moment. I’m just trying to understand the argument here. Are we saying that these,
[61:33] that, I mean, he seems to be saying and is saying in his follow-up answers that NHI craft, including Tic Tacs exist, but that somehow Lockheed Martin either has their minds running those things or has figured out how to mimic those things. So somehow in the game, how would we know that? I’m not even sure I understand how that would work, but are we to believe under that scenario that there are fleets of Tic Tacs out there, some of which are ours and some of which are theirs? Is that even credible? I mean, since the… You know, you have to ask what’s the mission of our own Tic Tacs if we have them, if they’re able
[62:21] to do the kinds of performance that say Fravor described, right? Instant acceleration essentially. You’d have to assume they’re not manned. How would they be manned? I mean, unless you’re creating, unless they’ve mastered space-time bubble around the craft in which you’re not subjected to the forces of gravity. I mean, in theory that could be possible, at least according to people way smarter than us who understand this in terms of physics. Like you can create a space-time bubble around your craft and then the incredible acceleration is not supposed to kill you. Okay, well, do we actually… Are we that far along that we figured this out? I’m doubtful, frankly. I’m doubtful. I don’t know. I don’t see… Look, I coined the phrase breakaway civilization. I’m on board with the concept that that’s possible, but you still have to ask what evidence do we have to go on that we have achieved, you know, what level can we say that is plausible? And I have a hard time with thinking that we have achieved genuine tic-tac level
[63:33] instant acceleration. And then you have to wonder what’s it for? You said, well, why not use it against Iran? That’s a fair question, right? If the Russians have it, why not use it in Ukraine? There are reasons to keep some of this technology secret. There are reasons, but still, you know, there might be reasons to use it, too. I don’t know. I have… I just think that… One other thing I just want to say about… There’s another issue here, and it’s uncomfortable. Like, a lot of the best UAP journalists and researchers are going to rely on intelligence sources. Like, that’s almost unavoidable, right? Like, those are the people near the information.
[64:15] You’re going to have to use them. But intelligence sources can also work you. Like, they can tell partial truths. They can steer. They can protect one program by revealing another. Like, all of that is possible. You can move attention from non-human tech to, I don’t know, foreign adversaries, if you want, or reverse from foreign adversaries and non-human technology. So, when someone says, my sources tell me this, like, I listen, but I also want to ask, who benefits if we believe this version? That doesn’t mean that the source is lying. I don’t know that the source is lying. It just means, you know, you want to think historically about motive and access and things like that. So… You know, Rich, my Dark Skies partner,
[65:06] Brent Friedman, and I have been doing this other podcast, Soundlight and Frequency, about the guys who said they were from the Office of Naval Intelligence who approached us back when we were doing that show. I only bring it up for this, which is, I’m pretty sure that that all happened. I mean, I visually saw people who came to my backyard and came to my office and talked to me and seemed to have a good patter down and said things that seemed plausible and all that. And yet at the end of the day, Brent and I, even with decades of ability to look back on it, say, well, it was clearly very real what happened, but that doesn’t mean that the things they told
[65:48] us were true. It only means that they had a narrative that they were, for whatever reason, somebody said, go out and push this narrative to these guys, which they did. But it doesn’t mean that the narrative they pushed, while it sounded very authentic, and I can’t deny that it was impressive to have somebody who spoke so authoritatively be saying some of the things… And plausibly, probably. Plausibly. But it doesn’t mean they were telling the truth. They could have been disinformation. It could have been half true, half not true. So I agree that this source thing is a devilment for the whole UAP research community because we have been held at arm’s length from the actual specifics of a lot of this for decades, eight decades almost. And so as a consequence, somebody else separate from us, whether it’s your breakaway civilization or just
[66:46] cutouts within the government and private enterprise, has been working on this thing. And there are people who obviously do have things that they may be able to say about it, but they are working for other people who control what they say and who they say it to. So the whole thing kind of gets back to where you and I were going round and round about disclosure when we wrote our book, which is, what is a trustworthy source in this thing? A trustworthy source to most people, if you read the internet, is like, well, show me. Show me the saucers. Show me the aliens. Well, that would be one way to do it. They wheel out a granddaddy alien on disclosure day. But I would argue, Rich, if what Spielberg postulated, and sorry about the spoiler, but I think most people that wanted to see the movie have seen it. But if that happened today, I’m not sure people would say, oh, well, that proves it. Don’t you think a lot of people would be like, wait a second, that doesn’t ring true to me. So I don’t know. It’s a larger question. I think that’s what’s interesting
[67:55] about this. Ross is a strong investigative reporter who has a very credible record. And he’s excellent at cultivating sources, protecting his sources. He gets new sources because he’s strong enough to protect them against the people who demand he tell them who they are. Right. So you’ve got to give him credit for that. But that doesn’t mean that we’re any closer to being able to say, well, I just have to take your word for it. You can’t take anybody’s word for anything. Can’t take my word or your word. You can’t take anybody’s word because you don’t know that the people who do know more than we do aren’t sharing their work and never have. And that’s the problem. Yeah. So I take all of your points there. A couple of things. Didn’t wasn’t there was a China angle with with what he was saying on this. I think it wasn’t his larger argument that the United States has has made electrographic breakthroughs, but that China may have similar tech and that, in fact, talking about the drone incursions that that show that
[69:01] the U.S. may no longer have the advantage. In fact, one of the strange things about that episode for me was and for people who viewed it was the discussion about Chinese drones that occurred on a 60 minutes piece. OK. And normally, you know, Ross is a very facile person. I mean, I mean that in a complimentary way. He knows as a broadcaster. OK. I made that point. Move on. But he actually had to make that point two or three times in that show because he was waiting for something which came with the go ahead on that statement about the tic tac. And I don’t know what that means for for China and drones or whatever. But it it is clear that the the part of this puzzle that has yet to be answered is also China. Ross, I believe now thinks, as many people do, that there is a it’s if you wouldn’t really call it a Cold War. Well, it might be a Cold War between Russia,
[70:04] China and the U.S. to reverse engineer stuff. And I don’t know where you come down on that. Do you feel that that’s an accurate description of where we stand? Yeah, except I would I would I look at Russia and China as now they’re very close allies. And I would almost go so far as to say that they have a very strong symbiotic relationship with each other. Didn’t have to be that way, but U.S. policy absolutely drove them together. I mean, utterly incompetent. That’s both parties, by the way. But so I think I don’t know where they would communicate on on the secret UAP tech. I don’t know. They certainly they collaborate on much, much more all the time because I think they see rightly that the United States has really got them in their sights and the U.S. trying to take them down. So I would say there’s definitely a Cold
[70:59] War in UAP tech between U.S. slash West versus Russia slash China. And there could very well be some internal competitions within the camps as well. I want to say this one thing about the Lockheed stuff. I guess the last thing I would probably want to say, I think I think Lockheed’s involvement in the classified UFO technology question is extremely plausible and very historically important. I also think the privatization of UFO secrecy is obviously one of the most important issues in the entire subject, the privatization of that. And I also say I think there may well have been an actual breakthrough of aerospace tech hidden inside that whole corporate classified world, including Lockheed. So all of that. But but I am not prepared to say that the 2004 Tic Tac was Lockheed tech. You’d have to provide some serious direct evidence for that. And that’s not skepticism for its own sake, in my view. This is just I want to keep I want to
[72:08] keep my information straight here and clear. Like, what exactly did Ross mean by Lockheed Martin technology? Like, was he saying Lockheed built it, operated it, developed parts of it? Was the Nimitz encounter a test? Was it an accident? Some kind of damage? What like what was what would that have been if he was implying that the Nimitz encounter was Lockheed tech? But he was very fuzzy on that. And that he really shouldn’t be fuzzy on this, honestly. Like if Ross, if we if we talk to him, he really ought to be a little more clear on the relationship of Lockheed has has Tic Tac tech and the Nimitz encounter. I would like to hear what he has to say about that. I would, too. By the way, I found this note while you were talking
[72:59] when we were talking about Disclosure Day. I remember your so-called again, it wasn’t a review. It was just a sort of impression. But one of the things you were explaining the plot and you said, and then these government agents are chasing them. And I was just going to say it’s actually not government agents. You know, this Rodex group is a cut out of private aerospace. And there was like one scene where one general was in there. So the coordination, but the whole idea is that there is this vast concentration of power that exists separate to the government. I think Spielberg probably got that one very right. Yes. Yes. And as we wrap this sucker up, the one thing I want to say is,
[73:49] for those of you who are watching and listening, let’s concentrate our minds on the larger issue. Where does man-made fit with NHI in what we’re currently undergoing versus, for example, 70, 60, 70, 80 years ago, where I think it’s pretty clear that most of those reports that historically you’ve been done such a great job of reporting, Rich, there aren’t good explanations for them that come from man-made for those. Now, there might be today. And I’d be curious what people’s thoughts are. And I know we’ve raised a lot of questions. So I just want to encourage people. There are comments under the YouTube that we do for this. But also, if you’re listening to it as a podcast, there are areas for comments. We do read the comments. And if you want to leave your thoughts about any of this, please do. We’ll read them. And if there’s anything that can add to this discussion,
[74:43] we’ll keep following it up because it isn’t just about our friend Ross or anybody else. It’s about the larger issue as we try to get toward the end. So, Rich, what a show. We started with birthday cake and goats. And we’ve ended up here. But it’s always a pleasure, my friend. Thank you. Thank you so much. Had a great time. I don’t know how much of a big fire we’re going to start with this one, but it’ll be interesting. I have two words for you, Rich, before we go. You ready? Yes. Happy birthday. Oh, hey, thank you. See you guys. Hey, you know what I’m doing tomorrow? No, I want to know. What? Trace is taking me to a batting cage. I’m going to hit some baseballs. God love you, man. That is a beautiful thing. Will you do me a favor and
[75:33] have her take a picture of you doing that? And we’ll put it in our next show. We shall see. Swing and a miss. I can hit them. Listen, that’s that’s an image I will take with me until we meet again. All right. That was great being on here. My greetings to everyone watching this program. And see you next time. Bye bye. Need to Know is produced by Bryce Sable and Tyler Stevens and is brought to you by Stellar Productions. You can learn more at need to know dot today. We appreciate you and hope you’ll spread the word. See you next time, because these days you really do need to know.