Great stuff man! Something interesting for me is he is clearly saying the Drones and UAP are 2 sperate issues. And first time I heard that they are "significant danger to the public". Completely opposite what John Kirby says.
The Ecosystemic Futures podcast had an episode titled, "Beyond Paradigms: Ultra-Advanced Technologies, Anomalous Phenomena, and the Future of Innovation" in which Puthoff and Graves are both guests. They give a great discussion on advanced physics and UAP, but the real bombshell is dropped at the 6:43 mark by one of the co-hosts, Larry Forsley, who states,
"Last November 3rd, there was a meeting held at the Senate by the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees looking at 3 topics: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or Lattice Confinement Fusion, extended electrodynamics, which is basically taking what we all love with Maxwell's equations and then correcting some pieces that seem to have been left out and then last, the role of UAP's. And the consideration for the meeting was that the power source that UAP use may very well be something like lattice confinement fusion and that the potential electro-gravitics as applied to propulsion - how they get around - so there is an overlap there. Subsequent to that meeting we had another one on December 8th and we submitted a proposal to explore this between NASA and the US Navy."
Might be worth a followup with the pols who were there...
I just heard Jeremy Corbell on the issue of who controlled the hearings—and who prevented firsthand witnesses from testifying—and he says he’s going to tell this story in the coming weeks. I’m looking forward to hearing what actually happened.
Partial answer: They’re not mutually exclusive at all.
Corbell has better sourcing than me here, I imagine (cause you’ve heard what I know from Congress, basically).
But Intel & Pentagon top brass maintain close relationships with party leaders (across the ideological spectrum, mind you) and chairs of powerful committees on Capitol Hill.
I’ve sensed their — whoever they are — presence since THEY FUCKIN GUTTED SCHUMER’S UAPDA. 2. Times. Now.
Someone who’s powerful, in the shadows and who really cares about the topic has yet to reveal themselves…
According to Corbell “they” were manipulating the hearing in real time, and Burchett was aware of it as it was happening. Not mutually exclusive at all. But in this case the strings were being pulled directly by the puppet masters, whoever they are. The Gatekeepers are powerful indeed. Immaculate Constellation was not, Corbell implied, a DOD USAP. So technically Susan Gough was “truthful” in her denial. Whose was it? The answer to that seems to be the key.
Yes, it could. I don’t know why I interpreted it to mean inside Congress, and I might be wrong. Matt was there and asking the question. He doubtless has a better sense of what was meant.
I agree with Matt here, they need not be mutually exclusive. If we’ve learned anything about the Control Group, it’s that they try to never do the dirty work themselves so as to maintain plausible deniability. “They” exert pressure on Comer or whoever, and he then pressures the UAP caucus to cancel the hearing, or uninvite the 1st hand whistleblowers.
Moskowitz seemed to be saying that the obstacles were “internal” (I read “internal” to mean Congress); but Jeremy says that the pressure came from “agencies” (without specifying yet whether that means DoD, IC, or DoE). I hope we find out soon.
Internal? Internal from Congress? Internal from the Pentagon? Internal from the Intel Agencies? Moskowitz purposely being vague. The suits have him worried.
Great stuff man! Something interesting for me is he is clearly saying the Drones and UAP are 2 sperate issues. And first time I heard that they are "significant danger to the public". Completely opposite what John Kirby says.
Still curious how they know anything...cause last time executive branch testified on drones, they were clueless!
Did you hear?
The Ecosystemic Futures podcast had an episode titled, "Beyond Paradigms: Ultra-Advanced Technologies, Anomalous Phenomena, and the Future of Innovation" in which Puthoff and Graves are both guests. They give a great discussion on advanced physics and UAP, but the real bombshell is dropped at the 6:43 mark by one of the co-hosts, Larry Forsley, who states,
"Last November 3rd, there was a meeting held at the Senate by the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees looking at 3 topics: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or Lattice Confinement Fusion, extended electrodynamics, which is basically taking what we all love with Maxwell's equations and then correcting some pieces that seem to have been left out and then last, the role of UAP's. And the consideration for the meeting was that the power source that UAP use may very well be something like lattice confinement fusion and that the potential electro-gravitics as applied to propulsion - how they get around - so there is an overlap there. Subsequent to that meeting we had another one on December 8th and we submitted a proposal to explore this between NASA and the US Navy."
Might be worth a followup with the pols who were there...
He still didn’t answer the question: who is pushing back? Where’s it coming from? What kind of resistance? Who controls the debate?
I just heard Jeremy Corbell on the issue of who controlled the hearings—and who prevented firsthand witnesses from testifying—and he says he’s going to tell this story in the coming weeks. I’m looking forward to hearing what actually happened.
You and I, both!
Partial answer: They’re not mutually exclusive at all.
Corbell has better sourcing than me here, I imagine (cause you’ve heard what I know from Congress, basically).
But Intel & Pentagon top brass maintain close relationships with party leaders (across the ideological spectrum, mind you) and chairs of powerful committees on Capitol Hill.
I’ve sensed their — whoever they are — presence since THEY FUCKIN GUTTED SCHUMER’S UAPDA. 2. Times. Now.
Someone who’s powerful, in the shadows and who really cares about the topic has yet to reveal themselves…
According to Corbell “they” were manipulating the hearing in real time, and Burchett was aware of it as it was happening. Not mutually exclusive at all. But in this case the strings were being pulled directly by the puppet masters, whoever they are. The Gatekeepers are powerful indeed. Immaculate Constellation was not, Corbell implied, a DOD USAP. So technically Susan Gough was “truthful” in her denial. Whose was it? The answer to that seems to be the key.
Yes, it could. I don’t know why I interpreted it to mean inside Congress, and I might be wrong. Matt was there and asking the question. He doubtless has a better sense of what was meant.
No doubt. Care to weigh in, Professor?
*can we tag each other here? Cause if not that’s a f’n flaw!
I'd say not
@matt Laslo
I agree with Matt here, they need not be mutually exclusive. If we’ve learned anything about the Control Group, it’s that they try to never do the dirty work themselves so as to maintain plausible deniability. “They” exert pressure on Comer or whoever, and he then pressures the UAP caucus to cancel the hearing, or uninvite the 1st hand whistleblowers.
Moskowitz seemed to be saying that the obstacles were “internal” (I read “internal” to mean Congress); but Jeremy says that the pressure came from “agencies” (without specifying yet whether that means DoD, IC, or DoE). I hope we find out soon.
Internal, in this case, could just mean within USG?
Internal? Internal from Congress? Internal from the Pentagon? Internal from the Intel Agencies? Moskowitz purposely being vague. The suits have him worried.