ad-free
Channel / Source:
Sirius Disclosure
Published: 2022-05-22
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmh28SA_rxM
Hello everybody, this is Dr. Stephen Greer. I wanted to give all of you an update on what's actually going on behind the scenes here of Washington right now after the congressional hearings on Tuesday. And there are quite a few things on PAC here and I'm here having a conversation with Blake Housenstice. Absolutely. Thanks for, you know, this is pretty intense. What's going on in Congress. We're
just going to go straight to some of the statements that were made. What people need to understand is that because of the people I'm working with here and DC, I can't talk in a specificity, but this is the first of many hearings. It's not de hearing. It's an introductory hearing. The other thing to remember is that following the public hearing that you have access to and
I have here a transcript of the whole thing, there was classified hearing. So you need to understand that in the public hearings, usually it's all pretty much bureaucratic speak and administrative nonsense. But I think let's take five steps back and look at what really happened on Tuesday. What really happened on Tuesday is the equivalent of a story I'm going to tell you that I think is
very insightful and shows how counterintelligence works. Some years ago in the 1990s, I was working with a gentleman at the NASA Ains Research Center and Dr. Richard Haynes and I gave him a number of cases and he eventually wrote a book called C-5. But he was a research scientist there and at that time shared a part of a building with the SETI project, search for extraterrestrial
intelligence, a Carl Sagan and other fame. And the top people were in the building with him. And he went up to them and Dr. Haynes said also to Frank Drake of the Drake formula who estimated how many intelligence civilizations there are in our galaxy. Drake formula is a calculation of that. And Dr. Haynes says, what would you do if I told you that the SETI project
is actually an operation, counterintelligence operation, to make people think that we're looking for something when you know we've already had them land on the earth. And that you're using radio telescopes to look for objects and civilizations that aren't using that antiquated 1800s technology. And this senior scientist turned to Dr. Haynes and said, well, Dick, I'd say that you're a very smart man. So what this hearing
was, and if you look at it in its totality rather than getting lost in the weeds, you come across with these this opening concept that the Pentagon has only collected 400 cases to investigate. Well, of course, there were several thousand cases and the project grudge and project blue book in the 50s and 60s. The idea that the people sitting there have zero historical knowledge of a
UFO phenomenon that's been going on for over 100 years since the late 1800s is not conceivably possible. So you have to begin to ask the bigger question of this, are they completely ignorant of the facts, which given that these are government bureaucrats as possible? Or are they doing basically what they did with the steady project? And so here we're starting from fresh. We really don't know
anything about this. And deliberately making it appear to Congress and the American people in the media that there's no pre-existing body of evidence that has been run to ground thoroughly over the last 70 years. Now, you don't have to go far to look at that. Anyone who can read, there's a 500 in some page book called Disclosure that are the edited transcripts of several dozen top
secret military personnel and government documents that we published in 2001 as 21 years ago. In advance of the National Press Conference Disclosure Project, there are other archives around the world, in private hands, but also in government hands that I'm aware of. I have people on my team who've been in classified vaults where there are literally hundreds of thousands of pages of documents on this, as well
as the reverse engineering of extraterrestrial vehicles, etc. Now these two witnesses, Brea and Maltry, they either are similar to Chris Mellon, either deliberately keeping themselves ignorance of the fact, a way of willful blindness, as call it, or they're lying. You only have two choices here. This was under oath. So if you're going to be called under oath, if you have that information, have access to even
a cursory review of existing material in the public domain, never mind in these classified compartmented operations that people on my team have seen and been in, then you can't have it both ways. You're either completely ignorant and a very poor researcher in which case you should not writ large be testifying as an authority figure in front of Congress. For number two, you are a part of
a deception. These are your only two choices. There aren't any other choices for people like Chris Mellon and these guys, because you either know and you're not telling the truth and withholding information, or you don't know, in which case that would make you the most poorly informed person ever to be tasked with researching a subject of any type in the government or elsewhere. So that's, let's
set the stage with that. The other thing to remember is that the real investigation that's going on is going on underneath those guys. What I mean by underneath is going on more quietly, sub-rosa is going on in a way where they have already confirmed and answered many of the questions posed in the hearing that these folks said they had no information on. That I know for
a personal fact, personal fact, correct. So this hearing is something people have to begin to really look at it from a, you know, this sort of big picture view of where does it fit. Now what I'm hoping and what I've been told by my sources, who are very high up in the intelligence community and what have you is that there'll be many others that this is
the beginning of a process. But with that said, anyone listening, that's why I'm doing this tonight, is you really cannot erode further confidence and faith and trust in the government of the United States by putting on something like what happened to Steve. It's erosive to public trust because anyone who, look, 750 million people have seen our documentary, Unacknowledged, which is chalk full of cases, military witnesses,
documents, evidence. That is, it's an hour and 42 minutes. Same thing with the above top secret. And the books we have, Unacknowledged and Disclosure, those four things alone would have answered almost all the questions asked in this hearing. And those are in the public domain and literally millions and millions of people have seen them. So what happens is when Congress holds a hearing like this and
it's someone, my team called it a dumpster fire. And it ends up being what you saw. And if you get the transcript, I recommend people get the transcript and read it. And we're going to go through it today. What happens is that my bigger concern is that it makes a laughing stock out of the government and its investigatory capabilities. When I know for a fact, there
are very, very, very good people who are doing investigation and who have hit paydirt. So I think that they better get all on the same page and stay out of the public eye until they're willing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And if you're under oath, you damn well better do that because you're brushing up against federal purgery risk, not
too. So that's, you know, some just introductory remarks I wanted to make. The other thing I wanted to point out is in the opening few seconds, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Carson, used the term national security threat and that terminology came up by my count of the transcript about eight times. Now the problem with that is that let's take another way step back. On the
1940s forward, this issue should have never underscored, been primarily led by military and intelligence folks. It should have been the scientific community, NASA, and other concerns entities because once it falls into the black pit of classified military intelligence and military operations, the more importantly, the old saying, if you're a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. So if you're a military and you're a mindset,
everything that happens out there, you don't understand, you're going to see it as a threat when it isn't. Now the other part of it is that there is a big threat, but they're presenting this national security threat as something from external. With the implication, it might be extraterrestrial or it might be another country or China. In reality, the people I'm working with have concluded as we
have over the last 30 years, since I first briefed the president, the CIA director, Clinton, the CIA director, that the national security threat is from the secrecy. Now go back and look at my books and also unacknowledged the documentary. It's on Amazon Prime and to be in YouTube and see it everywhere. For free, it has in their document signed by the first director of the CIA,
Admiral Rosco Helen Keeter. And a letter he wrote to the New York Times where he states the secrecy surrounding this issue is a threat to the national security. Now that was written, I believe, in 1961. All right. So we're talking 61 years ago, almost two thirds of a century. This is, this letter is not in dispute. So here we are starting as if we're beginning at
zero where they hit the reset button like they did with Project Blue Book and pretend like we're starting from scratch. And this is why we're assembling and we need everyone's help on this. Anyone listening to this serious researcher, we're putting together the largest archives on SSDs, I saw it stay hard drives. That will be used by these investigators who are sincerely trying to find the answers.
And then I am then personally querying them and handing them off to those people. So anyone out there who has documents, legitimate photos, video, testimony, whistleblowers, actual intelligence, they need to get that to us in the next two weeks because this train has really already left the station. And the reason that's important is that there has to be a extensive open source archive that both members
of the US government, such as members of Congress, the presidential staff, the National Security Council, the White Hats, the good guys that are in the Pentagon and CIA. They exist as well as the American public can access that would have everything that is legitimate. Now we are putting that together. It's a huge task to have a team right now flying around collecting a lot, but we
need more and you can't have too much. So that's a request at the very beginning. I think that this is a private government initiative to try to get the people who are responsible for overseeing the US government, read in, briefed properly. And quite clearly, you saw what happened at this hearing, the members of Congress learned virtually nothing, there were a few administrative and organization and bureaucratic
things discussed, but there was nothing of any substance whatsoever that was revealed. And that's ridiculous. And yet with all the hype and balihoo, that shouldn't ever happen because I think there are too many. The last polls that were done, 55 to 65% of the US population know that UFOs are real and believe that some are from extraterrestrial origin. So when you have a hearing like this
that's so widely watched, that undermines the faith and trust and credibility of the US government. I think it's very counterproductive for democracy. Well, since also that they were wanting to kill the messenger in regards to some of the private research groups like ourselves, yourselves trying to spread the word on this. And they were bringing up a really provocative statement that got my eyebrows kind of raised
when they were talking about if there's any ramifications legally that they could do to people that go against the narrative. Let's roll this clip real quick. Sure. Obviously, this topic of UAPs has attracted a lot of interest in people that are curious about this hearing today. As we talk about, I would say there's a lot of what I would call amateur interest groups that are involved
in the UAP field. My question is when there are unsubstantiated claims or manufactured claims of UAPs or kind of false information that's put out there, what are the consequences for people that are involved with that or groups that are involved with that? So one of the concerns that we have is that there are a lot of individuals and groups that are putting information out there that
could be considered to be somewhat self-serving. We're trying to do what's in the best interest of one, the Department of Defense, and then two, what's in the best interest of the public to ensure that we can put factual based information back into the mainstream and back into the bloodstream of the reporting media that we have. So people understand what's there. It's important because we are attempting,
as this hearing has drawn out, to understand one, what may just be natural phenomenon to what may be censor phenomenology or things that were happening with censors three, what may be legitimate counterintelligent threats to places that we have or bases or installations or security threats to our platforms. And anything that diverts us off of what we have with the resources that have been allocated to us,
send us off in the experienced cases and hunts that are just not helpful. And they also contribute to the undermining of the confidence that the Congress and the American people have that we are trying to get to the root cause of what's happening here, report on that, and then feed that back into our national security apparatus so we are able to protect the American people and
our allies. So it is harmful, it is hurtful, but hopefully if we get more information out there, we'll start to lessen the impact that some of those various reports. So just taking that a step further, so that misinformation, false narratives, manufactured, so what are the consequences? Are there legal consequences? Are there examples that you can give us where people have been held accountable by this misinformation
or disinformation? I can't give you any examples where somebody has been legally held liable for putting something out there, but... Well, I guess what's the deterrent from people engaging in this activity? I don't know, I don't have that answer, that's something that, you know, welcome to dialogue with Congress to talk about that with the members who, you know, help legislate those laws. So it seems that
they want to attack the Second Amendment with the UFO phenomenon and they're going to use that maybe to mess with our rights. It was pretty much loud and clear that they want to maybe even change or ask Congress to change laws. Yes, I think that that was brought up by a member of Congress, not by the people testifying, but I think that opens this larger question
of who's watching the watchers, who's watching the secret programs. And when they're above top secret, when people I've met with, like C.I. directors, like Admiral Wilson, like the people now who are in charge of the Black budget of the United States, and they get the night access to projects we can prove exist and have now gotten them information so they can get in, you cannot undermine
that by threatening to criminalize private investigations on something like this. And I want to go back, what you're saying is very important because there's this tendency right now all over the United States towards totalitarianism, censorship, the infringement of free speech, etc. and so on, very dangerous. It's the worst I've seen in my lifetime, it's in the last five years. Now this was the reference here was
even saying, or the laws that we could criminalize, say for example, what everyone's been doing to work with me on the disclosure project. That's very worrisome and hopefully that doesn't go any further than it being asked as a question and then vaguely answered by the witnesses. They really didn't say too much about it honestly, to look at their answers. But it's a red flag, I agree