メインコンテンツまでスキップ

Jim Semivan : UFO 現象は人間の理解を超えている

· 約184分

前置き​

元 CIA 高官の Jim Semivan が多面的に証言している。彼と彼の妻の abduction 体験についてもこれまでになく詳しく語っている。

目次​

  1. 音声対話
  2. 概要
  3. 詳細
  4. 時系列
  5. 主要関係者
  6. 現象の背後に潜む未知の知性体
  7. 既知の物理学を超えている
  8. UAP 現象の背後に潜む実体
  9. Jim Semivan の個人的経験
  10. 他の関連現象
  11. 2004年に専門家会議で情報公開を拒絶
  12. 情報源
  13. 文字起こし
  14. 私の Semivan に対する評価

AI 整理​

音声対話​

AI

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/b0f44816-e017-46f5-b078-85ebc6860738/audio

概要​

AI

CIAとUAP：元諜報員の体験と考察

元CIA高官ジム・セミバンへのインタビューは、未確認空中現象（UAP）に関する彼の個人的な経験と、情報機関内でのその認識を探求しています。

セミバンは、自身の「誘拐シナリオ」のような遭遇と、それがUAP現象への彼の関心をどのように引き起こしたかを詳述しています。彼はまた、米国政府がUAPに関する情報を一般に公開することをためらう理由についても考察しており、壊滅的な社会崩壊の可能性を主要な懸念事項として挙げています。

さらに、この現象が多分野にわたる性質を持ち、科学的理解の限界に挑戦することを強調しています。セミバンは、全面的な情報開示には複雑な課題が伴うものの、新たな学問分野の出現や人類が自己の存在を理解する上で潜在的な肯定的な効果があることも認識しています。

詳細​

AI

このブリーフィングドキュメントは、元CIA高官であるジム・セミバンへのインタビューからの抜粋をレビューし、UAP（未確認空中現象）現象に関する主要なテーマ、重要なアイデア、および事実をまとめるものです。セミバン氏の長年の経験とCIA内部での視点から、UAPの性質、政府の対応、そしてそれが人類に及ぼす潜在的な影響について深く掘り下げます。

  1. UAP現象の根本的な性質と人類の理解の限界 セミバン氏は、UAP現象の核心は、現在の科学や宗教では説明できない「既知を超える」ものであると強調します。

存在の恐怖とUAP: 人間は秩序を求め、安定を得ることで「空虚」から目をそらしているとセミバン氏は述べます。しかし、UAP現象は「どこから来て、どこへ行くのか分からない」という人間の根本的な恐怖を増幅させます。「このUAP現象をこれらすべてのものの真ん中に放り込むと、」（0:54:20）科学や宗教も「答えを持っていない」状況になります。（0:54:42）

UAPの「無関心」な性質: UAPは、人類に対して善悪の意図を持っているわけではないとセミバン氏は主張します。ジャック・ヴァレとの会話を引用し、「彼らについて言える最も良いことは、彼らが古典的に無関心であるということだ。彼らはどちらでも気にしない。」（0:56:31）と述べています。彼はさらに、チャールズ・フォートの言葉を借りて「彼らは私たちを所有物と見なしていると思う」と示唆し、この現象が人類に対する「制御メカニズム」として機能する可能性に言及しています。（0:56:47、0:57:01）

多次元的かつ非物理的な側面: UAPは単なる「物理的なもの」（nuts and bolts）や「量子力学」だけでは説明できないとセミバン氏は指摘します。それは「この全く別の現実」であり、「何らかの形で全てが繋がっている、はるかに壮大なテーマ」です。（1:09:09、1:09:35）彼は、UAPが地球外、異次元、さらには地球上に存在する「隠された」非人間的知性（crypto-terrestrial, ultra-terrestrial）の組み合わせである可能性を示唆し、これらが自己を隠蔽する能力を持っていると述べています。（0:41:48）

理解の難しさ: この現象は極めて複雑であり、現在の科学的枠組みでは理解が難しいとされています。「この現象、このUAP現象が25世紀の物理学であるなら、一体どうしたらいいというのか？」（0:35:05）とセミバン氏は問いかけます。我々の脳や感覚は限定されており、「我々の感覚パッケージはそれを見るようにできていないのかもしれない」（0:23:29）と彼は推測します。

  1. 政府のUAPに対する対応と「開示」の複雑性

セミバン氏は、政府がUAP現象に関する情報を秘密にしてきた理由と、「開示」（disclosure）の多岐にわたる複雑性を詳細に説明しています。

秘密保持の歴史的経緯: 政府は1940年代からこの現象の存在を認識しており、ロズウェル事件のような墜落事故を通じてその問題の深刻さを認識しました。当初の目的は、敵対勢力（特にソビエト連邦）によるプロパガンダを防ぐため、そして「どのようにこれを静かに保つか」という防衛的なものでした。（1:29:21）しかし、その秘密保持が「50年代、60年代、70年代へと連鎖し、多くの人々が傷つけられた」という負の側面も指摘しています。（1:29:47）

「開示」のジレンマ: セミバン氏は「限定的開示」と「壊滅的開示」という概念を提示し、特に後者のリスクを強調します。もし大統領がUAPの存在、多様な非人間的知性、その能力（誘拐、記憶操作、制御）をすべて開示した場合、それは「私たちは食物連鎖の頂点にいない」という事実を突きつけ、社会の根幹を揺るがす可能性があります。（0:28:38、0:29:10）2004年の専門家会議では、当初開示を支持していた全員が、議論の末に「絶対にいけない」という結論に至ったとハル・プットホフが述べています。（0:30:59、0:31:21）これは、UAPが「邪悪な問題」（wicked problem）であり、「解決不能」な多角的要素を持つ問題であるためです。（0:31:21）

国家安全保障の側面: 各国が独自にUAPプログラムを保有しており、互いに「何を持っているかを探ろうとしている」ため、UAPは国家安全保障の領域に深く関わってきます。（1:01:51、1:02:21）この技術が「空域と宇宙全般を制御できる技術」である場合、「世界を所有する」ことになり、それが兵器化される可能性を考えると、政府は「非常に慎重」にならざるを得ないのです。（1:02:42、1:03:33、1:03:54）

大統領の権限と情報の限定: UAPプログラムは「アメリカ合衆国大統領に帰属する」行政プログラムであり、大統領は国家の最善の利益のために議会に通知することなく、これらのプログラムを実行する権限を持っています。（1:33:10、1:33:51）大統領へのブリーフィングも段階的であり、詳細な機密情報にはアクセスしないことが多いとセミバン氏は説明します。（1:31:18）情報機関間の「知る必要性」（need to know）という原則も、情報の共有を阻んでいます。（1:34:37）

CIAの役割と評価: セミバン氏は、CIAがこの問題に関して「自分たちのものだとは誰も思っていない」と述べ、むしろ「とんでもない面倒事」だと考えていると示唆します。（1:37:41）彼は、政府が初期に秘密を保持したことについては同意しないものの、その「意図は良かった」と理解を示し、「一部の人々は彼らが悪人であると言うかもしれないが、彼らはそうではない。彼らは良い人々だ。」（1:29:47、1:29:53）と擁護しています。

  1. 個人のUAP体験と影響

セミバン氏は自身のUAP体験と、それが彼個人の人生、そしてUAPコミュニティに与えた影響について語っています。

セミバン氏自身の遭遇: 1990年代初頭の個人的なUAP体験が、セミバン氏のこの分野への関心を決定的に変えました。それは「典型的な誘拐シナリオの特徴」を持ち、彼は体が動かせないながらも恐怖は感じなかったと述べています。（0:06:00、0:06:34、0:06:55）この体験には妻の身体的異常も伴い、CIA内部の知人が「古典的な誘拐体験」と指摘したことで、彼自身の見方が大きく変わりました。（0:09:42、0:11:31）

「見えない大学」の存在: セミバン氏は、自身の体験後、CIA内部でUAPや「超常現象」を静かに研究している「見えない大学」と呼ばれる人々の存在を知り、彼らと接触するようになりました。（0:12:30、0:12:52）これらの人々は「非常に真剣な人々、科学者」であり、リモートビューイングやテレキネシスといった現象も「現実である」と証言していることを知りました。（0:00:44、0:20:59）

「ヒッチハイカー効果」と影響: UAP現象に関わることで、「この現象は伝染性があり、時には自分自身に感染し、家族に影響を与える」という「ヒッチハイカー効果」の存在をセミバン氏は認識しています。（1:27:54）

対処法の模索: UAP現象に対する防御策はほとんどなく、「行け、もう私を困らせるな」と告げることだけが、ポルターガイスト活動において時に有効であると彼は語ります。（1:26:35、1:26:51）大切なのは「エネルギーを与えないこと」、「怒らせないこと」、「優しく話すこと」です。（1:27:03）

  1. 前向きな道筋と「To The Stars Academy」の役割

セミバン氏はUAPコミュニティにおける進展と、自身の関与、特に「To The Stars Academy」（TTSA）の活動について言及しています。

UAP研究の進展: UAP現象は「はるかに、はるかに壮大なテーマ領域」であり、単なる「ナッツとボルト」の話ではないとセミバン氏は強調します。彼自身は「研究者ではない」が「この分野の学生」として多くの研究を読み、コミュニティ内の人々と話をしてきました。（0:05:25、1:09:09）Soul Foundationのような科学的に焦点を当てた組織の出現を歓迎し、「我々が必要としているものだ」と評価しています。（1:17:17、1:17:46）

TTSAの役割と教育への注力: セミバン氏は、Tom DeLonge、Hal Puthoff、Jacques Valléeらと共にTTSAを共同設立したことを誇りに思っており、彼らの活動がUAPに関する物語を「広く開いた」と述べています。（1:14:57、1:16:39）TTSAは、当初目指していた研究資金の確保が困難になったため、「エンターテイメント会社」として「物語を語り、物語を推進する」ことで、一般の人々を「教育する」ことに焦点を移しました。（1:10:08、1:11:12、1:11:32、1:12:08）

開示の肯定的側面: 開示によって「全く新しい一連の学術分野」が生まれ、意識研究や量子力学研究に莫大な資金が注がれるだろうとセミバン氏は指摘します。（0:43:41、0:44:09）それは「私たちの本当の歴史を知り、私たちが本当に何者であるかを知る」という「私たちの生得権」であり、世界に対する見方を大きく変えるでしょう。（0:44:36、0:44:55）

専門家からの証言の重要性: デビッド・フレーバーやグレッグ・ロジャースといった「非常に真剣な人々」や「信頼できる人物」がUAPを目撃し、その経験を語っていることの重要性をセミバン氏は強調します。「彼らがこのたわごとをでっち上げているわけではない」（0:46:13）という認識は、彼自身の見方を変えるきっかけとなりました。（0:46:42）

個人の視点と「優しさ」のメッセージ: セミバン氏は、UAPが人々にとって「非常に怖い」ものであり、「人生を変えてしまう」ものであることを認識しています。彼は、この現象に苦しむ人々に対し、「私には答えがない」としつつも「理解を示し」、「精神療法士」への紹介などを行っています。（1:24:16）彼自身の長年の経験を通して学んだ「人間であることの意味」については、オルダス・ハクスリーの言葉を引用し、「優しくあれ」（Be kind）というメッセージを伝えています。（1:22:28、1:23:19）

結論​

ジム・セミバンへのインタビューは、UAP現象が単なる航空現象ではなく、人類の存在、意識、社会、そして国家安全保障の根幹に触れる「最も邪悪な問題」であるという、多層的で複雑な理解を提供します。政府の秘密主義は、過去の判断ミスと、未解明な現象が社会にもたらす壊滅的な影響への懸念から来ています。

一方で、UAP開示の肯定的な側面、特に新しい学術分野の創設や人類の自己認識の変化への可能性も示唆されています。セミバン氏の個人的なUAP体験と、それが彼をUAP研究に駆り立てた経緯は、この現象が個人の人生に深く影響を与えるものであることを示しています。最終的に、彼の「優しくあれ」というメッセージは、この深遠で時に恐ろしいテーマに取り組む上で、人類が持ち合わせるべき基本的な指針を示唆しています。

タイムライン：UAP現象と政府の対応​

AI

1930年代: 米国政府がUAP（未確認航空現象）現象を認識し始めるが、その性質が理解を超えていたため、どのように対処すべきか不明だった。

1940年代:1940年代（初期）: 政府は「不信の伝統」を確立し、UAPに関する情報を公に認めない方針を採る。

1947年: ロズウェル事件が発生。UAPの墜落と遺体の発見により、政府は問題の大きさを認識する。

1947年: ハリー・S・トルーマン大統領が国家安全保障法を制定し、CIA（中央情報局）と国防総省を創設。CIAと空軍がUAP現象の調査を担当するようになる。現象が核物質に親和性があることが認識される。

1950年代～1970年代: UAPに関する情報隠蔽の方針が継続され、多くの人々がその影響を受ける。

1990年代初頭: ジム・セミヴァンとその妻がUAP遭遇を経験。この個人的な経験が、セミヴァン氏がUAP現象の調査に深く関わるきっかけとなる。

  • 自宅で3体のエンティティと遭遇し、移動不能になる。
  • 妻が身体的な問題（出血）を抱え、セミヴァン氏自身も首に丸い穴が見つかる。
  • CIAの同僚でUFO愛好家だった人物と話すことで、自身の経験が「古典的な誘拐体験」であると知る。
  • CIA内部でUAPを研究するグループ「インビジブル・カレッジ」の存在を知り、接触する。

2004年: 心理学者や宗教関係者からなるグループが、政府がUAPを公表した場合の影響について研究を実施。当初は開示を支持する意見が多数だったが、3日間の議論の末、全員が絶対反対の結論に至る。

2014年頃: ジム・セミヴァン氏が国防総省のジョン・アレクサンダーと出会い、自身の体験を共有。

  • ジャック・ヴァレを含む研究者グループがセミヴァン氏の自宅を訪問し、医療ファイルや生体サンプルを採取。
  • 機密情報ブリーフィングを受け、諜報員、JSOC（統合特殊作戦コマンド）の士官、パイロットなどがUAPと遭遇し、身体的な影響を受けていることを知る。

2016年: ジム・セミヴァン氏がトム・デロングと初めて面会。デロング氏が持つUAPに関する情報が機密情報に近い内容であったため、情報漏洩の可能性を調査するためだった。

  • 翌日（2016年）: ジム・セミヴァン、トム・デロング、ジャック・ヴァレ、ハル・プットホフらが集まり、UAP現象を調査・開示する企業を設立することを決定する。
  • その後: スティーブ・ジャスティス（スカンクワークス出身）が参加。ルー・エリゾンドが国防総省を辞任し、To The Stars Academy of Arts & Scienceに加わる。クリス・メロンもアドバイザリーボードに加わる。
  • パンデミック期間中: To The Stars Academyの主要投資家からの資金が枯渇し、AIを活用した研究データベースの運用コストが年間数百万ドルに達したため、企業戦略を見直す。研究活動を維持するために、エンターテイメント企業へと再編し、ストーリーテリングを通じて教育と資金獲得を目指す。

最近の時期: ドクター・ロジャースのUAPに関する書籍が、出版元によって発売中止となる。

現在:​

ジム・セミヴァン氏は、To The Stars Academyで自身のポッドキャストを運営し、UAP現象に関する教育とストーリーテリングに注力している。ソウル財団のような科学に焦点を当てた組織もUAP研究に貢献している。政府はUAP現象の「UR（究極の）困難な問題」に直面しており、その性質や目的、影響について依然として理解に至っていない。

主要関係者​

AI

ジム・セミヴァン (Jim Semivan): 元CIA高官で、34年間勤務し、そのうち25年間は国家機密工作部で作戦将校を務めた。スパイを指揮し、機密プログラムを管理し、作戦担当副長官の特別補佐官を務めた。1990年代初頭に自身と妻がUAP遭遇を経験したことをきっかけに、UAP現象に深く関心を持つようになる。この個人的な経験が、彼を「インビジブル・カレッジ」と呼ばれる、諜報機関内でUAPを秘密裏に研究していた人々と繋げることとなった。彼はUAPを「人類が直面する最も厄介な問題」と表現し、その開示の複雑性について深く理解している。現在はTo The Stars Academy of Arts & Scienceの共同創設者の一人として、UAP現象に関する教育とストーリーテテリングに携わっている。

妻（ジム・セミヴァンの）: ジム・セミヴァン氏と共に1990年代初頭のUAP遭遇を経験。この体験後、身体的な問題（出血）を17日間抱えた。臨床心理学者であり、臨死状態や明晰夢について知識があるが、UAP体験そのものについては記憶がない。彼女の家族には過去に同様の経験を持つ者がいる。

ハリー・S・トルーマン (Harry S. Truman): アメリカ合衆国第33代大統領。1947年の国家安全保障法を制定し、CIA、国防総省、統合参謀本部を創設した。UAP現象が「熱いジャガイモ」であり、その対処をCIAと空軍に命じたとされる。

ジョン・アレクサンダー (John Alexander): 国防総省関係者で、ジム・セミヴァン氏が2014年頃に会議で出会った人物。UFOに関する書籍を執筆しており、セミヴァン氏のUAP体験のビデオ撮影を依頼し、その情報を自身の同僚と共有した。

ジャック・ヴァレ (Jacques Vallée): 著名なUAP研究者、科学者、作家。セミヴァン氏がUAPに関心を持ち始めた初期に、彼の著作を参考にし、後に友人となる。UAP現象を「統制メカニズム」として捉える見解を持つ。To The Stars Academyの初期の会合にも参加した。

トム・デロング (Tom DeLonge): ミュージシャンであり、UAP現象の開示推進者。「To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science」の共同創設者。ジム・セミヴァン氏が、彼が持っていた機密情報に近いUAP情報源の調査のため、2016年に最初に面会した人物。

ルー・エリゾンド (Lou Elizondo): 国防総省のAdvanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) の元ディレクター。UAP開示の主要な推進者の一人。政府機関でのUAPに関する進展のなさから、国防総省を退職し、To The Stars Academy of Arts & Scienceに加わった。

クリス・メロン (Chris Mellon): 元国防副次官補（情報担当）。UAP開示の強力な提唱者の一人であり、To The Stars Academyのアドバイザリーボードに名を連ねる。

デイヴ・グラッシュ (Dave Grusch): UAPに関する重要な証言を行った人物。ジム・セミヴァン氏によると、彼の証言は全て正確であるという。政府機関におけるUAP情報の管理と開示における大統領の役割を強調している。

ハル・プットホフ (Hal Puthoff): 著名な科学者、リモートビューイング研究者。2004年のUAP開示の影響に関する研究に参加した。To The Stars Academyの初期の会合にも参加した。

スティーブ・ジャスティス (Steve Justice): スカンクワークス出身。To The Stars Academy of Arts & Scienceのメンバー。

ジョン・ラミレス (John Ramirez): 元CIAアナリスト。彼自身のUAPに関する体験と、人類がハイブリッドである可能性について高レベルの会議で知らされたという話をジム・セミヴァン氏に語った。セミヴァン氏はこの話を信じている。

チャールズ・フォート (Charles Fort): アメリカの作家、研究者。UAP現象に関する彼の見解「彼らは私たちを所有物と見なしている」という言葉がジム・セミヴァン氏によって引用されている。

ロナウド・レーガン (Ronald Reagan): アメリカ合衆国第40代大統領。地球外の脅威が世界を団結させる可能性について言及したとされる。

デイヴ・フレイヴァー (Dave Fravor): 米海軍の元パイロット。有名な「ティク・タック」UAP遭遇事件の目撃者。彼の証言はUAP現象の信憑性を高めた。

ドクター・グレッグ・ロジャース (Dr. Greg Rogers): 元NASAフライトドクター。1992年に米空軍の格納庫でUFOのテストを行っている映像を目撃したと証言している。

ピーター・スタロック (Peter Sturrock): 物理学者。UAP体験の最後に訪れる「テオファニー」（神の顕現）という概念について言及されている。

クリス・ブレッドソー (Chris Bledsoe): UAP体験者。恐怖からスピリチュアルな変容を遂げた例として、ジム・セミヴァン氏の友人の一人として挙げられている。

メリンダ・レズリー (Melinda Leslie): 軍による拉致（MILABs）の経験者。ジム・セミヴァン氏の友人であり、彼女の証言はセミヴァン氏に真実味を感じさせている。

キース・トンプソン (Keith Thompson): 「The UFO Paradox」の著者。UAPに関する優れた評論家、思想家としてジム・セミヴァン氏に推薦されている。セミヴァン氏はエサレンで彼に会った。

ホイットリー・ストリーバー (Whitley Strieber): UFO体験に関する著書「Them」と「The Fourth Mind」で知られる作家。UAPに関する優れた思想家の一人として挙げられている。

ジェフ・クリパル (Jeff Kripal): UAPと意識に関する研究者。エサレンでのUAP体験者を集めた会合を共同で企画した。

ダイアナ・パソカ (Diana Pasulka): UAPを宗教的な視点から解釈する研究者。

レスリー・ケイン (Leslie Kean): UAP現象に関するジャーナリスト、作家。エサレンでのUAP体験者を集めた会合を共同で企画した。

アニー・ヤコブソン (Annie Jacobson): UAPに関する著述家。

パトリック・ハーパー (Patrick Harper): 「Deimonic Reality」の著者。ジム・セミヴァン氏が「最高の文献の一つ」と評し、3回読み返したという。

ギャリー・ノーラン (Gary Nolan): ソウル財団のメンバーの一人。科学的なUAP研究を推進している。

ピーター・スカフィッシュ (Peter Skafish): ソウル財団のメンバーの一人。科学的なUAP研究を推進している。

ジェイク・バーバー (Jake Barber): 「スカイウォッチャー・プログラム」で知られる人物。セミヴァン氏は彼の研究を評価しているが、その効果については不確実性を表明している。

スティーヴン・グリア (Steven Greer): UAP接触を促進するイベントで知られる人物。ジム・セミヴァン氏は彼の活動を認識しているが、慎重な姿勢を示している。

ティク・ナット・ハン (Thich Nhat Hanh): ベトナムの禅僧。人類の「厄介な側面」についての言及で名前が挙がっている。

ダライ・ラマ (Dalai Lama): チベット仏教の精神的指導者。人類の「厄介な側面」についての言及で名前が挙がっている。

アドラス・ハクスリー (Aldous Huxley): 「知覚の扉」を執筆した作家。臨終の際に「親切であれ（Be kind）」と述べたという逸話がジム・セミヴァン氏の人生哲学として引用されている。

現象の背後に潜む未知の知性体​

AI

この現象の性質に関して、情報源は「知性」について複雑でとらえどころのない見解を提示しています。元CIA高官であるジム・セミバン氏は、UAP現象の核心にある知性について、いくつかの重要な考察を共有しています。

知性の性質と特性:

  • 「古典的に無関心」: セミバン氏は、UAPに関連する存在は「古典的に無関心」であると述べています。彼らは「良い」わけでも「悪い」わけでもなく、どちらにも「少しも構わない」ように見えると指摘しています。この知性は、人間を「財産」と見なしている可能性があり、この見方を考慮に入れる必要があるとチャールズ・フォートの言葉を引用して述べています。
  • 「制御メカニズム」: この知性は「制御メカニズムとして機能」し、人間を「制御」したり「指示」したりする能力があるが、日常的にそうしているわけではないようです。この能力は、人間の「主権」や「自由意思」を奪うことにつながります。
  • 「神のような存在」: 大規模な情報開示（壊滅的開示）の場合、大統領はUAPに関連する非人間的知性（NHI）が地球上に存在し、人間を支配できることを認めざるを得ないかもしれません。これは、人間がもはや「食物連鎖の頂点」にいないことを意味し、これらの存在が「神のような存在」である可能性や「全知」である可能性さえ示唆しています。すべての主要な宗教が「天空の神々」について語っていることに言及されています。

知性の能力:

  • 「人間の制御」: NHIは人間を連れ去り、記憶を植え付け、人間を制御する能力を持っています。
  • 「クラフトとの融合」: ある情報筋によると、UAPクラフトは「基本的に生きている」「生きたもの」であり、それを操縦する存在はクラフトの一部となり、「融合」して動作しているとのことです。
  • 「オーブ現象」: オーブは至る所で見られ、顔を持っていたり、色を変えたり、着陸して何かが出てくることもあると述べられています。
  • 「隠蔽能力」: 特定のNHI、特に「クリプトテレストリアル（地下に生息する存在）/ウルトラテレストリアル（超地上存在）」は、地球上に人間と共に生息しており、「身を隠す」能力を持っている可能性があります。アラビアの「ジン」の概念がこれに近いものとして挙げられています。

知性の認識されている動機とメッセージ:

  • 「核エネルギーと気候変動」: この知性が持つメッセージがあるとするならば、それは主に「核エネルギーと気候変動」に関係しているように見えます。本質的に「地球を台無しにするな」というメッセージであり、彼らは直接語るのではなく、「示す」という形で伝えているようです。
  • 「破壊的な質」: 現象は非常に「破壊的な質」を持ち、「イニシエーションの儀式のようなもの」として見ることができます。UFOを目撃したり、経験をしたりすると、人は変わります。

現象のより大きな文脈における知性:

  • 「極めて厄介な問題（UR wicked problem）」: ジム・セミバン氏は、UAPの現象を「人類が直面する最も厄介な問題」であり、さらに「超厄介な問題（UR wicked problem）」と呼んでいます。これは「多くの要素を持ち、一般的に解決不可能」な問題です。この現象には、分類学（taxonomy）、存在論（ontology）、語彙（lexicon）さえなく、いつ現れるか予測できず、情報もほとんど提供されないため、人間は「完全に暗闇の中」にいます。
  • 「多分野にわたる性質」: UAP/NHI現象は「科学」だけでなく、「社会学、宗教、生物学」といった多くの学術分野にまたがっています。それは「複雑」であり、「非常に恐ろしい」ものでもあります。
  • 「現実への挑戦」: この現象は、私たちが住んでいる「デフォルトの現実」に疑問を投げかけます。私たちの「感覚器官」や「脳」は「閉ざされており」、本当の現実を見るようにできていない可能性があります。量子力学は、私たちが「量子的な幻想」の中に生きている可能性を示唆し、現実は「確率と偶然に基づいている」と述べています。
  • 「他の超常現象との関連性」: この現象は、リモートビューイング、透視、念力といった「サイキック現象」、臨死体験（NDEs）、転生、さらにはDMT（ジメチルトリプタミン）が引き起こす別世界への体験とも関連しているとされています。ポルターガイスト活動もまた、この現象の側面として言及されています。
  • 「情報開示の難しさ」: 政府がUAPの存在を公式に認めることをためらう主な理由の一つは、その計り知れない影響にあります。もしNHIが人間を制御できる「神のような存在」であると開示されれば、社会秩序が崩壊し、人口の25%が「病気になるか、死亡するか、あるいは何らかの理由で解離する」可能性があり、「文明が崩壊の危機に瀕する」可能性があります。政府は80年間この現象を研究してきましたが、「それが一体何であるか分かっていない」ため、情報開示の方法について非常に慎重です。
  • 「未解明の証拠」: 落着したクラフトの存在や驚くべき写真の証拠は存在しますが、「すべて機密扱い」であり、公開されていません。

ジム・セミバン氏と情報源は、UAP現象の背後にある知性が、私たちの物理的現実、存在、そして自由意思に対する深く、おそらく不穏な意味合いを持つ、理解しがたい、多次元的な力であるという見方を提示しています。

既知の物理学を超えている​

AI

現象の性質というより大きな文脈において、情報源は「既知の物理学を超える」概念について、私たちの現実の理解に深く挑戦する見解を提示しています。元CIA高官のジム・セミバン氏は、UAP（未確認航空現象）現象は現在の科学的枠組みでは捉えきれないものであり、私たちの世界観を根本的に問い直すものであると示唆しています。

情報源が「既知の物理学を超える」ことについて述べている点は以下の通りです。

  • 量子力学と現実の性質: セミバン氏は、UAP現象を理解するための最も近い近似が量子力学と意識の研究であると述べています。彼は、物理学者が「量子力学があなたを怖がらせないなら、あなたは量子力学が何であるか本当に知らない」と言うように、量子力学は私たちが生きているのは「すべて量子的な幻想」であり、現実は「確率と偶然に基づいている」と教えていると指摘しています。私たち自身も、そして周りの物理的なものすべてが、「空っぽの空間」で構成された「回転する電子の巨大な塊」であり、「エネルギーパターン」に過ぎない可能性が示唆されています。
  • 物質とエネルギーの未解明な性質: 物理学には未だ説明されていない根本的な疑問が多く存在すると述べられています。例えば、なぜ放射線が発生するのか、物質が何でできているのか、あるいは薬がどのように作用するのかさえ、私たちは完全には理解していません。私たちは自らを高度であると考えていますが、実際には**「ある意味で原始的」**であると語られています。
  • 五感の限界と隠された現実: 私たちの脳や五感は「ある程度遮断されており」、**「本当の現実」**を見るようにはできていない可能性があります。現実の多くは「私たちが見ているもの」ではなく「私たちが見ていないもの」に存在するとされ、DMT（ジメチルトリプタミン）のような物質を摂取すると、皆が「同じものを見る」という現象も言及されています。これは、私たちの認識の範囲外に、未だ知られていない「別の世界」や「別の現実」が存在することを示唆しています。
  • 現象の多次元的性質: UAP/NHI現象は、単なる「ナットとボルト」のような物理的なものではなく、**「25世紀の物理学」**のようなものだと表現されています。その性質は「地球外生命体（extraterrestrial）」、「異次元生命体（interdimensional）」、そして「地球の隠れた場所に生息する存在（cryptoterrestrial/ultraterrestrial）」の組み合わせである可能性が最も高いとされています。この文脈で、アラビアの「ジン」の概念が、地球上に人間と共に存在し、「身を隠す能力」を持つ存在として引き合いに出されています。
  • クラフトと存在の融合: ある情報筋からは、UAPのクラフトが「基本的に生きている」「生きたもの」であり、それを操縦する存在はクラフトの一部となり、「融合」して動作しているという驚くべき話も伝えられています。また、オーブ現象については、顔を持つもの、色を変えるもの、着陸してそこから何かが出てくるものなど、さまざまな形態が存在すると語られています。
  • 科学の限界と分野横断的な課題: UAP/NHI現象は「学際的」であり、科学だけでなく「社会学、宗教、生物学」といった多くの学術分野を横断しています。現在の科学は、この現象を個別に、断片的にしか見ておらず、「サイロ化」されているため、全体像を捉えることができていません。セミバン氏は、私たちがこの現象を理解するには、「宇宙意識（cosmic consciousness）」の状態に到達する必要があるか、あるいは「死ぬことによって別の状態、別の形、別の次元へ移行する」必要があるかもしれないと示唆しています。
  • 「非常に厄介な問題」: この現象は、「分類学（taxonomy）も、存在論（ontology）も、語彙（lexicon）さえもない」「超厄介な問題（UR wicked problem）」であるとされています。いつ現れるか予測できず、情報もほとんど提供されないため、人間は「完全に暗闇の中」にいる状態です。政府でさえ80年間この現象を研究してきましたが、「それが一体何であるか分かっていない」と、セミバン氏は正直に語っています。
  • 情報開示の複雑性: 政府がUAPの存在を公式に認めることをためらう主な理由の一つは、その計り知れない影響にあります。もしNHIが人間を制御できる「神のような存在」であると開示されれば、社会秩序が崩壊し、人口の一部が「病気になるか、死亡するか、あるいは何らかの理由で解離する」可能性があり、「文明が崩壊の危機に瀕する」可能性があると懸念されています。これは、**「人類はあまりにも多くの現実には耐えられない」**というT.S.エリオットの言葉を引用して説明されています。

要するに、これらの情報源は、UAP現象の核心にある知性が、私たちの物理法則、現実の認識、そして存在そのものに対する理解をはるかに超えた、とらえどころのない多次元的な力であるという見方を提示しています。それは科学、宗教、社会学など、あらゆる学問分野を横断する「極めて厄介な問題」であり、その性質が私たちの現在の知識の限界を浮き彫りにしているのです。

UAP 現象の背後に潜む実体​

AI

現象の性質というより大きな文脈において、情報源は「実体」について、私たちの現実の理解に深く挑戦する見解を提示しています。元CIA高官のジム・セミバン氏は、UAP（未確認航空現象）の根底にある知性や存在が、現在の科学的枠組みでは捉えきれないものであり、私たちの世界観を根本的に問い直すものであると示唆しています。

実体の性質と特徴​

情報源によると、これらの実体は多様な性質を持ち、私たちの現在の科学的理解の限界を示しています。

  • 物理的特徴: セミバン氏自身のUAP体験では、実体は「これまでに文献で見たことのない」ものであり、「バイベンディ」（ミシュランマンに似た存在）と表現されています。中には「黒いボディアーマー」を着用しているように見えたものや、空を指差す非常に背の高い実体もいたと述べています。さらに、UAPの「クラフト」自体が「基本的に生きている」ものであり、それを操縦する存在がクラフトの一部と「融合」して機能しているという驚くべき情報も示されています。また、オーブ現象については、顔を持つもの、色を変えるもの、着陸してそこから何かが出てくるものなど、さまざまな形態が存在すると語られています。
  • 起源と多次元性: これらの存在（NHI）は、単なる「地球外生命体（extraterrestrial）」だけでなく、「異次元生命体（interdimensional）」、さらには「地球の隠れた場所に生息する存在（cryptoterrestrial/ultraterrestrial）」の組み合わせである可能性が最も高いとされています。彼らは私たちの惑星に共に存在しており、「身を隠す能力」を持っているとされ、アラビアの「ジン」の概念がその例として挙げられています。
  • 驚異的な能力: 実体は、人間を「いつでも連れ去る」能力、心に「記憶を植え付ける」能力、そして「私たち全員を制御する」能力を持っていると述べられています。これは、人類が「食物連鎖の頂点」ではないことを示唆し、実体が「神のような存在」であり、全知である可能性さえ示唆しています。ポルターガイスト活動のような現象では、「向こうへ行ってくれ」と告げることで、活動が減少したり完全に消滅したりすることがあるとされています。

意図と人間との関係​

これらの実体の意図については明確な答えがなく、その性質は複雑で捉えどころがありません。

  • 古典的な無関心: ジャック・ヴァレ氏の言葉を引用して、実体は「古典的に無関心」であり、「どちらでも構わない」と考えていると述べられています。彼らは善でも悪でもなく、チャールズ・フォートの言葉を借りれば、「私たちを所有物と見なしている」可能性が指摘されています。
  • 制御メカニズム: 実体は、人間を「制御するメカニズムとして機能し、命令を下すことができる」知性であるとされています。セミバン氏は自身のUAP体験を「人権侵害」と表現し、その体験に対する怒りを表明しています。
  • メッセージの可能性: 実体は、核エネルギーと気候変動に関するメッセージを持っている可能性があると示唆されています。「地球をめちゃくちゃにするな」というメッセージを、直接的ではなく、「見せつける」形で伝えているのかもしれません。
  • 意識への影響: 彼らの存在は「非常に破壊的な性質」を持ち、人々に「世界はこれまで考えていたよりもはるかに広大で深い」ものであることを気づかせる**「通過儀礼」のようなもの**に例えられています。

既知の物理学を超える側面​

これらの実体の存在と能力は、私たちの現在の科学的理解の限界を浮き彫りにしています。

  • 理解不能な物理学: セミバン氏は、UAP現象を「25世紀の物理学」のようだと表現し、現在の21世紀の物理学では説明できないと述べています。実体に関する真実は「非常に理解しがたい（woo-woo）」であり、「全く不条理（absurd）」であるとも語られています。
  • 知覚の限界: 私たちの脳や五感は「ある程度遮断されており」、私たちの「本当の現実」を見るようにはできていない可能性があります。現実の多くは「私たちが見ているもの」ではなく「私たちが見ていないもの」に存在するとされ、DMT（ジメチルトリプタミン）のような物質を摂取すると、皆が「同じものを見る」という現象も言及されており、これは私たちの認識の範囲外に未知の現実が存在することを示唆しています。
  • 科学の未解明な側面: 物理学には未だ説明されていない根本的な疑問が多く存在すると述べられています。例えば、なぜ放射線が発生するのか、物質が何でできているのか、あるいは薬がどのように作用するのかさえ、私たちは完全には理解していません。私たちは自らを高度であると考えていますが、実際には「ある意味で原始的」であると語られています。
  • 現実の再定義: 量子力学の研究は、私たちが生きているのが「すべて量子的幻想」であり、現実が「確率と偶然に基づいている」ことを示唆しています。私たち自身や周囲の物理的なものが、「空っぽの空間」と「回転する電子の巨大な塊」で構成された**「エネルギーパターン」に過ぎない可能性**が示唆されています。実体の存在は、この「デフォルトの現実」が真の現実ではない「合意された現実（consensus reality）」である可能性を提示しています。

結論：人類にとっての「厄介な問題」​

これらの実体の存在は、政府が80年以上にわたり研究してきても「一体それが何であるか分かっていない」とされる**「超厄介な問題（UR wicked problem）」です。その性質は「学際的」であり、科学だけでなく「社会学、宗教、生物学」といった多くの学術分野**を横断しています。現在の科学は、この現象を個別に、断片的にしか見ておらず、「サイロ化」されているため、全体像を捉えることができていません。

社会への開示がもたらす影響も非常に大きく、もしNHIが人間を制御できる「神のような存在」であると開示されれば、人口の一部が「病気になるか、死亡するか、あるいは何らかの理由で解離する」可能性があり、「文明が崩壊の危機に瀕する」可能性が懸念されています。これは、T.S.エリオットの言葉を引用して、「人類はあまりにも多くの現実には耐えられない」と説明されています。

要するに、これらの情報源は、UAP現象の根底にある実体が、私たちの科学的、哲学的、社会的な理解をはるかに超えた、とらえどころのない、しかし現実に存在する力であることを示唆しています。彼らの存在は、私たちの「知覚と現実の性質」に関する根源的な問いを突きつけ、人類が自身の位置付けと宇宙における役割を再評価する必要があることを示唆しているのです。

Semivan の個人的経験​

AI

個人的な経験と視点というより大きな文脈において、情報源はジム・セミバン氏のUAP（未確認航空現象）に関する経験が、彼の人生と世界観に与えた深い影響について詳細に述べています。元CIA高官であった彼にとって、この経験はUAPへの関心を抱くきっかけとなり、彼のキャリア全体を通じて現象を調査する原動力となりました。

ジム・セミバン氏のUAP経験とその特徴​

セミバン氏は、1990年代初頭に妻と共に経験した出来事を「典型的な遭遇」と表現しています。それは「誘拐シナリオ」に共通する多くの特徴を持っていました。

  • 遭遇の詳細:

    • ある夜、ベッドで仰向けに寝ていて目を覚ますと、ベッドの足元に3つの存在がいたと述べています。
    • この経験は**「話しているのと同じくらい現実的、想像できるなら現実よりも現実的だった」**と表現されています。
    • 彼は動くことができなかったが、恐怖は感じなかったと述べています。
    • その存在は**「これまで文献で見たことのない」もので、ある研究者からは「バイベンディ」（ミシュランマンに似た、白いボディアーマーのような姿）**と呼ばれたと語っています。セミバン氏が見たうちの1体は、黒いボディアーマーを着ていたようです。
    • 経験は映画のように断片的に分かれており、最初はカラーだったが、その後の2つの場面は白黒だったと述べています。
    • 家の裏の通りで妻と一緒にいる場面もあり、非常に背の高い存在が彼の後ろにいて空を指差していました。空には三角形のパターンで3つのオーブがあり、それらが1つに融合して飛び去ったと記憶しています。
    • 朝7時に目覚めると、通常とは異なり完全に覚醒しており、困惑していたと述べています。

  • 物理的影響:

    • 彼自身は、首の後ろに鉛筆の消しゴム大の丸い穴があることに気づき、それは1日中あったが、当初は引っかき傷かと思っていたそうです。
    • 彼の妻は、ひどい出血を伴う身体的な問題を抱え、その症状は17日間続きました。妻は経験の記憶を全く持っていませんでしたが、彼女の家族には以前から同様の経験があったと述べられています。

経験への対応と疑問​

セミバン氏は、自身の経験を当初は説明できず、妻が臨床心理学者であるため、変性意識状態、明晰夢、悪夢などについて知識があったが、この出来事には全く当てはまらなかったと述べています。

  • 専門家との接触: 彼は後に、CIA内の「インビジブル・カレッジ」と呼ばれる、UAPを研究している深いカバーのオフィサーや他の情報機関、国防総省の人々と接触しました。
  • 「誘拐体験」としての認識: 彼に話したオフィサーは、その経験が**「典型的な誘拐体験」**に似ていると述べ、出血や体に跡がないかを尋ねたことで、セミバン氏は「少しぎょっとした」と言います。
  • 機密情報との関連: 彼は後に、UAPだけでなく、超常現象や「現象」の側面に関する機密ブリーフィングを受け、「これらすべてが実際に真実である」と認識し、人生観が変わったと述べています。
  • 未知の性質: しかし、これらの現象の「一体何であるか」については、**40年間以上研究し、業界のあらゆる人々と話しても、「誰も全く手がかりがない」**と彼は断言しています。機密解除された証拠を見ても、その驚くべき性質に驚くだけであり、科学や宗教でさえも明確な答えを提供できない状態です。

現実の性質と認識の限界​

セミバン氏は、UAP現象の核心が、私たちが知覚する現実の性質そのものに深く関わっていると考えています。

  • 「合意された現実」: UAPは単なる物理的な現象ではなく、私たちが生きている「デフォルトの現実」が、真の現実ではない**「合意された現実（consensus reality）」**である可能性を提起すると述べています。
  • 知覚の限界: 私たちの脳や五感は**「ある程度遮断されており」、「本当の現実」を見るようにはできていない**可能性があると示唆しています。彼は、DMT（ジメチルトリプタミン）のような物質を摂取すると、多くの人が「同じものを見る」という現象に触れ、これは私たちの認識の範囲外に未知の現実が存在することを示唆していると語っています。
  • 「エネルギーパターン」としての存在: 量子物理学の観点から、私たち自身や周囲の物理的なものが**「空っぽの空間」と「回転する電子の巨大な塊」で構成された「エネルギーパターン」に過ぎない可能性**を指摘し、この理解不能な性質が現象の根底にあると述べています。

個人的な感情と倫理的視点​

自身の経験について、セミバン氏は個人的な怒りを表明しています。

  • 「人権侵害」: 彼は、自身のUAP経験を**「人権侵害」**であると見ており、「一体何だったのか」を知りたいと考えています。
  • 「古典的な無関心」: ジャック・ヴァレ氏の言葉を引用し、これらの存在は**「古典的に無関心」**であり、「どちらでも構わない」と考えていると同意しています。チャールズ・フォートの言葉を借りれば、彼らは「私たちを所有物と見なしている」可能性があると指摘しています。
  • 制御メカニズム: 彼らは人間を「いつでも連れ去る」「心に記憶を植え付ける」「私たち全員を制御する」能力を持っている**「制御メカニズムとして機能する知性」**であるとされています。これは、人類が「食物連鎖の頂点」ではないことを示唆し、実体が「神のような存在」であり、全知である可能性さえ示唆しています。
  • 接触への注意喚起: 彼は、**「何も知らないものと接触する際には非常に注意するべき」**だと強く警告しており、特定のポルターガイスト活動の場合には、「あっちへ行ってくれ」と伝えることで活動が減少したり、完全に消滅したりすることがあるものの、常に有効なわけではないと述べています。

「極めて厄介な問題」としてのUAP現象​

セミバン氏の個人的な経験は、政府や科学界がUAP現象に直面している**「極めて厄介な問題（UR wicked problem）」** の複雑さを浮き彫りにしています。彼の経験は、科学や宗教では答えが見つからず、多岐にわたる学術分野（科学、社会学、宗教、生物学）にまたがる、未分類の現象であることを示しています。彼の個人的な探求は、この「極めて厄介な問題」が、人類にとって自身の存在と宇宙における位置付けを根本的に再評価する必要があることを示唆しているのです。

他の関連現象​

AI

ジム・セミバン氏の個人的な経験と視点というより大きな文脈において、情報源はUAP（未確認航空現象）が、彼が長年関心を持ってきた他の様々な関連現象と深く結びついているという彼の理解を詳述しています。彼のUAP体験は、彼が以前から抱いていた「見えないもの」への関心をさらに深め、最終的にこれらすべての現象が、私たちが知覚する現実の性質そのものに疑問を投げかける、より大きな、分類不能な問題の一部であるという結論に至らせました。

セミバン氏がUAPと関連付けて語る「他の関連現象」には、以下のようなものがあります。

  • オカルトとスピリチュアルな関心:

    • 彼は、CIAでのキャリアの大半においてUAPには関心がありませんでしたが、大学時代からオカルト、特に神秘主義、ロマン主義、ドイツロマン主義、英米超越論に強い関心を持っていました。これは彼にとって「見えないもの」、つまり「世界の秘密の歴史」への興味という「趣味」でした。
    • 彼のUAP体験は、この既存の関心と結びつき、より広範な現象への彼の探求の出発点となりました。

  • ポルターガイスト活動:

    • セミバン氏と彼の妻は、バージニア州の自宅で**「古典的なポルターガイスト活動」**を経験していました。夜間の物音、部屋のタバコの煙、妻の頭を撫でる存在、動かされた物などがありました。
    • 彼らはこれを**「面白く、ほとんど気にならなかった」**と述べており、妻が非常にスピリチュアルな人物であったこともあり、彼らは「それを歓迎した」とさえ言っています。
    • 彼は、このような現象に**「エネルギーを与えない」**こと、つまり恐れたり喜んだりせず、放っておくべきだと個人的な経験から学んだと述べています。これは、彼のUAP体験に対する感情（「人権侵害」と表現）とは対照的です。

  • サイキック現象と異常現象:

    • 機密ブリーフィングを通じて、彼は透視能力、遠隔透視、念力といったものが「本当である」と知らされました。これらの現象はUAP研究と深く関連しており、彼が「現象」と呼ぶより広範な異常現象の一部であると認識しています。
    • 彼は、ポッドキャスターに対し、UAPだけでなく、**「心霊現象（psychic phenomena）」**といった「相関する分野」にも踏み込むよう促しています。

  • 意識の状態と他の現実:

    • DMT（ジメチルトリプタミン）のような物質を摂取すると、多くの人が「同じものを見る」という現象に触れ、これは私たちの認識の範囲外に未知の現実が存在することを示唆していると語っています。これは、私たちが生きる現実が**「合意された現実（consensus reality）」**であり、真の現実ではない可能性を示唆しています。
    • 彼は、私たちの脳や五感は**「ある程度遮断されており」、「本当の現実」を見るようにはできていない**可能性があると示唆し、神秘家の中にはこのベールを破った者もいると述べています。

  • 肉体を超えた経験:

    • 彼は、臨死体験（near death experiences）や「生と死の間の人生（life between life and death）」、そして輪廻転生といった概念がUAP現象とどのように関連しているかについても言及しています。
    • また、実際に**浮遊（levitation）**した聖人たちの話（何百人もの目撃者がいたという）にも言及し、これをすべてUAP現象の一部と見ています。

  • 異文化の概念:

    • アラビア文化における**ジン（jinn）の概念に魅了されたと述べており、これはキリスト教の天使に近いもので、UAPにおける「実体を隠す能力」**と関連付けています。このことは、非人間的知性（NHI）が地球上に共存している可能性（超地球生命体（crypto-terrestrial）や超次元生命体（ultra-terrestrial））を示唆しています。

  • ヒッチハイカー効果:

    • 「ヒッチハイカー効果」、つまりUAP活動のある場所に接触した人が、その現象を家に持ち帰り、家族にまで影響が及ぶ現象についても知っていると述べています。これは彼自身の経験とは異なるものの、現象の伝染性や影響範囲の広さを示すものです。

個人的な視点とより大きな文脈​

セミバン氏にとって、これらの現象はUAPの理解に不可欠な部分です。彼は、UAP現象が単なる物理的な「ナッツ＆ボルツ」の問題ではなく、**「はるかに、はるかに壮大な主題領域」であると強調しています。彼の視点では、UAPは科学だけでなく、社会学、宗教、生物学といった多岐にわたる学問分野にまたがる「複合的な問題（multidisciplinary）」**であり、これらの分野は現在「サイロ化」されているため、全体像を捉えにくい状況にあると指摘しています。

彼は、UAP現象の核心は、私たちが知覚する現実の性質そのものにあると考えており、量子力学の示唆する「量子的な錯覚」としての現実、つまり、私たちの物理的な存在が**「エネルギーパターン」**に過ぎない可能性に言及しています。この理解しがたい性質が、現象の根底にあると見ています。

彼の個人的な経験と、それを通じて得たCIA内部の知識、そして多くの研究者や経験者との対話は、UAPが単なる地球外生命体の訪問という単純な話ではないことを示唆しています。むしろ、それは私たちの存在、意識、そして宇宙における人類の位置付けを根本的に再評価することを迫る、**「究極の厄介な問題（UR wicked problem）」**であるという彼の見解を裏付けています。

2004年に専門家会議で情報公開を拒絶​

AI

ブリーフィングにある「開示のジレンマ」について、ジム・セミバン氏の発言と情報源に基づいて詳しく説明します。

ジム・セミバン氏（元CIA高官、CIAで34年間勤務し、そのうち25年間は国家秘密工作部隊の作戦担当官としてスパイの運営や機密プログラムの管理に従事）は、UAP（未確認航空現象）に関する情報開示がもたらすであろう課題について、深い洞察を提供しています。彼は、政府がUAPに関する情報を開示することに非常に慎重である理由について、その問題の複雑さから来る「どうすればいいか分からない」という正直な状況が背景にあると述べています。

セミバン氏は、UAPに関する情報開示には主に二つのシナリオ、「限定的開示」と「壊滅的開示」があると提唱しています。

限定的開示 (Limited Disclosure)​

「限定的開示」とは、大統領が公に出て「私たちは宇宙で一人ではない」という事実だけを公表し、それ以上の詳細には触れないシナリオを指します。セミバン氏はこのアプローチに大きな懸念を抱いています。その理由は、**「何百万もの疑問を呼び起こすだろう」という点にあります。情報が不完全なままであるため、ジョー・ローガン氏、ショーン・ハニティー氏、タッカー・カールソン氏のような著名な個人がその情報の空白を埋めようとし、結果として正確ではない情報が広まり、「新しい宗教」**が生まれる可能性があると彼は述べています。セミバン氏は、このような状況は「非常に醜いもの」になり得ると考えています。

壊滅的開示 (Catastrophic Disclosure)​

これに対し、「壊滅的開示」とは、大統領が公の場で以下の事実を全面的に公表するシナリオを指します。

  • 宇宙には地球外生命体、または非人間的知性（NHI）が3〜6種類存在し、すでに地球を訪れており、現在も地球にいること。
  • 墜落したUAPの機体が存在すること。
  • NHIは私たちをいつでも連れ去る能力、記憶を植え付ける能力、そして私たち全員を制御する能力を持っていること。

セミバン氏は、この壊滅的開示が人類と社会にもたらすであろう深刻な結果について深く懸念しています。

壊滅的開示の潜在的課題と影響​

  1. 人間性の主権と自由意志の喪失: NHIが私たちを制御できるという事実が明らかになれば、人類は**「もはや食物連鎖の頂点にいない」**という認識を突きつけられ、私たちの自由意志が失われるという考えにつながるとセミバン氏は指摘しています。
  2. 社会の崩壊: 社会学者や人口統計学者は、人口の**25%が病気になったり、死亡したり、何らかの理由で社会から隔絶されたりした場合、「文明が崩壊の危機に瀕する」**と述べています。食料生産も停止する可能性があると懸念しています。
  3. 宗教的および社会文化的影響: NHIが**「神のような存在」や「神々」である可能性に言及し、主要な宗教に登場する「空の神々」との関連性を指摘しています。これにより、社会文化的な問題が表面化し、「現実とは何か？何が真実か？」**という疑問が人々の間で広がり、文明が崩壊する可能性もあると述べています。
  4. 政府の無力感と回答の欠如: セミバン氏は、政府はNHIの意図や能力を把握しておらず、**「これにどう対応すればよいのか分からない」**状態であると強調します。これは、彼が「究極の邪悪な問題（UR wicked problem）」と呼ぶものです。
  5. 「三体問題」の比喩: 中国のSF小説「三体」シリーズ（Netflixでドラマ化もされた）を例に挙げ、開示がなされた場合に何が起こるかを示唆しています。これによると、一部の人々はNHIを崇拝し始め、完全に社会から乖離してしまう一方、他の人々は荒野に引きこもるなど、社会に非常に大きな問題をもたらす可能性があると述べています。
  6. 「人類はあまりにも多くの現実を耐えられない」: T.S.エリオットの詩を引用し、**「人類はあまりにも多くの現実を耐えられない」**と述べて、あまりに衝撃的な情報を開示することの危険性を示唆しています。特に精神的に不安定な人々にとって、その影響は予測できないほど大きいと見ています。
  7. 国家安全保障上の懸念: UAP技術が明らかになった場合、各国はそれを兵器システムに応用しようとし、**「誰もが同じ兵器システムを持つ」**ことになるため、誰も優位に立てなくなり、国際的な不安定化を招く可能性も示唆しています。

2004年の専門家会議の結論​

セミバン氏は、ハル・プットホフ氏が関与した2004年の会議に言及しています。この会議では、心理学者や宗教関係者などが集められ、政府がUAPに関する情報を開示した場合に何が起こるかについて議論されました。会議の冒頭では、全員が**「政府は開示すべきだ。国民は真実を知る権利がある」**と意見が一致していました。しかし、3日間にわたる議論の末、参加者全員が「絶対にいけない」という結論に至ったとプットホフ氏は述べています。これは、彼らが様々なシナリオをシミュレーションした結果、その破滅的な影響を認識したためです。

UAPが「邪悪な問題」（Wicked Problem）である理由​

セミバン氏は、UAP現象を「邪悪な問題（wicked problem）」、さらに「究極の邪悪な問題（UR wicked problem）」と表現しています。

  • 定義: 「邪悪な問題」とは、多数の複雑な要素を含み、一般的に解決が不可能とされる問題です。例えば、世界の貧困問題のように、政治的、社会的、文化的、財政的な側面が絡み合い、一度にすべてを解決することが非常に困難な性質を持っています。
  • UAPが究極の邪悪な問題である理由:
    • 理解の欠如: UAP現象については、**分類法も存在論も語彙も確立されておらず、政府機関を含め「誰も手がかりを持っていない」**状況です。現象そのものが「望むときに姿を現し、我々にほとんど情報を与えない」ため、全体像を把握することが極めて困難です。
    • 学際的な性質: UAPは科学だけでなく、社会学、宗教、生物学といった多様な分野にまたがる**「学際的な問題」**であり、政府や学術機関はこれを全体的に理解する能力を欠いていると彼は指摘します。
    • 限定的な影響: 現状、UAP現象は人口の大多数（95%）の生活には直接的な影響を及ぼしていません。政府は、存在しないところに問題を作り出すことを望んでいないと考えており、これが開示に躊躇する一因となっています。

セミバン氏は、政府がUAPについて「どうしたらいいか分からない」という正直な状況にあると見ており、これが開示の最大の課題であると語っています。彼は開示そのものに反対しているわけではなく、むしろ、**「問題が最小限に抑えられるような、責任ある方法」**での開示を望んでいます。

情報源 : 動画(1:45:12)​

Senior CIA Officer Even We Don't Know What the Phenomenon Is

文字起こし

(transcript 1of2)

（以下は 2分割した文字起こしの前半部分です。内容は Jim Semivan （元 CIA 高官）をゲストに迎えたインタビューです。 ）

The majority of my career, I was not the least bit interested in UAP. But it wasn't until this incident my wife and I had in the early 90s that really changed everything. So I was there and I was unable to move, but I wasn't afraid. And the entities were like nothing you know, I've ever seen in the literature before. And they may have down crafts, they may have, you know, pictures, I've seen them, you know, you absolutely startling. (0:00:44)

And that's the other part of it, when you actually see the evidence, the evidence is all classified and they won't let it out. When you see it, and then you have people, very serious people, scientists, sitting you down and telling you, oh yeah, this is real. Clairvoyance is real. Remote viewing is real. Telekinesis is real. And they're going through all these sides. And then they start giving you the information and they start telling you about classified programs that you've got. I mean, where the hell do you put this? (0:01:11)

If you have a 25%, you know, like 25% of your population either becomes sick, ill, dead, or just disassociates for some reason or other. Civilization can be on the verge of collapse, food production shuts down, everything shuts down. I think they view us as property. Chris Lado, welcome to Lado Files. Today's conversation completely changed my perspective on UFO disclosure, and why our government has handled this topic the way it has. (0:02:04)

Our guest spent 34 years in the CIA, that's including 25 years as an operations officer in the National Klanenstein Service. He was running spies, managing classified programs, and serving as special assistant to the deputy director of operations. But it was this personal UAP experience in the early 90s that sent him on a decades-long investigation into the phenomenon, connecting him with others inside the intelligence community who had been quietly studying this for 80 years, the Invisible College. Jim Semivan isn't just another whistleblower making claims. (0:02:38)

He's someone who's seen the classified evidence. He knows the people in the legacy programs, and he understands why this is what he calls the wickedest problem facing humanity. By the end of this discussion, I found myself with a different perspective and understanding of the CIA's role in this mystery. And maybe for the first time, I actually understand why disclosure is so much more complicated than any of us on the outside realize. (0:03:05)

This conversation changed my perspective. I think it might change yours too. Thank you so much, Jim, for being here. How are you doing, sir? I'm fine. Thank you so much for having me, Chris. Your CIA background and UAP awareness is such an interesting crossroads. When did you first become aware of UAPs during your intelligence career, and how did that shape your decision to co-found to the Stars Academy after? That's a good question. (0:03:46)

For the majority of my career, I was not the least bit interested in UAP. And it didn't affect my job. My job was, as a member of the clandestine service, I was an operations officer, essentially a guy who ran spies or ran programs. And I ran quite a few of both. So it wasn't until my wife and I had an experience back in the early 90s that I became interested in UAP. Before then, since I was in college, I had a strong interest in what we would consider the occult, but it was mostly mysticism, the concept of romanticism and German romanticism, British-American transcendentalism, things along those lines. (0:04:39)

And that led me to an interest in things that were unseen, let's put it that way, sort of the secret history of the world, right? And so I'd always had that as sort of a hobby, a side hobby. But it wasn't until this incident my wife and I had in the early 90s that it really changed everything. (0:05:02)

And I began to inquire more about UAPs and look into UFOs and I checked with some friends of mine at the agency who did have an interest in them and they led me to or pointed me towards some books, mostly Jacques Vallée's books. And I've since gotten to know Jacques very well and he's a good friend. (0:05:25)

But that started my interest. So for the last 35, 40 years, I've been studying it. I'm a student of this. I'm not a researcher by any stretch of the imagination. But I do do a lot of research, read quite a few books and talked to quite a few people in the community about this. So I have a decent background. And that's so interesting. You were in the CIA, and I'm just assuming here that you had no interest at all in UAPs. And then you had this encounter you mentioned with your wife. (0:05:56)

Can you talk through that basic encounter, just so the audience has an idea? (0:06:00)

Yeah, it was a typical encounter. When I say typical, it had a lot of the characteristics of what we would call an abduction scenario. I don't call it that because I have no clue what it was. And I hate putting a name on it. I just call it an experience. And it's essentially it had some of the classic elements. (0:06:34)

Like I said, it's laying in bed one night, woke up laying on my back and looking at the foot of the bed. And there were these three entities there. And what was startling about it was it was as real as me talking to you. It was almost realer than real, if you can imagine that. (0:06:55)

So I was there and I was unable to move, but I wasn't afraid. And the entities were like nothing I've ever seen in the literature before. Later on, I've learned that these types of entities have shown themselves two or three times to other people. Once in Spain, once in Mauritius, and then me, right? There might have been other people that have seen these things too. (0:07:24)

But I had a friend of mine, a researcher named them or calls them bi-bendy, which is the plural for a bi-bendum. Bi-bendum is the name of the Michelin tire man, you know, with the body armor, white body armor. One of mine had a sort of type black body armor on. So it wasn't particularly unpleasant. And then, you know, I had this, you know, they were looking at me and they had a look like a little tiny smiles, but I couldn't tell. And then there was another part. (0:07:57)

These experiences, these observations, sometimes they're broken up. It's like a film, you know, you seeing something and all of a sudden it shoots to another take and then it shoots to another take. And there's no rhyme or reason for it. The first one was in color. The second two were in black and white for strange reason. (0:08:15)

I don't know. But then again, I was out in the middle of my street behind my house with my wife and some entity, very tall entity was behind me. And he was pointing up to the sky and I was looking at the sky and there were these three orbs in the sky in a triangular pattern. (0:08:41)

And I'm staring at them and they merged into one and it shot off. And I remember saying to my wife, let's get the fuck out of here before they come back. That's exactly the phrase I used. And I mean, that's what I remember saying to my wife. And then it cuts like a film. And the other part of it is my wife and I trying to get back into the house, right? She and her nightgown, you know, and me stark naked because that's how I sleep. And then at exactly 7am in the morning, I wake up. (0:09:17)

Laying on my back, totally wide awake, which is highly unusual for me. I'm not a good... I don't wake up well, ever. And I was groggy. I was just beside myself. I couldn't believe this experience. And I looked to my right, and my wife wasn't there. And she was in the bathroom. (0:09:42)

So I went over and knocked on the door and she opened the door and she was clearly in a bad way. And I said, what's the matter? And she said, I don't know. She said, just really, I'm bleeding pretty badly. And she said, I don't know what this is all about. I never had this issue before. So we had to get her to the doctor. And this lasted for... this condition lasted for 17 days. (0:10:09)

I had a physical issue. I had a hole in the back of my neck, which my wife found later that morning. I knew it was there. I just thought it was a scratch or a pimple or something. But it was a round hole. It was the size of a pencil eraser. And it wasn't bleeding profusely or anything like that, but it was there. (0:10:41)

And so I didn't think anything of it. I didn't focus on it. And it was later, the next day I was in work, and I think it was on a Friday, and I was still sort of... I wasn't perturbed about this. I didn't know what to put it. What the hell happened, right? And my wife's a clinical psychologist. (0:11:02)

So I know quite a bit about liminal states and lucid dreaming and nightmares and all that kind of stuff. So this clearly didn't fit into this category at all. And this is something totally different. So anyway, I ran into somebody in the agency who was a deep cover officer who was in my branch at the time. And I just happened to share with him. (0:11:31)

And he was a UFO aficionado, sort of a researcher on his own. He had a doctorate. I knew that. I didn't know his real name. He was a non-official covered officer who was working back in the States until he went overseas again. And then he told me essentially what you had was, sounds like a classic abduction experience. (0:11:49)

And then he went through the whole thing and he asked me if there was any unexplained bleeding. And that's when I sort of freaked out a little bit. And he asked me if I had any marks on me. And I said, no, I don't think so. And he goes, nothing at all, any scoop marks? And I said, no, I can't think of anything. (0:12:05)

And he said, what about the back of your neck? Just like that. And I went like, moving my head around and always wore these white shirts and typical agency uniform and with a fulard tie. So he comes over and he undoes it. And he pulls it back and he goes, yeah, you got a perfect hole. He said, it's got blood on your collar. And so anyway, long story short, that was that. He told me what to do. (0:12:30)

He told me what to look up. And then later on, I started asking questions very carefully at the agency. And there are people in all the intelligence community and through DOD that study this. Their name was the Invisible College back in the day. (0:12:52)

So I got in touch with them and learned a little bit. I pushed the envelope a little bit while I was in the agency. I became a few years after that, a special assistant to the deputy director of operations, the chief spy. Did that for almost two years. And it was then that I learned that there are a lot of agency people, very senior people who actually did have a strong interest in this, but I didn't identify any program or anything like that, that the agency had. (0:13:27)

So it wasn't until I retired and I went back to work for the agency at another capacity. And it was around 2014 that I met a fellow from the Pentagon, John Alexander, who you probably know. I met him at a conference on energy and he had just finished his book, written his book on UFOs. And I chatted him up and told him my story. (0:14:04)

And then he came to my house, videotaped my wife and I. And then the next thing you know, he sent it off. He went to talk to some of his colleagues. And then I started getting phone calls from, well, first Jacques Vallee came to my house, spent the day together. (0:14:28)

And then a group of people came to my house and took my medical files, took blood samples, saliva, you name it. Gave me a HIPAA restricted briefing on on intelligence and people, intelligence officers and JSOC officers and pilots and who've had encounters with UAP, UFOs and what had happened to them physically. So that was a little bit of a shock. (0:15:05)

And so anyway, that's sort of how it began. And then later on, I got briefed, classified briefings, not so much on UAP, but on other areas of what we would call paranormal or we would call the phenomenon and what it is, aspects of it. Had that and that was life altering for me. Realizing that, yeah, all this stuff is actually true. And oh, by the way, we don't know what the hell it is. (0:15:32)

I mean, that story is mind blowing. I mean, that must have changed your whole outlook, right? Especially when you have your wife there who can really fully corroborate the experience for you, right? You know, if it happened to myself alone, yeah. Well, my wife doesn't remember anything. She had no recall of anything at all, except that she had physical issue. (0:16:06)

Now my wife, and by the same token, comes from a family that have had these experiences before. Her mother in particular recently passed away. I used to tell her when she was a kid, you know, yeah, I have children up there. She would point to the sky, you know, I have children up there. (0:16:23)

And her mother's always said that. I remember meeting her mother. We've been married 40 some years, 44 years. Her mother always talked about that. So it sort of runs in her family, but she doesn't have any particular recall of that. Now, in the same time, we lived in a house in Virginia that had what you would call now classic poltergeist activity. (0:16:42)

My wife and I, we don't have any children and we're generally very easygoing. And my wife's very spiritual. So it didn't bother us at all. As a matter of fact, we didn't, we sort of welcomed it. It was one of those things where, you know, the noises at night, the cigarette smoke in our room, the entities, you know, rubbing my wife's head and patting my wife's head, odd things in the house, you know, being moved. (0:17:14)

I mean, it was amusing more than anything else. But I never really gave it much thought and my wife and I were like, well, stuff like this happens, you know, and through my studies, I knew this was happening. But what I did was you don't give it energy, right? You don't focus on it. (0:17:29)

You don't get scared. You don't get happy. You don't do anything. You just let it alone. If it's there, it's there. At one point, my wife got together with some of her friends who were spiritually inclined and they asked it, this entity, you know, if it's okay, and if it needed anything, and if it wanted to stay, it was welcome to stay at our house. (0:17:53)

But if it needed to move on, then, you know, they would help it move on. Well, it left and it hadn't come back. And so that was pretty interesting. (0:17:58)

What's also I find interesting is that, you know, most people, a lot of my audience members who have had UAP or crazy experiences like that, when they bring it up with people, they're very skeptical. You know, they initially get the stigma immediately. People look at them like they're crazy. But you got the complete opposite from inside the CIA. You know, how did he know about the back of your neck? Or why would he bring up bleeding exactly? Do you know? Did you get any more information on that? Yeah. I mean, essentially, when you research the topic, and I've done that very, very much. I mean, I spent all my free time doing this. (0:18:40)

So when you research it, you know that there are, like I said, elements of these experiences. And they're pretty much the same worldwide. There are some elements that are a little bit different than others, but more or less, the storyline is the same. The narrative is the same. You get, you know, you get abducted, you go onto a craft, and I don't remember any craft at all. (0:19:05)

But you have these things that happen, right? And there's a sequence of how they happen. And then usually at the end, there's what I think Peter Sturrock called a theophany, which is really a catharsis where people change. The best example of that is Chris Bledsoe, a dear friend of mine, went from sheer terror at his experience to this wonderful, beautiful spiritual transformation. Now that happens. (0:19:38)

That did not happen with me. As a matter of fact, I'm not exactly the opposite, but I look at what happened to me as more of a human rights violation than anything else. So I'm very interested in trying to find out more about it, what it actually was, what it is. And I have to tell you, after 40 some odd years and speaking to everybody in the business, and I know them all, classified and unclassified, nobody has a clue. (0:20:04)

Really, really, nobody has a clue. I mean, in the end, you can talk to them and they'll give you, you know, their interpretation or their best guess or the best guesstimate. But even the people in the legacy programs, you know, the one that's been studying this for the government for like 80 years, I mean, they don't know. (0:20:36)

They don't know. And they may have downcraft, they may have, you know, pictures. I've seen them, you know, absolutely startling. And that's the other part of it. When you actually see the evidence, the evidence is all classified and they won't let it out. And, okay, you know, that's a whole other topic we can get into if you want, the idea of disclosure. (0:20:59)

But when you see it, and then you have people, very serious people, scientists, sitting you down and telling you, oh yeah, this is real. Clairvoyance is real. Remote viewing is real. Telekinesis is real. And they're going through all these sighs, psychic, you know, things, you know, and then they start giving you the information and they start telling you about classified programs. And you go, I mean, where the hell do you put this? (0:21:23)

And then you're looking for explanations, just like they are, because you want to go to science and you want to go to science and you want to say, okay, where does this fit in to what we know? And there is no place. I think the closest approximation we have is probably quantum mechanics and consciousness, the study of consciousness. (0:21:48)

But when you look at both of those areas, both of those areas are, you know, they're sort of in their infancy. We know very, very little. And as one physicist mentioned, he said, if, you know, if quantum mechanics doesn't scare you, you're not, you don't really know what quantum mechanics is all about, because essentially it's just basically telling us it's all a quantum illusion that we're living in. (0:22:07)

Right. So it's very complicated. It becomes very, very complicated after a while. You know, it's, there's a nuts and bolts aspect to it. People see things in the sky and they point to it, or they see, you know, maybe a non-human intelligence or an alien or they, what have you, and they see it as physical and they can relate to that. (0:22:32)

But really that's sort of a facade in a way. You questions, a serious question is, well, what's behind it? What does it mean? What are the intentions? What are the capabilities? And then what does it mean for our default reality that we're living in? Are we living in a reality that's really a consensus reality, but not the true reality? So it very, very quickly becomes very complicated and also very scary if you think about it. (0:23:05)

So we'd like to live in a world that's, you know, we see it as very materialistic and mechanistic, you know, and we rarely go into the spiritual or rarely go into some of the weirder aspects of this. But if you want to know where the real world exists, it's not in what you see around you. It's what you don't see. (0:23:29)

And maybe it's because our sensory package isn't geared to see it. I mean, our brain is blinkered somewhat, right? It's a veil and we haven't broken through that. Now, some people have. Some mystics have done that. Some people who... I heard a fascinating show the other day on coast-to-coast radio on DMT, dimethyltryptamine, you know, and this little molecule chemical in your brain that pushes you into another world. (0:24:03)

Absolutely fascinating. Everybody sees the same thing when they do this, when they're put on this drug. How unusual is that? It's like ayahuasca, taking ayahuasca, which I've never done. You were in the CIA for so many years, and they seem even open-minded about it. Why do you think the government at least appears, you know, very hesitant to acknowledge that any of this is real, and they continue to promote the narrative that, you know, it doesn't exist, there's no non-human intelligence, et cetera? Well, you know, interestingly, the government has been doing this, this one person called a tradition of disbelief. (0:24:45)

I mean, they manufactured this back in the 40s. When they ran into the problem, they knew about this back in the early in the 30s, actually, and they didn't... I mean, it was so far beyond what they could comprehend. And it wasn't until the 40s with the Roswell crash, and then another crash that they realized they had a problem, a very big problem. And what do you do with this? (0:25:13)

It wasn't serendipitous that this crash occurred near Roswell Air Force Base, which basically was a nuclear, our nuclear base, right? So it has an affinity, this phenomena has an affinity for nuclear materials, so it shows up, you know, all over the place. But anyway, so what do you do? Your President Truman and, you know, your top Air Force generals come up to you and say, you won't believe what we have. (0:25:46)

We have bodies, we have these crashed, and we don't understand anything about it. Truman stuck with it. And, you know, it's a hot potato. The Air Force doesn't want it, you know, because what the hell are they going to do with it? So what does Truman do? You know, the National Defense Act of 1947, he creates CIA, he creates the Department of Defense, he creates the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and, you know, some other entities. (0:26:10)

And then he says, well, okay, you know, he picks two, right, and says, you two, look at this. So the CIA at that time had to charter to do that, and so did the Air Force. So the Air Force and the CIA at that time picked up on this topic. Now, they have not admitted this in any way, shape, or form. And I'm not speaking officially either on this, I can't. So I, you know, but those are the most logical people to pick this up and run with it. (0:26:47)

So the agency has put out an unclassified history of their involvement with UFOs. And it's on their website, you can read it, and it talks about it, you know, and it talks about, you know, who they put in charge and, you know, what elements were in charge of this and looking at it. (0:27:03)

And they were very interested in it because it's, and they remain interested in it because they, that's their charter. They have to prevent another Pearl Harbor, right? And so does the Air Force. So things like this just don't go away. Now, the government, what the government is not doing, the government isn't saying that this isn't real. What the government is basically saying, we're not going to officially confirm that this is true. (0:27:27)

We're not going to come out officially and say that. And I think the reason for that is because they don't know what to say. You know, I was on a podcast not too long ago, and somebody asked me, you know, about disclosure. And there's this concept now that's being discussed, limited disclosure versus catastrophic disclosure. Catastrophic disclosure is where the president comes out, and it has to be the president, it can't be anybody else, comes out and says, all right, we're not alone in the universe. (0:28:07)

And there are three to six different types of alien species or non-human intelligence that have visited the planet and are currently on the planet. We have crashed saucers, and just basically let's loose with everything that the government knows. The end result of that is relatively unknown. We don't know how anybody would react to it. (0:28:38)

And I think particularly if the president says we don't know their intentions or capabilities. Well, the president's job is to defend the Constitution of the United States, and it's also to defend the American people. That's what the military's job is, that's what the intelligence community's job is. And now you're going out and you're telling people A, there are these non-human intelligences that are on this planet, have been on this planet probably for 2000 years, recorded history. And they have this ability to take you at any moment. (0:29:10)

They have the ability to plant memories in your mind. They can control you, they can control me, they can control everybody. So essentially what he's saying is we're no longer at the top of the food chain. And he's even going further than that, because he's saying, well, they may be godlike. (0:29:29)

They may be omniscient. They may be the gods. I mean, every major religion talks about sky gods. There isn't one that doesn't. Coming down and giving them this, right? Everyone. Look at Genesis. I mean, you can go to every single one, particularly the Indian Vedas and Mahabharata, things along those lines. So it then pushes the sociocultural issues up front. Now people are saying, well, what's reality? What's true? And does civilization break down? Most sociologists and, I don't know, demographers will tell you that if you have a 25%, you know, like a 25% of your population either becomes sick, ill, dead, or just disassociates for some reason or other. (0:30:33)

Civilization can be on the verge of collapse. Food production shuts down. Everything shuts down. So I think when, you know, there was a study done in 2004, I know Hal Puthoff talks about this study, he was involved in it, put together by a group of psychologists, religious people, things along those lines. (0:30:59)

And the question was posed to them, you know, what would happen if the government came out and admitted, you know, there was disclosure and admitted all this. And at the beginning of, this is what Hal was telling me in the beginning of the conference, they all agreed the government should come out. Everybody has a right to know. After three days of the conference, every single one of them said, absolutely not. (0:31:21)

Because they gained it. They gained it. They gained it. And, you know, this is what we call, you know, what sociologists would call and, you know, industrial psychologists would call a wicked problem. A wicked problem is something that it's a problem that has a lot of elements to it. And it's generally unresolvable. It's like poverty, world poverty. How do you solve world poverty? Well, you can game it and you can go and sit into a room and it's a wicked problem. (0:31:53)

And you list all the things you would have to do. And there's all these political things, social things, cultural things, financial things. And there's just so many things that you need to do to do this correctly that it almost becomes impossible. So you have to take it one thing at a time. Well, this particular problem, UAP, is what I call the UR, U-R problem, right? It's the UR wicked problem. (0:32:25)

It is like beyond anything. We don't have a taxonomy. We don't have an ontology to even speak of this. Don't have a lexicon. We don't know anything. This thing shows itself when it wants to show itself. It tells us very, very little about it. So we're totally in the dark. So what do you do? There was a wonderful book, series of books that were written called The Three-Body Problem. And I always tell people that if you're interested in science fiction, these are well worthwhile. (0:32:56)

But Netflix did a Netflix show called The Three-Body Problem. And I urge people to look at it because I think it's a very good rendering of what would happen if we did have disclosure. And there are groups of people who basically disassociate. They just said, well, they're going to start worshiping these aliens who are coming to our planet, actually to take over the planet and kill everybody. (0:33:22)

Not that I want to spoil anything, but they totally dissociate and they go someplace else. And then you have other people, these preppers just go into the wilderness and they're just going to do everything else. So it becomes very, very problematic for society. And I think that's it. And then there's a whole idea of limited disclosure. (0:33:42)

Well, the president comes out and the president says, well, we're not alone on the planet or on the universe. And there are other things here, but you can't just say that. The president can't just say that because it will beg a million questions. And then the narrative isn't complete. Now, the narrative isn't complete even with catastrophic disclosures, but even with limited disclosure, you're stuck with who is going to fill the remainder of that narrative. And then you're looking at who actually would. Joe Rogan would. Sean Hannity would. (0:34:13)

And I'm not just trying to go to the right here, but Tucker Carlson. Every single person has had an abduction experience with Philippine. And you're going to get all this information that creates this new narrative. And none of it is really accurate because nobody knows the answer. (0:34:33)

So people make stuff up and you end up with a new religion, so to speak. And out of that morass of opinions that you're going to be getting, it's going to come up something that may be really ugly. And I think people, I think the government knows that. And plus the government doesn't know, it really doesn't know what to say. It has no response to what do we do about this? (0:34:58)

They can't. They've been studying this for 80 years. It's like, they don't know what the hell it is. We're living in 21st century physics, right? If this phenomenon, if this UAP phenomenon is 25th century physics, what, I mean, can you blame science? Can you blame anybody? I mean, for looking at this and saying, what the hell do we do with it? Do we create a problem where there isn't a problem? Because right now, NHI, the phenomenon, UAP does not impinge on most people's lives. (0:35:43)

And I say most people, I'm talking about 95% of the world population. It just doesn't. It impinges on the military. It impinges on people like me, maybe 5% of the population, 10% of the population. They don't know what to do with it. They don't know where to go. Or they go to Congress with it. (0:36:01)

Congress doesn't know what to do about it. Congress is just as befuddled as everybody else is. So it's a conundrum. It really, truly is. And I'm not against disclosure at all. I'm hoping that somebody can find a way to do it that's responsible, that we know that we're not going to be setting off or opening up a Pandora's box. And this is something that's discussed quite frequently among people in the UFO community, not just me saying this. Very serious people have issues with this. (0:36:29)

My dear friend, Chris Mellon, he's a big fan of disclosure, and he makes, I think, wonderful arguments, brilliant arguments on this. And I don't disagree with him. I'm just not sure of the outcome. Just not sure. No one, by the way, has done more to push disclosure than Lou Elizondo and Chris Mellon, and now Dave Grush. These guys are out there, and they're doing this all the time to push this. (0:37:04)

Because in a way, their point is very well taken. You can't deny reality to people. You can't say, oh, gee, I'm not going to tell you what's real, because it's too scary. I just tend to be more cautious about it. And I'm not against it coming out. I just want to hopefully find a way to do it where it creates... the problems are minimal. (0:37:27)

I always go back to that quote from a T.S. Eliot poem in the Four Quartets, one of his more famous poems, where he said, mankind cannot bear too much reality. Humankind cannot bear much reality. And I think there's a lot to be said for that. We have to be careful. Some people aren't well-tethered to the ground. (0:37:52)

And you throw something like this at them, and you say... For instance, let me give you an example. If you talk to a quantum physicist, and you said to him or her, tell me what quantum mechanics says about reality, and they'll tell you. They'll talk to you about superpositioning. They'll talk to you about entanglement. They'll talk about all kinds of stuff. (0:38:14)

But they'll also tell you like, well, space is made up of emptiness. It's just empty. And oh, by the way, your reality is really based on probabilities and chance. There's no mechanistic way this is going to happen. We don't know what's going to happen at any one given point. It just happens as it goes. But when you look at it, they'll also tell you that Chris Leto and Jim Simivan are just two big masses of spinning electrons talking to one another. (0:38:50)

And everything around them, including the pictures behind you, the books behind me, the desk, their headphones, they're just empty space, basically, and made up of electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, muons. But most of that is empty space. So what does that mean about us? What does that say about our reality? What does that say? I mean, we're physical because of opposing electron forces, and maybe the strong nuclear force pushes us together in these faces and these bodies and this desk and what have you. (0:39:25)

But when you look behind it, when you look at it closely, this is just energy patterns. And so are we just energy patterns? And if we are just energy patterns, what the hell does that mean? I don't know. I don't stay up at night anymore thinking about it, but sometimes I do. Yeah, I think we just take for granted that we know so much. (0:39:55)

And like you just mentioned there, we just know so little. We don't know why radiation happens. No one knows why anything radiates, why we have radiation at all. There's no explanation in physics. We don't know really what matter is. You said electrons and protons interacting with each other, but then when you try and actually find out what that is, even in quantum mechanics, it's all different fields. So it's just fields of energy. (0:40:19)

Yeah. And the problem with UAP in general, and this phenomenon in general, and NHI, it's multidisciplinary. I mean, it covers science, but it also covers sociology, and it covers religion. And you're into biology. Biology is a whole other ballgame. And you have these academic disciplines that are stacked on one another. You don't have people that are... we don't have scientists that are able to talk about it all together. (0:40:53)

In other words, we have to look at it individually, and we look at it at piecemeal, and everything's siloed. So, and again, our brain isn't really capable of doing it. I mean, our visual spectrum, our hearing spectrum, very limited, right? It's as limited as one certain area, right? We can't see outside of it. (0:41:19)

Some animals can see outside of it, and we know they can. And then our level of consciousness, you know, we're at a level of self-consciousness. But how conscious are we? I mean, are we... is our consciousness evolving? Like our bodies are evolving, and our bodies are evolving slowly, but they're evolving. Well, do we need to reach a state of cosmic consciousness before we're able to understand part of this? Or do we have to transition, and by that I mean dying, and moving into another state, another form, another dimension? So you, you know, everybody used to think that UAP were extraterrestrial, but nowadays most people, most ufologists, or people that study this, and most scientists that study this, will tell you, well, it's probably a combination of extraterrestrial, interdimensional, and maybe a little bit of crypto, you know, crypto-terrestrial, ultra-terrestrial, where these, these, these NHI are living on our planet, and have been living on our planet with us. (0:42:17)

You know, we just haven't seen them, and they have the ability to cloak themselves. This Arabic, you know, concept of the jinn, it's always fascinated me, you know, because it's, it's very close to, you know, what, you know, the Christian religion would call angels, you know, and although the pre-Islamic religions did have, you know, angels, and, and jinn, and stuff like that, and they still kept them, you know, in the Quran, you can read whole surahs about, about jinn. (0:42:51)

But it's fascinating, and you know, you, you, you see all this, and it's all out there, all this, this, this knowledge, this is out there, and it's, it's, it's ethereal, and it's anomalous, and, but you can't put your arms around it. You just can't. And it's hard. It's just very, very hard. (0:43:09)

We hear a lot about the negative effects of disclosure, but have you really considered, I'm sure you have, but the positive effects, you know, what do you think disclosure would bring about in terms of positive change in the world? Oh, that's an excellent question. And, and, and this goes back to what I think Chris Mellon and Lou Elizondo talks about, and Gary Nolan, and a lot of these guys, and they're absolutely correct about it. (0:43:41)

It, it, it will generate a whole new series of academic disciplines. I mean, right off the bat, if we came out and we told the scientific establishment, this is real, the National Science Foundation, you know, National Institutes of Health, every major university would start programs on trying to figure out what this is. I mean, we would have this immense amount of research, money, and funding going to discover what this is. (0:44:09)

And I think in some respects that would, you know, that may be able to push us forward in so many different ways. It would take, I think, I think consciousness studies, and particularly, I mean, quantum mechanics studies, I mean, the money would be pouring into that. And people would be very interested in it. And it also changed, enormously changed religion and our view of the world itself. (0:44:36)

People would be questioning reality all the time. But I think it's going to be a mixed bag. You know, it's, I think there's gonna be a ton of positive effects. The biggest one being we get to know our real history, right? We get to know who we really are. It's our birthright to know what the truth is. (0:44:55)

And this is, I think, is what, you know, with a lot of pro people who, pro-disclosure people are saying, it's nobody's right to, you know, it's not the government's right to say, you know, I'm not going to tell you this because, you know, we're afraid of what it might do. (0:45:13)

Sorry, but, you know, I'm a human being. I have a right to know what kind of world I live in. And so for me, and I know I'm sort of talking out of both sides of my mouth here, but the elements here are, you know, it's problematic. It's highly problematic. So yeah, a lot of good things, maybe some bad things, but, you know, but then again, I mean, the phenomenon itself isn't helping, is it? There's a group of people who believe that the reason why we don't have disclosure is because the phenomenon is actually controlling it. (0:45:49)

It's basically saying, no, you're not going to do that. But then again, disclosure, I mean, you and I are talking about this, right? I mean, you know, it's real. I know it's real. I don't know whether you do or not. I don't know that much about your beliefs on this issue, but it's absolutely and totally real. If you sit down and look at the evidence, and you saw the evidence, talk to these pilots, you know, talk to Dave, you know, Dave Fravor. He saw these, visually saw them. (0:46:13)

He's not making this shit up, you know, and he's dead serious. And then when you talk to other people who've had these experiences, very, very serious people. Oh, my God, I mean, it's... Yeah. And that changed my view. Yeah, that changed my view was initially David Fravor to look into it. And it was so compelling to me. (0:46:42)

And then just doing the channel, you know, drawn into it, you know, I never wanted to be like, in investigating UAPs or UFOs, but I'm just so curious about it. And then I kept talking to credible person after credible person, you know, why would this person lie? I just did an interview with Dr. Rogers, Dr. Greg Rogers, he was a NASA flight doc, you know, for many years, and he saw a video actually of a craft in a hangar with the US Air Force on it doing tests back in 1992. You know, and I just could not understand, I cannot think of any reason why, why he would lie about that, seeing that video, you know, that the US actually has craft. (0:47:20)

Yeah, the US has craft, then the US, you know, don't forget stealth came out, what I mean, stealth was on the drawing boards in what 70s. And then it really was out in the 80s. And, and so you're looking and saying, what's new? (0:47:30)

Oh, hell, I mean, you know, they have been experimenting with, you know, all kinds of different propulsion systems, very advanced systems, probably anti gravity systems. So, you know, if you have a downed craft, and you don't understand the craft, you don't understand the technology. So you're looking at the craft, you can extrapolate a lot of things from that craft, you can take some of the material from the craft and look at it and study it and say, well, okay, you know, maybe we could do this, or maybe we can do that. (0:48:02)

And that pushes science forward a little bit, right? You still may not understand the craft itself. I had one person tell me, who was in a note said, well, the craft is actually basically alive. It's a living thing. And that the, the entities that drive the craft, actually become part of the craft. They're, they're sort of robotic in and of themselves, and then they merge with the craft. (0:48:30)

And then that's how these things fly. So, or they not, I shouldn't even say fly, that's how they operate, right? Because we don't know whether they're flying or not. And they become, they become these, these entities, like these orbs, you see these orbs all over the place, right? And, and there's orbs have been around for forever. But now you're seeing much, many, many more orbs showing up in different places. (0:48:52)

I've seen orbs with faces in them. I've seen orbs change colors. I've seen orbs. Well, I haven't seen this particular type of orb, but an orb, you know, that lands and then gets bigger and then something crawls out of it. I mean, you, and people that are telling me this are telling me this in a classified setting, and they're telling me this and they're not, they're not lying. (0:49:19)

They have no reason to lie to me. I'm not in any position or authority, you know, and, and they're just disturbed by this as I am disturbed by listening to it. Because what it does is it just tells you we live in the strangest damn place. I mean, it's just beyond strange. And we haven't even tapped into probably 90%. Nobody knows what dark energy is. (0:49:47)

Nobody knows what dark matter is. We know it, we think we know it exists. We don't know how, you know, most of the medicines we take, we really don't know how they work. You know, you know, we, we, you know, if you took an antidepressant, and I don't, but if you did take one, I mean, the doctors sort of have a general idea, you know, it's maybe a serotonin uptake, maybe it's this, maybe it's that, but they're not really sure how that all that works, you know, but they know it does. (0:50:10)

I mean, it does have an effect. So we're sort of primitive, and we like to think we're not, but we are. So I don't know if that answered your question. Yeah. You've looked into it as well. And I hear this, like, Diana Pasoka interviewed her and in her perspective is that it's from a religious angle. And then Jacques Vallée, you talked to him right from the beginning, where he talks about control systems. (0:50:36)

Can you, or have you determined any sort of motivation for the phenomenon? You know, why it's here? Is it directly related to us in some manner? (0:50:48)

Excellent question. You know, what Diana says? Yeah, I believe that. What Vallée says? Yeah, I believe that. I don't disbelieve any of them. And I think they all make these great, great points. What, if you looked at these leitmotifs that run through the phenomenon, you know, it always comes down to, you know, these beings are, if they have any message at all, they're saying it has to do with, you know, nuclear energy and climate change, right? That seems to be the two primary things, right? You know, don't screw up the planet is essentially what they're saying. Or they're not saying it, but they're sort of showing you in a way, right? So you look at that and you go, okay, that part of it you sort of get, but it's also, it has a very strong disruptive quality, right? And this is what Jacques gets into as a control mechanism. (0:51:50)

If you look at the early Greek mystery schools and Roman mystery schools, you know, they would put people in caves and, you know, be in there for three days without food or water, and people would hallucinate and they come out and change people. And essentially what it would be, they would tap into something they normally would never tap into in their normal daily quotidian lives, right? You know, they just, you know, and all of a sudden they have a mystical experience and they come out and they realize that the world is much broader and deeper than they ever had before. (0:52:21)

And I think this could be looked at as sort of an initiation rite, something that's highly disruptive, and it also has these sociological effects, because what happens when you see a UFO? What happens when you have these experiences? It does change you. And I don't think it's unusual as we progress that this is becoming more of a topic of discussion and that people are taking it seriously and that we have many, many scientists now that are getting into this and taking it very seriously and realize that it's actually, there's truth to this. (0:53:00)

And they're trying to get to that truth. The only problem with all that is the truth is so woo-woo. So, as Jacques likes to talk about it, it's so absurd, absolutely absurd. I mean, going back to my experience, I mean, look, you know, there's no rhyme or reason to it. That's why I don't like to call it an abduction experience and why I'm sort of mad about it. (0:53:28)

It's like, you know, screw you, you know what I mean? You throw this crap at me and you lay it at my feet and then I'm supposed to figure this out? I don't have a guidebook, you know? I mean, we're all born on the planet, right, without an instruction manual. I get that. And then we create religions. (0:53:51)

(transcript 2of2)

（以下は 2分割した文字起こしの後半部分です。内容は Jim Semivan （元 CIA 高官）をゲストに迎えたインタビューです。 ）

We create order because order gives us some type of stability and it distracts us from really looking at the void, right? Because there isn't anything else out there. I mean, when you look at the meaning of life and you're trying to figure that out and because you're born and you know you're going to die, right? You get to a certain age and you go, whoop, shit, you know, our life is, you know, in between these two points. (0:54:08)

It's frightening. And it's frightening to children and it's frightening to everybody because you don't know where you're going afterwards. You don't know where the hell you came from. And then you throw this UAP phenomenon in the middle of all this stuff. (0:54:20)

So where do you take solace? You know, you take, usually you take solace in science and religion, right? And, but in this particular case, science and religion have no answers. You know, they may have, you know, guideposts and sort of saying, well, maybe it's a little bit of this or maybe it's a little bit of that, but you're sort of left on your own. (0:54:42)

If you're a serious thinker, I believe you're sort of left on your own. And that's hard. And that's another thing too. I mean, I had one, one fellow, a dear friend of mine, scientist. We had, we started to the stars and he, he was invited, we had these long conversations and, and he was very heavily involved in this, in the medical side. (0:55:13)

And, and he looked at me and he said, you know, disclosure means scaring seven-year-olds. Now you have children. I mean, what the hell do you tell them? I had a psychologist friend of mine at the agency asked me if I would speak to her teenage daughter because her daughter was fascinated with UAP and UFOs. And I said, no. (0:55:37)

And I said, I said, because if I, she asked me a good 14-year-old question and 14-year-olds are pretty smart. And I said, I'm not going to lie to her. I'm going to tell her, you know, this, this is not, you know, this is not E.T. putting his finger to your head and going, ouch. (0:55:53)

I said, this is a hell of a lot different. And it's not just like the, you know, the end of a close encounter to the third kind where a spaceship lands and, you know, we're flashing signals at it. And all of a sudden these cute little white beings, translucent white beings come out, you know, with big smiles on their faces. (0:56:09)

They all look like Casper the ghost. No, that's not what it is. These things are not, you know, I was talking to Jacques and I said, well, I said, what the hell is it? I said, are they, are they bad? They good? And he goes, the best you can say is they're, they're classically indifferent. They're not, they don't give a damn one way or the other. And I think that's exactly the truth. (0:56:31)

I don't think they're good. I don't think they're bad. I just think, I think we're, well, as Charles Fort said, I think, I think they view us as property. And I think we have to take that into consideration. And that's another reason about disclosure. So you want to tell somebody that you want to, I have this list of things, you know, what, what I know about UAP and none of it is good. I mean, it's, it's, it's good. (0:57:01)

It's good in a sense that, wow, you know, this whole different reality opens up, but it's not good in the sense that this is a, an intelligence that does act as a control mechanism and does, it can control us. It can dictate to us. It, it doesn't seem to be doing that, you know, on a daily basis and affecting people's lives, but it can do that. (0:57:28)

And when you give up that, that sovereignty, right? That idea, that free will, you no longer have free will. (0:57:34)

And then you have an eight-year-old who's petrified, doesn't want to go to bed at night because he's afraid the being's going to come into his room. And I know people who's had, who've had that happen to their children, you know, and they don't react well to that. So what do you do? What do you do with that? I don't know. (0:57:55)

I don't know. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's a situation I think that, that thankfully in some respects, you know, it goes unnoticed by the majority of the population. They don't, it does not impinge on their lives. I live in this really nice little community up near, in Delaware, you know, and, and, you know, it's a very small town, 3,500 people. (0:58:18)

And, you know, I can count on my hand the number of people that are interested in this. And, and then it would take me forever to count the number of people that whose eyes would glaze over if, if I ever engaged them in conversation on this, because, you know, there's no there there, right? I can't sit there and I can tell them these stories, these narratives, like, you know, and I can say, well, this is real. (0:58:42)

And this is, I know because I've seen this, you know, I can't tell you it's classified. It's like when Dave Grish came out, Grish didn't come out with papers, right? He didn't come out with any documentation. He came out with just saying what he said. And it was all accurate, in my opinion, all accurate. And he says this, and people look at him and some people try to, you know, you know, like Lou Elizondo was the same way. (0:59:11)

He got so much crap for doing what he did, but he's not lying. I was there. I was with him in the Pentagon, saw the same thing. Well, he saw a lot more than I did, but then later on, I saw more. But anyway, he saw this stuff. I saw some of this stuff. He showed me some of this stuff. We talked about it. People aren't lying. It wasn't just him. It was other people too. (0:59:24)

And they don't... top of the line scientists telling you this too. Please, you know, so when these skeptics come out and, you know, and start pushing these, their own narratives about, oh, it's this and, oh, it's that. And, you know, this is some kind of a problem in software packages. And it's such horseshit, you know, I just, I don't engage them anymore. I used to engage them. (0:59:51)

I don't bother with it anymore. You know, I know what I know. And I think they have a role to play to keep everybody honest, you know, and I do that, you know, and I see that, but I don't personally engage with them anymore because I don't, I'm not here to defend what I believe, you know, you get to take it where the grain of salt, or you believe it or you're not believe it, I don't care. It doesn't affect my life anymore. It used to, it doesn't anymore. (1:00:17)

What do you think about like the idea that Ronald Reagan said, you know, the famous quote, if there's an extraterrestrial or outside threat, not that this is necessarily a threat, like you said, they seem indifferent. But what do you think of that idea that it could, you know, unify the world or maybe unify humanity so we could move forward and stop all these crazy wars, et cetera? Well, I think there's definitely an element of truth to that, maybe more truth than not. (1:00:52)

Again, in the three-body problem, you know, I did a simultaneous podcast, I think it's during the fourth episode. And I was talking about how intelligence services came together when they knew this threat was coming and how they worked together and, you know, and what, what, how that would happen and what it would mean. And so, yeah, I mean, there's no question. (1:01:14)

I think that people would, would basically, I think the people incentive, I think populations in general would force governments to work together for the common good. But again, you know, we're humans, right? And there will be, every government will be looking towards an advantage that they can have with another government won't. Do the Russians know about this? Yeah, the Russians have their own program. (1:01:38)

It used to be called Thread 3. We know that and, you know, studying UFOs. Do they have crash saucers? Most, most likely they do. Most likely the Chinese do too. So they have their own programs. (1:01:51)

Everybody's in France has their own practice. Italy has their own practice. A lot of countries have their own programs. Brazil. The problem is they're all trying to figure out what everybody else has. So that's where the national security aspect comes in with this. This is another reason why we're Lou, you know, took a lot of crap when he came out and, and, and so did my company to the stars because we were saying like, wait a minute, you know, disclosure is fine, but we do have some national security aspects here. (1:02:21)

This, this program, this current program, this legacy program, the DEEP program. And I mean, it's, it's, you know, you know, security around that is obscene. It's just not going to be, they're not going to discuss it. They can't because they don't want, if you can't tell your friend, tell an enemy, right? You can't come out and talk about what you know and what you don't know. (1:02:42)

So they leave that alone. And and the government leaves that alone, because if you by happenstance discover a technology that could control the airspace and space in general and everything else, well, you, you own the world, right? And, and somebody was saying to me, not too long ago, well, you know, look at all these wonderful technologies that could come out, free energy. You can go on and on and talk about all these new technologies. (1:03:09)

Well, yeah, that's great. But what happens? I said, what happens when you have a technology that makes, you know, energy symmetrical, that everybody has it? Well, what's the first thing a country's going to do? We're human. We're going to take a weapon system out of it. Now we all have the same weapon system. You know, nobody has an advantage. (1:03:33)

You know, everybody has, you know, the same advantage now because you're able to develop these, these craft that, you know, anti-gravity craft, you can put weapon systems on it and all that. There's a lot to think about, about this. And I think that's another one of the reasons why the government is very careful about this and they're careful about the technology that they may have discovered. (1:03:54)

I don't know if they have or have not. But yeah, I mean, you know, it's not a simple, simple problem set. I mean, it's, it's a difficult problem set. And if it wasn't for the fact that humans are humans, I mean, it's just, we have a nasty side to us. (1:04:15)

We just do. And, you know, you can talk to Thich Nhat Hanh and, you know, and the Dalai Lama, tell you the same thing, you know, you know, you look at a person like, you know, I hate to use Hitler, but Stalin is a perfect example. You know, John McCarthy, you get all these people, I mean, I put them on the same levels or anything like that, but nevertheless, they have a nasty side. (1:04:39)

And, you know, and so I don't trust, you know, humans with it. I trust the government. I really do, to a certain extent. I mean, they've lied. They've done things that they shouldn't have done. You know, even my agency, you know, with, you know, with the programs back in the sixties and seventies were way, way over the top and just awful. (1:05:00)

But in the end, you know, they get, they get straightened out and, you know, and the people force them to basically maintain, you know, order and keep in mind the public good. So I think government in general, I have a lot of faith in government. (1:05:11)

Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, have you talked to John Ramirez at all? He's the other CIA analyst. Yeah, what do you think of his story where he's invited to a meeting, essentially, and with high-level members as well, you know, there's no classification markings, and they say that, I believe, we're hybrids or some relation to that. Yeah, John told me that story. (1:05:45)

I can't get into any of the details around... John and I spoke privately about that. And there's a... well, I believe what he said. There's no reason for John to, you know, particularly talking with me, you know what I mean? There's no reason for either of us to shade anything with one another. And so, yeah, what he said, I think what he said is accurate. (1:06:16)

That happens. I mean, even you have some of the most really highly... well, I can't get into too much detail because where John worked, how John came across this makes sense to me. And what his story was, he told me, made sense to me. It fits the pattern. It's like what Dave Gruch, you know, said. Yeah, yeah, that fits the pattern. I mean, it makes total sense to me, but I can't tell you why. (1:06:40)

Okay. And we talked about a lot of negative consequences of disclosure, as well as, you know, potential positive. How do you think we should move forward? You know, what do you think I should do as a podcaster? And what are you working on? Well, for you as a podcaster, I think, you know, continue to do what you're doing. And as many voices as we can get on this topic, the better it's going to be for many. (1:07:07)

Plus, I do my own podcast with my company, To The Stars. You know, I just did one with Tom DeLonge and Peter LaVenda, and I'll be doing another one hopefully soon, maybe with Hal Puthoff and somebody else down the road. I prefer doing that as opposed to being on a podcast. Because I get to ask the questions. (1:07:29)

But I think it's really, really important for podcasters to keep doing this and to look at not just UAP, to go into other areas that related these corollary areas. Like this wonderful book that just came out, The Illustrated Guide to DMT Entities. Oh, I mean, that's to me, I mean, I bought the book. I bought the Kindle version of the book. I can't wait to read it. (1:07:59)

And I'm going to start today. And it's looking at other realities. And that's the other thing you want to look at. You want to maybe get into mysticism and the idea of a classical version of mysticism, the lives of the saints. What did certain saints see? I'm reading a book now called They Flew, you know, about saints who actually levitated. And they had, you know, hundreds of witnesses who saw them flying, you know what I mean? So okay, to me, that's all part of this. (1:08:27)

John Alexander likes to point out, he said, you know, he had a slide once he showed me, and he had all these different aspects of, you know, psychic phenomena all together, you know, with UAP and NHI, you know, are they connected? Is this phenomena connected to near death experiences? To life between life and death? I mean, this whole topic, Michael Newton psychologist who wrote a bunch of books, you know, Journey of the Souls and things along those lines about what happens when you die. And, you know, you go to these soul groups and what have you. (1:09:02)

The whole concept of reincarnation, how does this all fit in? I don't know. But it's all part of it. (1:09:09)

And so it's a much, much grander subject area than we give it credit for. You know, it's not just nuts and bolts, and it's not just quantum mechanics. It's this whole other thing that's out there, and it's all connected in some form or fashion. That, to me, is fascinating. (1:09:35)

And I think podcasters need to do more of that, just open this up more, and also get scientists on too. You know, we need what William James called a radical empiricism, right? We don't have that now. We have this box, right? And science looks at the box, and God forbid if they don't understand something, because they end up trivializing it. And it's really not science, right? A true scientist is going to look at something they don't understand and say, I got to figure that out, right? And I got to figure what the hell is going on there, not make fun of it. (1:10:08)

Look, what we're doing, at least I'm doing, with To the Stars, with Tom DeLong, and our other board members, we're focusing on education. We tried very early on, we had a business model, we have a public benefit corporation, so about 10% of our profits usually goes to public benefit, and we do do that, right? But we were going to use some of that money to pursue research into the phenomenon in general. (1:10:41)

Well, we had a very big surprise during the pandemic, when some of our big investors, everything dried up. And we were relying on small investors, small investors just don't have the money. And we developed these couple relational databases, and they're really cool using some forms of AI. And we were going to use those to do a lot of research in the farm to research out to universities, things along those lines. But it just, the cloud, using the cloud was so expensive. (1:11:12)

It was just like millions of dollars a year to do that. We just didn't have the money as a company. So we decided to restructure the company a few years ago and turn it into an entertainment company in the hopes that we'll get more, we'll get more money, and that money will then go back into the research. So we haven't given up on that at all. (1:11:32)

We're going to be doing that. But the entertainment part is where we're telling stories and pushing narratives, because we have access to people who know this real story. And what we're trying to do is tell the whole story. We sold the rights, not the rights to, but the movie rights to, or television rights to Secret Machines, our first trilogy, the fiction version to Legendary Pictures. We just, we probably have a dozen projects we've sold, and they're in various stages of development. (1:12:08)

We're very excited about all of them. Hopefully this year we'll start seeing more about them. Tom did Montresor, California, a movie he directed, which is great. That's just coming out now in the streaming services. So we're trying to educate, essentially, people in that level. But hopefully we'll get into the research too, down the road. (1:12:23)

Yeah, I get a lot of comments, or when I have people on, like Dr. Rogers, he had written a book back in 95, actually. And well, as soon as he came out last month, his publisher pulled the book, actually. He went to Contact in the Desert, talked about it, actually came out with a story, and then his publisher pulled the book. (1:12:45)

But I'll get comments saying, oh, it's another person trying to sell a book, or another person trying to cash in on the UFO podcast circuit. And I'm saying, where's all this cash flowing in? It seems like that's one of the biggest issues, is it's not mainstream enough, really, to generate any sort of real cash to really funnel a full industry. No, you're absolutely right. (1:13:13)

And people who say things like that, it's mean-spirited. It really, truly is. In the beginning, there were some really extraordinary narratives that came out, and some very odd books that came out. And I used to discount them. I don't do that anymore. Weird, with a capital W, has taken on a whole new meaning in my life. But you can't tell me anything that's too weird. (1:13:48)

You can't tell me anything that I wouldn't say, well, that's fascinating. I don't know if I believe it completely, but I'm not going to discount it. And I don't do that anymore. One of them is the topic of military abductions. I have a friend of mine, Melinda Leslie, this wonderful person who had a terrible experience with that. And she told me her story. (1:14:08)

And you can't listen to her without saying, this person is not lying to me. And I don't think she's imagining things either. But I don't know how to explain her predicament. And she's not the only one. And then there are other ones that come up too. Now, there are some like, well, I was taken when I was seven years old and trained as a pilot, and then the Air Force trained me and all this kind of stuff. (1:14:34)

Well, again, I don't discount it, but at the same time, I don't give it a lot of credence. And you must have been proud from your To the Stars Academy, right? I mean, that seems like it really broke the story wide open, at least from my perspective. Yeah, it did to a certain extent. (1:14:57)

And I'm very, very proud of that. And I'm very proud that Tom DeLonge took it the way he did. When I first met him, I met him, really, to find out whether or not there was a leak of classified material. Because some of the things he was saying and some of the things that were written down, they were pretty close to some of the things that were very accurate. So when I met Tom in 2016, I had a very long dinner with him. (1:15:32)

And wow, I was really taken aback. He's quite a guy and born leader, really, really smart on this topic, knows it cold. (1:15:42)

But he has a very... he's very imaginative and he has a very open mind towards everything. And he had all these advisors, these government advisors, and they were the real deal. I found out who three of them were only through the Podesta leaks, the email leaks. We found out who some of them were. (1:16:05)

I guessed two of them, but he wouldn't tell me whether that was true or not, but I know they're true. But the other ones, I don't know. And he doesn't talk about or tell them, but I know they're real. So we were talking to him about that. And anyway, that's when we started the company. (1:16:20)

It was the next day we had lunch together. It was me and Tom, and I think Jock was there and Hal put off, and I think another person who doesn't want to be named, so I won't name them. And we decided at that point, at least Hal and I decided with Tom, we were going to create this company and then off we went. (1:16:39)

And then we were able to get Steve Justice from the Skunk Works to come on board. And then later Chris Mellon. I went to see Lou at the Pentagon and he told me he was going to retire. I couldn't believe it. I said, the hell are you doing? You're a very senior guy here. I said, why are you retiring? You're young. You got kids going to college. (1:17:00)

And he said, I just can't get anywhere with this. He said, no one's taking me seriously. And he said, this needs to be out there. So he quit and then we hired him at that point and then brought on a board, an advisory board of some really good people. So yeah, we were very proud of that. (1:17:17)

And we hope sometime in the future that we'll be able to become much more active in the community, more so than we are now. Now we've got organizations like the Soul Foundation. Great, great. They're just doing wonderful things. I know most of the people there that run it, and they're just really top of the line. Gary Nolan, Peter Skafish, and a couple of the others. (1:17:46)

And it's scientifically focused. It's exactly what we need. What's your take then on Jake Barber? I was really excited when he came out and I thought that would move the needle. And it just seems like it hasn't been received well, his whole Skywatcher program. I don't discount Jay at all. I don't know him at all. When he described what he was doing, perfect sense to me. I know of that type of work. (1:18:20)

So yeah, he's the real deal. No question about it. I think why it didn't... the Skywatcher thing I think is very important. I'm not sure whether this... I think they call it psionics or something like that, where somebody's sitting down and they get a remote viewer and try to make contact. (1:18:47)

I think there's something to be said about that. I don't know whether that's really going to manifest into anything. It's like the people that go out... I know Steven Greer has these things where you go out and you watch and you try to make connections. Usually they're orbs. You'll see them. Chris Bledsoe does this also. (1:19:02)

My feeling has always been be very careful about contacting something you don't know anything about. A good friend of mine, Keith Thompson, has just written a new book, but he was telling me that the... I'd like to plug it because it's really, really good. He wrote Angels and Aliens. Oh, it's called The UFO Paradox. Okay. So The UFO Paradox by Keith Thompson. Yeah. He might be somebody you'd want to have on your podcast. (1:19:45)

He is really, really smart. He's one of the best, I think, commentators and thinkers on this particular area. I met him at Esalen a few years ago where we had Jeff Kripal put together and Leslie Kane put together a group of people, experiencers, and we all sat around and chatted. Another great guy there was Whitley Streber, who's written two fantastic books. (1:20:12)

One's called Them, which I really loved. It's probably one of the best analyses I've read of the phenomenon. And then his latest one is Them, which... no, The Fourth Mind. I'm sorry. It's just absolutely wonderful, wonderful book. He's one of the better thinkers, I think, on this particular topic. Him, Jeff Kripal, Jacques, obviously, Diana, Leslie Kane, Annie Jacobson. Those are his people. (1:20:39)

My favorite book, one of my favorite books is called... I must have read this thing three times. I'm going to start reading it again. It's called Deimonic Reality by Patrick Harper. It's not an easy read, all right? He's an academic, went to Cambridge, read... I think he read English there. But anyway, fascinating book on the topic. One of the better ones I've read, too. So there's so much good literature out there now. (1:21:04)

And I'm just going through Jacques Vallée's Forbidden Science journals, his personal journals, and I had never read them. And I just finished six, Forbidden Science six. Now I went back, and I'm starting at one and going to go up. Absolutely fascinating about some of the problems associated with studying this phenomenon and the problems associated with it, financial, social, just dealing with the people, and how everybody has different viewpoints and what have you, and how that affects which way research goes. It's great. It's just wonderful. (1:21:44)

So I guess, finally, after all your years investigating your personal experiences, what do you think it means to be human? What have you learned over your experience? Wow. Yeah, that's a wonderful question. In the end, I always go back to, and I don't know whether this is apocryphal or not, but I think it was Algis Huxley, who was on his deathbed, wrote The Doors of Perception. And somebody asked him a similar question, and he just said, what can you tell me? I think it was just one of his relatives. (1:22:28)

What can you tell us based on everything you know? And he just looked up and he said, be kind. And I have to say, I steal that when people ask me questions like this. What's it all about? What life is about? (1:22:42)

What does it mean? And the answer is, I don't know. But I do know, deep down, what I personally truly feel is that to be a successful human being, to say that your life had any kind of meaning in it at all, is really trying to gear your life towards being kind and compassionate to other people, animals, and everything around, every living thing around you, if you possibly can do that. (1:23:19)

Kindness and compassion. Understanding is obviously a part of it. And just trying to take the high road as much as you possibly can. I think love is probably at the end of it all. Some kind of universal love or pattern of love. I don't know. That's the only thing I can tell you that I try to live by. I mean, I fail every day. (1:23:43)

I mean, I really do. But I try to do that. I just try to be as nice as I possibly can to people. And I'm not always that way. Some people try to take advantage of you, and maybe you sort of slough them off, because you can't really engage everybody. I have people that send me emails and texts, and they have terrible issues. (1:24:16)

I've been being attacked by things at night, and I've had these terrible experiences my whole life. What do I do? What do I do? And answer is, I don't have any answers for you. I can give you understanding and refer you maybe to move on or refer you to maybe a website that helps people or tell you you might want to get help from a psychotherapist that maybe specializes in this issue. (1:24:42)

But a lot of times, I just don't have time to answer everything that people send me. But I certainly have sympathy for them, because some of these people really suffer. And that's the other aspect of this that I think disclosure touches on, is giving validation to the people who've had these experiences that are bothered by them. (1:25:10)

I mean, my experience bothers me, but not to the point it altered my life in any way. This may be more interested in the topic. But other than that, I'm one of these... I grew up rough. I mean, I don't... I just assume, go face to face with something, particularly if I know what it is. (1:25:28)

Of course, I don't know what this is. I'm not really saying I want to go face to face with this, because I might get crushed. So in the intelligence business, it's funny. When you want to do an operation, let's say, and you want to break into someplace, or you want to steal something, or you want to do something crazy, you generally want to have at least an 80, 85% chance of getting it done, right? (1:25:51)

And then you have to look, and you spend days, months, weeks, sometimes years looking at points of failure. Where can I fail in this operation? And you try to plug those holes, and knowing full well that there's going to be ones you don't see or you don't anticipate. But you want to walk into a situation where you at least know that you have a good shot of coming out of it in one piece, or without it blowing up in your face. (1:26:15)

When you're dealing with this phenomenon, you don't have that. I don't have a 5% confidence in knowing what this is. I don't know what I'm going up against. There's a trickster element to it. There's a deceitful element to it. (1:26:35)

We know that they can basically control you, and we have no defenses against this. The only thing that seemed to work, and this is mostly with poltergeist activities, is basically telling the thing, just go away, don't bother me anymore. Sometimes that works. I've had people that used it, and it either diminished or it went away completely. And then sometimes it doesn't work, but rarely it doesn't work. But most of the time it'll work. (1:27:03)

But I always say, don't give it energy. Just talk to it in a nice way. Don't piss it off. Just tell it in a nice way. Just look, I don't need this in my life. Please go away. But when you have orbs flying through your house and banging into your kids and upsetting your wife and all this kind of stuff, I don't have that, but I have friends of mine who have that, whole different ballgame. (1:27:28)

Or you go to Skinwalker Ranch, whole different ballgame. The hitchhiker effect. I know people that have had that. They come home with it. I've had people that got involved in this, in particular you. You're a former military guy. You're involved in this. You talk with it. Sometimes this stuff is contagious, and sometimes you get it yourself. And it affects your family. Yeah, I agree. (1:27:54)

I'm off on a different topic. Sorry. Yeah. No, I truly enjoyed this discussion, Jim. I've had a lot of anger in the past towards the government agencies, CIA was particular. And really, when I found out about it, or I saw enough evidence to lead me to that realization that it is real, and that it most likely, probably, definitely, our government has known about it for many decades. (1:28:28)

And I was really angry about that. And I think you've changed at least some part of that perspective, I think, for the positive, just in this discussion. And I'm really happy to have that, to have more understanding on why we've been lied to for so long. Yeah. Well, it's funny. Thank you for saying that. (1:28:53)

But that's not saying, you know, I don't agree with what the government did in the very beginning. But the government was in a, you know, imagine yourself in that position. Back in the 40s, you have a very primitive country. I mean, we're basically still agrarian for all intents and purposes. Telecommunication systems were awful. They're very primitive. You were worried about the Soviet Union, who had basically wanted to take over the world, and they had the ability to create all these propaganda machines. (1:29:21)

So you were really on the defensive. And so you were thinking, how do we keep this quiet? And that's what they did. The problem with that was, you know, it just cascaded into the 60s and into the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and a lot of people were hurt by it. And that was bad. And I think their intentions were good, but you know, the road to hell, right? You know, paved with good intentions. (1:29:47)

But I know some of the people that are involved in this. These are good people. (1:29:53)

They're not bad people. They're not a cabal, you know? And people always say, well, they're not elected. Well, that's nonsense. I mean, you know, the CIA director is not elected. I mean, there are a lot of people that aren't elected in the government. You can't elect everybody. But what you do do is, you know, the president, and this is an executive program, the president decides, you know, how this works. (1:30:22)

The president gets to decide, you know, who he nominates to run a particular agency. And then that person then runs a particular program. And that person's responsible to the president. But as I always said, 14 presidents haven't said a damn word about this beyond, yeah, you know, like Obama came out and, you know, Reagan made that comment. (1:30:46)

I think Reagan was briefed. I think Obama was... I think a lot of them in the latter days were briefed. But, you know, but they were only briefed to a certain extent. There's... I like to point out there's two kinds of briefings, right? There's a... there's a briefing where somebody sits down with you and saying, look, Mr. President, there are other, you know, entities that are out there and we have down craft and they've been here for quite a long time. (1:31:18)

And this is where this sits, you know, you know, these are the companies that are working with this. This is the government organizations that are running this. And this is generally speaking what we know, maybe a half an hour briefing, 45 minute briefing. They will not get into the specifics. I've had briefings like that where particularly in bigoted programs, highly bigoted programs or wavered special access programs. (1:31:41)

They're going to give you the initial briefing where they tell you generally what this is. Then they say to me, they used to say, do you want to get into the second part of it? Then it's a whole different ballgame. Then we have to sign you up to this. (1:31:54)

You have to sign away your life for that. And I used to say yes. Then I stopped saying yes. No, I don't want to know anymore. Don't care. Right. You know, I don't need to know the particulars. And I think that's what's happening with a lot of the presidents because they can't tell them anything beyond what they just told them, but they're not going to get into the details. (1:32:11)

It's like when, when, when, you know, when CIA goes to, when the FBI goes to HPSC and SISI, you know, Senate Select Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee, and they, they talk to them about their programs. Well, they tell them about the programs, but they don't start telling him like who, who, who the, who the spies are and, you know, and, and the intricate details. (1:32:27)

They just don't. And, and HPSC and SISI aren't interested in that anyway. They just want to know, are you spending your money, our money wisely, A, and B, you're not breaking any laws. That's all they want to know. And, you know, and just so they have a pretty good idea and it's been, it's worked out really, really well. (1:32:44)

So the government, I think has told somebody in the gang of eight over the years, I think Congress has known about this, but the president has an enormous powers. And these are in presidential, presidential executive action documents that give him the power to do these kinds of programs without notifying Congress because he thinks it's in the best interest of the country not to. (1:33:05)

He doesn't have to notify Congress. I think he does sometimes. Okay. But that's legal. (1:33:10)

That's what the presidential power is. And Congress gave him that power. So, so that's other part of it. I mean, you know, people blame the CIA or NSA or DOD for not talking about this. This is a program that doesn't belong to them. This is a program that belongs to the president of the United States. He determines what gets said, not CIA. It said, you know, this old saw where, oh, it's how the CIA helped overthrow the government of Iran. CIA helped, you know, some Iranians overthrow the government of Iran in the seventies, but it wasn't a CIA program. (1:33:51)

It was a presidential program. CIA takes its orders from the president of the National Security Council. Everything DOD does, CIA and every government agency comes from lawmakers. It doesn't come from them. They don't make this stuff up and go out on their own and do it on their own. It just doesn't happen that way. (1:34:07)

They take the crap for it. You're right. Yeah. What about plausible deniability? You know, that's a well-known CIA. Do you think they could keep it out of his, you know, not brief him? Kind of what Lew Elizondo was frustrated by is that they were not briefing the chief, not the president, but they weren't briefing Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yeah. Well, again, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there's a need to know. (1:34:37)

What do you need to know? I mean, government agencies are very, very covetous of their information. Getting CIA to share information with the FBI was just terrible. It was, they didn't trust each other. The FBI wouldn't share, we didn't share. Same with DOD. You know, if you're a recruit, say, a Russian or a Chinese, and he's absolutely the best spy you've ever had, there's absolutely no way in hell you're going to tell the FBI who this Chinese guy is or Russian guy is or DOD or anybody else. (1:35:15)

The information you get from them may go to the FBI and it may go to DOD, but it'll be covered in the sense that they'll never be able to guess who this person was. And you want to do that because you want to protect your sources. But that also gives you access to the president, right? That you have and you only have. (1:35:29)

So there's a lot of that crap going on and what have you. But also, it's, again, it goes down to need to know. What does a joint, I mean, does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to know that we have information on, you know, UAP and, you know, these kind of craft? Well, I would make the case, yeah, he should know, particularly if they're interfering in operations, right? Just like they did in World War II with the Foo Fighters, you know, and all the things that happened, you know, and these nuclear strike groups, terrorist strike groups and pilots seeing all this kind of stuff. (1:36:07)

And I'm sure some of them have been, when they've asked, have been told about it that, yeah, we have this under control or we don't have it under control. Or yeah, it's real, but we don't know what it is. And they left it at that. So I think that has been done. And like I said, I think there are members of Congress who do know about this. (1:36:31)

Maybe one or two, maybe two or three in the gang of eight have probably known about this over the years for one reason or another. (1:36:37)

President doesn't have to tell him that. And, you know, in any conversations between, say, for instance, the CIA and the president, Congress can't know about, you know, they can't, they can't petition to know about it. They can't sue to get it. That's privileged information that happens between the executive branch and the entity that works for him, which CIA is. It works solely for the executive branch, nobody else, and the National Security Council. So that's they owe their allegiance to. (1:37:14)

So as Dave Grush said to me privately, but also he said this publicly, he said, disclosure comes from the president. He gets it. He knows this. It has to come from the president. It can't come from any place else. So, and that's essentially what this is about. And I think, believe me, nobody wants, no government agency wants this topic. Nobody, nobody does. (1:37:41)

It is a royal pain in the ass because you don't know what the hell to do with it. You just don't know what to do with it. It's just cost money. It hasn't given you anything. It just accepts problems, right? And you have to manage these problems constantly, right? So what is your top CIA story? I guess just changing tracks here just for the last little bit. (1:38:09)

If you were writing a book, what would be your top story that you would share or that you tell to your friends when they ask about your CIA adventures? Well, first of all, I would never write a book. Although there were some wonderful books on the CIA written. Some friends of mine have written them. They're wonderful. They're really, really good. I'm not that guy. (1:38:30)

I just can't do it. And as far as some of the best times I've ever had in the agency, honestly, they're all classified. And they were just... I just wish some of this stuff could come out because some of it is just so cool. It's just so cool. And it's not just the clandestine service either. (1:38:50)

It's the science and technology, the analytical side. There's so much brainpower there. You just can't get over how much brainpower that's there. I told somebody once, I said, you could be in a meeting. I graduated from Ohio State. I got a master's degree in English literature with poetry. But the guy sitting next to me, Harvard PhD in medieval French literature, the woman across, MBA from Harvard, and she speaks Japanese. The guy down there is a former attorney. And they're all top of the line because they hire in the 94th percentile. (1:39:26)

Everybody's the smartest guy in the room, the smartest woman in the room. And that's amazing because you sit there and then you get the guy from East Missouri State University, who basically had a 3.0, but he's the most street smart guy you've ever met in your life, has the most common sense. And they're all together in a room and planning something or doing something or talking about something. And nobody mentions politics. There is no politics. (1:39:59)

That's one of the things in the agency I was always surprised about. I never had a political discussion in that place in 34 years that I worked there. Never, not once. Didn't know what anybody's background was, didn't know what their religion was, unless they volunteered it, just never discussed. That's not happening anymore, sadly, I think. But that's the thing I liked about it. (1:40:22)

Some of these things that we were able to do, the public will never know about and really probably shouldn't know about because other people were involved who they don't want their names out there. And other countries might've helped and things along those lines, but they're worth their money. Let's put it that way. But some of the operations I can't get into, most of them I can't get into. Everything I did was classified. (1:40:45)

So, yeah. But I had a lot of fun. Best damn career ever. Yeah. They're hiring now. So if you're, yeah, they're hiring now. So I just got an email from them the other day saying, we're hiring. So have your listeners, if anybody's listening, if you have a college degree and you don't belong to a subversive organization, for God's sake, don't smoke marijuana for at least a year before you apply and you haven't stolen anything or committed a felony. (1:41:21)

You should be right up there. Okay. Well, I do feel better actually, after talking with you. Yeah. I just feel prouder of being American and thanks for your service and for your interest in this topic and for promoting it and for To the Stars Academy. I think it made a huge splash and really opened this topic up. (1:41:38)

So, and thanks for coming on the show. My pleasure. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Excellent. Thank you, Jim. Okay. Bye-bye. That really was one of the most enlightening conversations I've had on this channel. I mean, Jim just gave us a masterclass in understanding the real complexity behind the UAP phenomenon, not just the nuts and bolts, but he also talked about the consciousness aspects, the national security implications, and why even those with the highest clearances are struggling to make sense of it all. (1:42:12)

You know, why hasn't the government come out in 80 plus years? It turns out they have no clue what it is and there's no real benefits to at least that they can see to coming out and a whole lot of negatives after they gained it. So what struck me the most was Jim's honesty. (1:42:24)

I mean, he's 75. He's someone who's been there inside the system for 34 years. He's seen the classified evidence. He knows the people in the legacy programs, and he's just telling us straight up, we don't know what it is. So that is both terrifying and oddly reassuring. It seemed to fill a lot of the gaps for me. (1:42:46)

So I came into this conversation with some anger. I don't know if you've seen a few of my older videos about this government secrecy. I really felt like I'd been betrayed after serving the military and the government for so many years defending the Constitution. I really felt kind of betrayed by this. But, you know, I'm leaving this conversation with a deeper appreciation for just how impossible this problem is, or at least appears to be to the government, the national security apparatus. (1:43:17)

So as Jim called it, this is the wickedest problem humanity faces. So if this conversation impacted you, like it did me, please share it. These are the kind of discussions I think we need to be having, not about whether the phenomenon is real, but about what it means for our species and how we move forward, how we can best help. Disclosure, you know, catastrophic disclosure seems like it could be really bad on a lot of levels as Jim went through there. (1:43:47)

It could really affect our civilization. And if this is real, as I think a lot of people out there watching this know because they've seen it firsthand, if it is real and it looks that way, it seems very at least possible at this point, then there are some serious repercussions. And so how best can we prepare for this? And I think Jim gave some good advice there. (1:44:05)

So Jim's advice from Aldous Huxley was above all else, be kind. So be kind to that like button. It really helps the channel. And subscribe. I have a great video coming up with Filippo Biondi and Trevor Grossi, right? Filippo's the scientist who invented sartomography and saw below the pyramids. We had an amazing discussion, and I should be talking to Jesse Michaels as well. (1:44:29)

So subscribe and you'll get notifications, or hopefully it comes up on your feed if I'm not being censored. Otherwise, you can just go to my channel and you'll find those videos. So coming soon, please check out our sister channel, UAP Society. Ali and Justin do weekly news shows, so you can go there to get your weekly UAP news fix. (1:44:51)

They do a great job. And if you want to support the channel, I really appreciate it. You can become a patron member like these fine people as well as a YouTube member. Any of that really helps. And just watching really is a great help as well. So thanks for all your guys' support. It's not an easy job, but it is meaningful. So have a great rest of your day. Peace! (1:45:10)

私の Semivan に対する評価​

Semivan は情報撹乱工作を仕掛けている可能性が高い。

その状況証拠は幾つも列挙できるが、一例を上げれば

引用

2004年の専門家会議の結論​

「壊滅的開示」とは、大統領が公の場で以下の事実を全面的に公表するシナリオを指します。 • 宇宙には地球外生命体、または非人間的知性（NHI）が3〜6種類存在し、すでに地球を訪れており、現在も地球にいること。 • 墜落したUAPの機体が存在すること。 • NHIは私たちをいつでも連れ去る能力、記憶を植え付ける能力、そして私たち全員を制御する能力を持っていること。 セミバン氏は、この壊滅的開示が人類と社会にもたらすであろう深刻な結果について深く懸念しています。

...(skip)...

セミバン氏は、ハル・プットホフ氏が関与した2004年の会議に言及しています。この会議では、心理学者や宗教関係者などが集められ、政府がUAPに関する情報を開示した場合に何が起こるかについて議論されました。会議の冒頭では、全員が ** 「政府は開示すべきだ。国民は真実を知る権利がある」 **と意見が一致していました。しかし、3日間にわたる議論の末、参加者全員が「絶対にいけない」という結論に至ったとプットホフ氏は述べています。これは、彼らが様々なシナリオをシミュレーションした結果、その破滅的な影響を認識したためです。

という証言。 Hal Puthoff を含め、

  • 会議の冒頭では、全員が情報公開に賛成
  • 会議の終了時点では、全員が情報公開に強く否定

と述べているが、これはまずありえない。なぜなら、

  1. この会議の参加者が明確に判断が可能なレベルの、詳細な情報、つまり
引用

非人間的知性（NHI）が3〜6種類存在し、すでに地球を訪れており、現在も地球にいること。

墜落したUAPの機体が存在すること。

NHIは私たちをいつでも連れ去る能力、記憶を植え付ける能力、そして私たち全員を制御する能力を持っていること。

を裏付けるデータを「闇の組織」が提示する必要があるが、そんなことはありえない。 Semivan は、いまだに MJ-12 のヨタ話が通用すると見くびってその二番煎じをやらかしている。

  1. 会議前は全員が賛成、会議後は全員が拒絶…これはありえない。「闇の組織」が「賛成する連中」だけを集めるわけがない。また、この手の会議を主催する場合、誰がどういった主張をするのかは主催者は見通せている。さらに、会議では 1 か 0 の結論がでることはまずない。せいぜい、0.7 とか、0.3 といった結論になるし、それを見越した上で会議を開催し、落とし所へと誘導する。

ようするに、Semivan のこの部分の証言ひとつを取ってみても、捏造が幼稚すぎる。

世の中、信じやすい人間が大半。そして信じやすい人間は話が劇的であればあるほどのめり込む。それゆ、話を捏造するとついつい劇的な効果を狙って演出してしまう。その結果、捏造話は幼稚になる。

(2025-07-11)