 Chris Just for further context see you actually and so Lou Elizondo came out and was disappointed in the I believe it's the I am SG And and I saw Tim you had you had similar concerns. Do you want to you want to TS up for that? Sure. Yeah Yeah It's kind of funny, you know, I think I guess concerns as much as this we talked about not having expectations, but this is what I kind of expected and You know people are wondering what's going on like why do you got now? You've got this really broad robust Amendment, but then you've got the government, you know the DOD coming out of the blue with this other You know really watered down kind of expectation what they're gonna achieve and people like what the hell's going on Is it the cover-up? Is it the you know, whatever? No, it's it's it's the government The government is happening and you've heard me probably say this both on Twitter I may have said it last time. I was on your show is people are getting a crash course and how the government actually works and It's not pretty and and I hate saying that but and I think to to some degree, you know the UFO community some of the Some of the more well-known researchers or authors at times have done a bit of a disservice because they've given this picture that the government is capable of this coordinated effort in anything And that's not really the case Probably one of the best examples to give you an idea of what's going on here And I talked to this a little bit about with the guys and girl Chrissy last night You know, did anybody read the psychology today article that was published was it yesterday or the day before? Where was where was it published psychology today? Okay? Okay, well there you go UFO Twitter you're dropping them all there was a Exceptional article done in you in psychology today About you AP and what it could mean in terms of new science and everything the author of that article was dr. Eric Hasseltime Dr. Hasseltime is a brilliant man. He once headed up Disney's Imagineering And then he was the chief science and technology officer for the office of director of national intelligence Odeon I He was essentially the chief technology officer for the entire intelligence community So very brilliant guy for a long time and he wrote a great article there But he also wrote a great book a couple years ago and I loved it now. No, you're wrong It's kind of right up in my alley It may get too technical for some people, but it's called the spy in Moscow station And it tells this fantastic story and if you want to understand how the government works It's a great insight into our works in the short of the long there This is a very true real story of events that happened in 1978 the the NSA Discovered a Soviet bug inside the embassy in Moscow. Okay, when I say discovered it, they found it They removed it. They physically had it. It was an RF receiver hidden in a chimney inside the embassy They said that the Soviets are listening to all of your communications They told the CIA this in the State Department and in fact the CIA had had Russian agents killed during this time because of it And the CIA in the State Department said we don't believe you And they had it in front of them like they could have showed it to them. Yeah, we don't believe you And the NSA pushed it and it was this big turf war I'm not going to get in the weeds of this book, but you really get an idea of how it works where you're like Why are they fighting this like it's in everybody supposed to be on the same team? Like why is there this resistance here into this idea that the Russians are spying on us And the CIA was adamant about it in the State Department's adamant to the point where they got a executive directive telling the NSA Stop mentioning it stop talking about it because you know, we don't want people we don't believe you And this went on for five years until the NSA was eventually by order of President Reagan Allowed to go in remove a lot of the property that was in the embassy found the bugs discovered and said They've been listening to you this whole time so for five years from the point they found it and for five years There was so much resistance to this and so much craziness and even at a point when the NSA had difficulty finding these bugs They actually thought that this maybe the CIA removed them so that they wouldn't find them to cause friction In fact when the NSA technician went to do the inventory of the CIA tried to get him drunk and had Russian prostitutes Because they wanted to know what he was doing there because it was so compartmentalized It was that point of code word option with only the NSA knew now picture that in perspective to UAP Okay picture that in perspective that now you Adversary spying on you is a real thing. They all know that's a real thing it goes on we spy on other countries They spy on us but imagine the resistance to the idea that the Russians are the Soviet Union was spying inside the embassy when you had the proof and evidence So the US government is a sprawling complex and now what you're seeing is that the UAP subject is not going to go away per se And they're kind of acknowledging it so you're gonna see a lot of infighting here as in who controls the topic and you That's one of the things in that hole that caused so much friction between the CIA and NSA is whose job is it You know they all say well NSA is their job isn't security so screw them and it's like yeah, but this is going on And so you're gonna see this now and you're gonna see this now with this idea Okay, well fine if you're gonna make if you're if you're not gonna let this go away and somebody's gonna look at it Well then it's our job, but then you're gonna have other agencies that are like no this is my job Others are gonna say it's my job because at the end of the day nobody wants to be embarrassed and say oh yes this is really something When it when it could when technically it should have been their job and if nothing else I think probably one of the most fascinating things for me Maybe it's not as frustrating because it's fascinating to me to watch this process Is I can't think of a more complex problem To watch a government have to solve and especially one like the US government Because it's everything is so segmented and compartmentalized Where different agencies follow into different branches. They have different jobs But you look at the UAP subject that is something that is government-wide and it is a mysterious problem that frankly the US government is not Equipped to handle and so it's interesting to watch how are they going to handle that because the DoD I think a lot of people when they saw that I'm not going to tempt the acronym. I've forgotten it from memory. I don't want it You know they cried foul, but they were only going to look into military ranges and ranges under military control Well, that's because by federal law the Department of Defense only has limited power They don't have the power to operate on US soil except under very very strict circumstances So they don't have authority so then goes into well some of this authority bleeds into the Coast Guard Some of this bleeds into the FAA some of this bleeds into Homeland Security Some of this bleeds into the FBI All everyone I just named all fall under different executive branches So when the Secretary of Defense can't tell the FBI what to do can't tell the FAA what to do Likewise, none of them can tell but to comprehensively look at that you've got to get all of these agencies That aren't equipped to look at it. They don't work together as is and in many instances they work against each other They're in competition with each other, but they've got to work together to try to solve that Now tackle on the fact that every taboo that you can think of in anything any conversation that you've had about the subject With anybody who's not from the UFO community Maybe they've just seen the New York Times article or something or they've read it excellent and informative people on the debrief And you're trying to explain it to them and they're they're like, oh, that's BS Now imagine the government just multiply that so you're going to have people that are like this is BS The infighting and squabbling and even if let's say the Gillibrand amendment passes Who what office is going to take that authority is something to really look at But I did I said that you know when I said my concerns it was more of a people are about to get a crash course into this UFO problem And then because of how robust how structured that amendment was It wouldn't shock me to see not just the DoD, but you're going to see all these other people be like, oh hell We're starting one too because we're not going to be outdone and everybody's going to try to muscle in this and it's going to end up in this really interesting dynamic Where a year ago people were upset because the government wasn't taking the topic seriously at all Now fast forward we're upset because there's too many people saying they're going to look into it Well here's here's my question on that though and I think the reason at least lately the reason why people got upset is because there seem to have been A message coming primarily from Lou saying this AMSG office is undercutting and undermining the Gillibrand amendment And you also compared it to you said in a tweet that it's administrative terrorism And so people heard that they're like what's going on and then when you dig deep into it when you just simply dig into it you find out that oh wait a second The DoD has no jurisdiction over this this bill so this bill becomes law they really can't do anything and it seems by the statement by Kathleen Hicks at this office that the DoD is creating They're doing it without anyone's permission they're doing it just because they can't I think you're sort of this idea of well they're not going to be the only ones who look at this we're going to look at it too And so I guess my question is why is this administrative terrorism if this office really can't do anything to if this law passes if the Gillibrand amendment goes through which maybe we find out tonight if it could have happened already as we were on the show But if that can you explain a little bit as to why that's sort of the feeling with with this new office because six months ago we would have been all aboard for this we would have been actually filled with an office like this and And it seems like for me more data is more data I don't care where I'm getting it from if we're going to get more data from different sections of the government great maybe we can paint a better picture with that data Or we can get at least a little bit more clarity for the American people as to what exactly we're dealing with here so so yeah I mean can you touch on that a little bit Sure yeah yeah no and it's one of those things where I said it and didn't realize after until I said it People might not be familiar with the term Yeah the term administrative terrorism and anybody that's worked in government even at the local level is very familiar with that term we used it all the time because administrative terrorism is just that it's bureaucratic stuff that slows things down You know you're getting ready to run out the door to go to the mall and somebody says wait wait wait wait we got an inventory all of your clothes and you're like what the This is administrative terrorism and so that term is yeah anybody who's running government has heard that term in fact used it frequently so please don't take anything away from that is that being I guess analogous with terrorism Right right But I mean it does make it sound as if though you know like this is a bad thing this office is not good for the topic and at least that's the way it seemed it seemed like that was And that's why UFO Twitter sort of rallied around like letting their senators know hey this office isn't good enough like we need more we want the Gillibrand amendment to make sure that that passes into the new NDA But it's you know you know what I'm saying I just I think part of there's a part of a little bit of fear here that I want to be used to construct a narrative or message like that was gonna be like a follow-up question in a second was is there is there anything with this amendment or with these new offices that you might see as like As maybe not good for this topic is there anything that we're just not reading correctly or we're not ciphering properly is there anything in the language of the bill that maybe worries you that hey this is actually going to do worse for the topic not better Well I think the biggest concern and I think that's what Lou Elizondo I haven't read everything he said or listen to it but I think that when he was upset about it is because he's been in that system and understands kind of what's going on And the other thing is that it is everyone is correct in saying that the release of that information very much was it had a lot to do with the Gillibrand amendment. You know the timing of it and everything I think everybody could recognize that even though Kathleen Hicks had said we're gonna do this you know I believe the timeline initially was six months and it's been five months and they come out with it. The government does nothing early. Nothing. So you think it was that you think the ODNI this was a direct response to the introduction of the Gillibrand amendment. Sure I think that the phone calls phones started ringing when that went out and hit the airways and everything people were saying hey what are we doing with our stuff what are we doing with our stuff we don't want to get caught with our pants down. What are we doing in addition to the fact that you've got the Office of the Inspector General digging into it too. So there's a lot of CYA going on. A lot of people are trying to cover their ass and they're trying to say you know again like I mentioned nobody wants to get caught with their pants down. They haven't been doing everything. So the idea that ODNI is going to take over this massive office and have all this jurisdiction and then prove all these things that the DOD hasn't been doing well. Does not sit well with the DOG. So they're like whoa if nothing else we need to know what's going on within our jurisdictional bounds so that we don't look like a bunch of clowns here with no answers if this other agency has answers. Now beyond that Tim do you think there's actual information that they're trying to get a handle on and bury prior to the Gillibrand amendment. Do you think that's a possibility or are we really just talking about hey we're just trying to cover our asses here. It really depends on what the executive offices think. Now I can say that if it was going out of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Office which is Louis Elizondo's former office. I think you've seen the pushback that he's offered. I think he is a good indication of how he feels they view the topic and how their reports their analysis and going into it. You know going back to something Micah said earlier if you go with this expectation of what you're going to find you often find it. And so the expectation in that office by all accounts from everyone that I've spoken to is that they want to find BS that this is not something that they need to be exerting time effort and money on. And so therefore the idea that that's going to be their outcome it could be very highly likely because that's what they don't. I think the Department of Defense at large has really made it abundantly clear not direct statements because they don't like talking about it. They don't want to talk about this. They don't want to deal with this. Whereas some other agencies do you know OD&I has taken the lead the Navy has taken the lead. So one of the concerns there is when in having these fragmentation so you see that the DOD has their UAP office. Well OD&I is like screw it. We're still going for it and Space Force says hold my beer. I think the Army the Army is my favorite because the Army is like and I come from a big Army family. So I can say it's like everybody I know from the Army who's just like I mean if we're going to strip club you're driving. I'm down you know like they're don't matter to me man. But the problem is there is that each one of those compartments will control their information and then the topic of UAP you won't have the centralized focal point office. Instead you'll have you know a pilot had a sighting and reported it to the Navy office or the OD&I office. And there do we have any satellite data where we've got to go to talk to Geospatial or the NRO or the NSA to try to get the SIGINT or electronic intelligence on it. And then those agencies don't necessarily always hand over what they have quite frankly they often don't. And so it's this idea that who had is there going to be a central office that has the authority power and muscle to really use all of the resources the United States government has behind it. Because whenever we do put all those resources whether it's terrorism or fighting wars they tend to be pretty successful and they have a lot at their disposal. But the problem is these things are not centralized and they're not under one umbrella authority outside of the president. You need the president you know if the president would step forward and say no damn it just same example I gave you the NSA CIA with the Moscow thing. It took the president of the United States to tell the NSA no go do this and I don't care what they say. So I think that's part of the concern is that if you've got a ODI office you've got a DOD office and you've got these other offices is that they will each be examining the topic from whatever is within their purview. And when one doesn't share with the other then it's never you're going to have move on and all these other things you're going to have these competing it's going to turn into UFO Twitter in the government. That sounds terrible. I've got 17 seconds left. So we're going to have to roll over into the top of the office. Yeah I have plenty to say and again Tim really is kind of given us you know the the full scope of the issues that government is facing right now to an extent. You know I've got to kind of sympathize with any element within the government or if we even want to refer broadly to the military having to be tasked with trying to resolve an issue that let's face it they've been looking at for more than half a century and haven't been able to resolve. When we talk about how as Tim mentioned some agencies seem to be more willing to chime in on this and more willing to weigh in on the topic like the Navy has been. Whether that is necessarily by choice or it is by virtue of the fact that other agencies simply won't the Air Force dealt with this in the longest running systematic military study by the U.S. government Project Blue Book between the 1950s early 50s and 1969. And they remain stone silent at every opportunity for decades thereafter with a couple of notable exceptions after the closure of Project Blue Book again at the request of congressmen and women back in the 1990s because there was a lot of public interest in the Roswell crash at New Mexico. And this in part due to books that were being published on it television shows like Unsolved Mysteries that were kind of reinvigorating the debate. A lot of people were like what's really going on here and so the Air Force kind of had to get back into the game there for a time they produced a couple of official documents and did their own investigations which offered not one but several you know different explanations for parts of the Roswell mystery which raised a lot of questions for people one being. Okay well which version is the definitive narrative because they had said that everything from crash test dummies to charred bodies in an airplane crash to project mogul and you know how to two balloons that were used during the Cold War. I mean a range of different things put together over several years constituted what was remembered or misremembered as the Roswell event. The reason that that's important is because people look at that and they go well first of all which is the narrative or how can we take this seriously given that we first heard of course that it was a flying disk then it was a weather balloon. Then they say it was a mogul balloon. We know that they had lied several times so how do we know they're telling the truth now now in my opinion having reviewed Roswell you know again I like a lot of UFO researchers have become less and less enchanted with that case as time goes on because if you really look at it again I refer back to the FBI single page document on that. It was actually from I believe let's see let's refer to the newspapers I keep them right here so I can look at all this right July 8 1947 I believe that on the same date the FBI documents said it appears that a high altitude balloon was recovered. They were reporting that in the FBI's document a day before it appears in the other newspapers and it's actually stated we had a weather balloon in our possession so it seemed the FBI already been tipped off and again the historical documents seemed to pretty clearly show. There probably wasn't as much to Roswell as it once had been thought but again it's an interesting point to look at in terms of history and what it takes to get an agency like the Air Force back into the game. It's no wonder they don't want to have to deal with this right now and people say where's the Air Force been why is the Navy doing this the Air Force never wanted to have to get back into this game. And here again I do sympathize with almost any element within government who is tasked with having to do with the Air Force tried for almost two decades to do and weren't able to achieve. And so the thing about you know bringing this around to the Gillibrand amendment you know I'm not particularly surprised by what has been outlined with the new AI MSG. And yeah we'll just refrain from further jokes about the name but almost everybody Tim Burchett in Congress actually got up and made a statement about this recently and even he said I don't know where they got that name from but everybody's joking about this name you know. My theory would be that it may be intentionally unpronounceable and obviously forgettable with the hope that people won't be able to pronounce it people won't remember it and they won't focus on it and worry about what they're doing because they can't pronounce the name. You know the UFO thing that they've got up there but I wasn't really surprised by what it actually is according to the DoD relief from last Tuesday what was outlined because essentially all those points were in Kathleen Hicks memorandum that coincided with the release of the ODI and I report back on June 25th. You know again she's saying we are very concerned with these incursions on our military airspace we want to try and you know be proactive with looking at these and dealing with these we want to collect information about them. They never said you know we're going to look at everything that happens anywhere in the skies and again to Tim's earlier point they're not able to their jurisdictional issues with their ability to even do that. And so something we have to take into consideration with all of this is that according to what Hicks outlined in her memorandum. If we look at the ODI report delivered by the UAP task force they stayed in the report this is to guide future policy and future efforts on this issue. They seem to have done essentially exactly what they said that they would but the surprise had been that is Tim pointed out also Congress you know again Senator Gillibrand specifically got into this a little bit earlier outlined a much more comprehensive plan one that would be both more costly and likely would have to require on the assets and abilities of many different agencies. Again this would be a much more elaborate plan and I think that the DOD looking at this this is pure speculation on my part but it's very much in line with what my colleague has said here. They're seeing this and they're going whoa whoa whoa hold on let's hit this off at the past because we don't want to have to mess with anything as elaborate is what they're proposing in this amendment. And so they launched this investigative agency and it's interesting now to see how those who have co-sponsored the proposed amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022 are responding to this you know Gillibrand has spoken to. But she's been a bit let's say that she's been a bit vague Marco Rubio issued a statement to Air Force magazine he had said look you know I support the government in looking into these aerial incursions in these mystery objects. So I think that the sense at least from what I'm getting among you know members in Congress right now is that this may not be what we wanted if this is what we get you know we'll go with it. But obviously Lou Elizondo and many others and of course UFO Twitter they've expressed their concerns because no this wouldn't be the comprehensive plan that's outlined in the Gillibrand amendment. This is going to be very limited in scope we don't have any assurance that there will be again annual reports delivered to Congress. Semi annual reporting updates and again will the public have any information provided. Now strange and paradoxical though it may sound there's a part of me that hopes that whatever comes of all this we won't be handed all the answers because again at the end of the day we talk about this all the time at the debrief. We got into this because it's a fun topic we do want to know the truth I think we can handle the truth but I doubt the government has all the answers and a part of me still enjoys the quest. I enjoy the process of looking into this and trying to understand what it's all about and hopefully applying science toward it so it's anybody's guess where it'll go from here and we may find out within a few hours. But again I'm not surprised and I certainly hope that there are going to be a few surprises on down the road maybe that civilians will still be privy to. I think you guys make it such an important point and I think this is so critical and Luis and I have been talking about this for for months now is how critical it is that we don't attach our identities to a specific belief system or outcome when it comes to UAP. I think that's one of the things that causes so much harm whether it's psychological or you know sociological harm when it comes to this topic because if you do if the outcome is so important to you. A specific outcome is so important to you when faced with an alternate reality than that you're you're subject to anxiety depression all of these things and I think it's so dangerous really when it comes to especially and Tim you brought this up earlier and I think it was such a such an important point that you know when society is in struggle when when when the world is unknown when outcomes are ambiguous. It's very easy to put your all your hopes and your faith and your energy and passion into one basket. And I think you guys represent this topic in a very with a lot of journalistic integrity you represent it in a way that really focuses on you know let's let's have at this right let's let's pick let's pick away. What is truth and what is fiction in order to get to the truth because no one's preconceived notion no one's self fulfilling prophecy is going to be spot on and it's so critical that we don't allow ourselves to personally as individuals you know go into spirals of anxiety or depression or violence even over topics like this. Sure and I think you know I've had these discussions with people who've worked on the programs can you know in the contemporary programs so the task force that kind of stuff or people who have worked with them in different capacities whose names aren't out there. But one of the big questions I had and Micah brought this up that the first time we ever met and chatted we talked about psychology and because that's really where kind of my bread and butter is incognito psychology and I asked them I said you know how much effort has been gone how much effort has been put into this idea. How certain are we that we could perceive correctly something that is you know inherently alien and I say alien not just as not from this planet I mean something totally anomalous totally abstract. There's no guarantees there and I think that this idea that we could have it right is actually probably pretty wrong because we can only draw on what knowledge and information that we have available to us. You know what we can read in a book what we've been told we can all imagine a dragon because we've seen movies by we've had him describe to us but but something that is just totally you know outside of a total anomalous discovery. What is the expectation that we could perceive that correctly and I don't know there isn't any you know if we don't have the language to describe something you're not going to be able to describe it and so that's an interesting aspect of all of this because we it is such a fleeting topic. I think that would be one of the cornerstone tenets of this topic is it's always just a little bit you know maybe it's a fleeting glance of something or it's a very intense experience but it's not captured on video or audio and all these different things so it's never this full picture of what we define as being true factual or just ground truth reality. And so you know what does that mean about it I don't know other than perhaps there is aspects of this it's very difficult for us because we don't we can't perceive what's going on and so to to your point Mike absolutely you know there there is this idea that if we encounter anything truly anomalous. We're not going to have the knowledge base existing we're all going to be done in Kruger here you know we're going to believe that it's something but there's nothing that says this what it is so yeah if you put all your eggs in in one basket. You're right it can cause a lot of distress both on yourself emotionally psychologically and just in general and so part of that fun of long as there's an unknown it can be anything. And so that's kind of fun you know it is fun to me and so let's enjoy that aspect of it. Because even if aliens flew in there's really we have nothing on our plate here that says we would see them understand them or even comprehend it because it would be alien. Alien. Real quick just I wanted to go back to what Senator Tim Birchett said yesterday on the floor. Just touch on it because he did kind of mock the name of this new office. Yeah after you do that Luis we let these guys go. Absolutely. But then right after that he wrote a letter to Ronald S. Moultrie the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security basically thanking him for this new office. And then but also saying you know I'm requesting that the AOIMSG brief members of Congress on their findings in a classified setting, followed by a public hearing, which means we could worst case scenario maybe get some public hearings out of these offices. What do you think that would look like. Could we trust this office to provide the American people with, you know, would we get David Frager and Alex Dietrich in a public setting like that from this office do you think. I highly doubt it. I think when they're talking about public hearings we would see something consistent with what we see all the time with the public hearings, especially the National Security Public hearings where you have an agency, the head of whatever agency comes and briefs Congress publicly. And they're oftentimes not all that informative. You know if anybody anybody else is a nerd like me to watch the 2021 National Threats hearing where they have all the heads the CIA the NSA OD and I is all there, and they all brief what are the big threats. You know, one of the ones that obviously came up was COVID, you know, question what do we know where COVID came from. And it's this. Well, we, you know, it could have been this it could have been that. And so you very likely could see the exact same thing with you. You could see the the director of national intelligence and they're telling Congress yes we what you read in that report in June being said verbally, you know, yes we have this that the only nice thing I guess would be in these instances you do have lawmakers that can ask questions. You know, Marco Rubio can stand up and demand. Is it aliens, you know, and some of these politicians do a really good job of grandstanding. So, you know, I think that's where the the idea that people, I would say the public has definitely had an impact when you see these lawmakers talking about it as much as they have. So yeah, you know, there's who's the co-sponsor from South Carolina. Why am I drawing a blank on it? Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, good gosh, he could get all sorts of animated, you know, nothing has ever seen him in the confirmation hearing. So yeah, who knows. Oh, you'll be up there screaming jumping up and down. That'd be an interesting day. That's for sure. Just politically speaking, I would be so confused. I wouldn't know what to do with myself. I was like, oh, I like, I like what he's saying, but God, I really don't like him. If there's any positive, you know, if it's not disclosure, perhaps the best positive outcome that can come from all of this news is people are actually paying attention to how the government operates and lawmakers operate and everything. And they, they may go, this is stupid. Like how we, how do we get anything achieved? Like we've never, we haven't faced another attack because nobody's wanted to evidently because how does anything get achieved? So if nothing else, hopefully maybe people pay attention to that and go, man, some things need to be changed here. Yeah. And if congressional hearings occur, let's just hope that it's not Congress asking Robert Mueller questions. Can you repeat the question? Right. I'll refer to the report, the language in the report. And I think that was sort of like a secondary goal. So the, of the phone home was just, Hey, teaching people how to interact with their government is a good thing. You know, how to find the representatives and you can take this formula and apply it to whatever activism you want. And it works the same way. Yes, that's just fun. Absolutely. No, I think that's great. I think that's, that's always been a big thing in mind. That's how government's supposed to work. It doesn't matter if we want the government to go look for unicorns. If enough people in a democracy want them to look for unicorns, well, that's what they need to do then because that's the way it's supposed to work. So yeah, I definitely commend you guys for that. We appreciate you guys. Yeah, we appreciate you guys so much. And congratulations again on the one year anniversary of the debrief. If you are not following these guys, make sure you go to the debrief.org to check out the news magazine. And maybe you guys could tell us quickly where we could find you. Tim, if people want to find you on social media, if they want to find the debrief, what's the best way to do that? At LT Tim McMillan on Twitter. You can find me there. I go on my little Twitter spats where I'll be on there and you can call some people, argue with people. I disappear for a couple of weeks. You are kind of like the Houdini at Twitter. Well, I just, you know, and Mike has got a half hearted grin there because he knows, you know, he's always like, oh, God, what did Tim do? Tim's in a Twitter mood because I'll get on there and just rile up with Mike Turber or somebody like that. Got flew on a tic-tac. You got to talk to that guy, right? No, you have to. You have to. You have to. Thank you. You just gave him permission. You've completely disrupted the debrief's inner operations now, Luis. Well done. Yeah, it wouldn't be the first time. I swear to God, every time it is an accident, it is not on purpose. Tim, thank you so much for joining us today. Again, guys, go check out the debrief and we'll talk to you again soon. Tim, thank you so much. Thank you so much, guys. Ladies and gentlemen, the Micahanks, if folks want to find you on social media, if they want to find the Micahanks program or the debrief, how do they do that? Yeah, well, if you want to find the debrief is the debrief.org debrief media on Twitter and it's usually debrief media on the various social media platforms. Definitely check it out. Again, keep in mind we report on a whole lot more than just UAP, but even a lot of people who come there for that news have, you know, expressed to Tim and to me and to Chris and to many of the other staff. And I just want to share that, you know, you guys beautifully tie a lot of this stuff together, you know, whether it's defense developments like, you know, the hypersonic glide vehicle that was apparently tested by Russia and it's missile deployment capabilities, Pentagon looking at that and saying, wow, how did they get to that point? And then like what days later they established this new UAP investigative unit. Again, we're saying that there may be a lot of things that may be catalysts for what we're seeing happening with regard to the UAP topic. And again, we do sometimes look at tangent areas. You're going to find a lot of that at the debrief. If you want to learn about me, just go to Micahanks.com and you can find all the podcasts that I produce. I've got four different podcasts that I'm doing right now, but the Micahanks program is the flagship. It goes out every week. Chris is going to be on there with me this week along with Tim. We're going to do a bit of a debrief roundtable year end. Where do we come from? How do we get here and who the hell are all of you? So it's going to be a lot of fun. Definitely check that out. And you can follow me on Twitter at Micahanks. I've made it really easy. Everything's just my name. So you have four podcasts now? Oh, yeah. I mean, I've had four podcasts for a while. You can find all those at Micahanks.com, by the way. But yeah, I mean, there's the main show. I do a weekly current events and news podcast called Middle Theory. In fact, tonight I'm going to be taping an episode. Hence why I got around here in a moment, but an episode of the Seven Ages Audio Journal, which is the archaeology show I do. And because of my passion for anthropology, I also have a show called Sasquatch Tracks, where we talk with actual scientists, field researchers, anthropologists, investigators, biologists about the possibility that a relic hominoid like Sasquatch could actually exist. So yeah, I stay pretty busy. And you know, there's been some discussion about a possible debrief podcast in the year to follow. So, you know, I'm not going to get any less busy. I'm a Chris Plain. Amazing. Well, thank you so much, Micah. It's always a pleasure getting to spend time with you. And I mean, you look and smoke and hot in the men in black get up. So we appreciate it. That's right. Yeah, I didn't actually wear this just so I could look nice with you guys wearing your ties. This is what I wear all the time. Yeah, that's your that's actually your pajamas. Yeah. You'll have a great one. And Chris Plain. I'm going to leave you to these gentlemen. You guys go easy on him, please. We'll try.