John Greenewald: April 24 2021 Here we go. And we go. Are you
ready to make a change battle lunia this Luis, I'm so excited
for today. Luna. In the event known as the big phone home
commences with a kickoff filled with passion, fun, determination
and admission to demand more transparency from the US
government and encourage scientific study of the UFO
issue.
Luis Jimenez: So today, you guys is all about activism, all about
getting the word out on the UAP transparency train,
John Greenewald: people from all over the world took part and
1000s tuned in to see what it was all about. really wonderful
to hear. Now. It's about to happen again. But this time,
it's much bigger, and has a much more concentrated effort to
bring people together. And yet again, ask the US government for
transparency when it comes to unidentified aerial phenomenon.
Joining me today, Luis Jimenez, the brainchild of the big phone
home and host of the unidentified celebrity reviews.
Joining as well is Michael Mehta Looney I think the host of the
singularity lab is a digital marketer by trade, he saw
Louise's vision and immediately jumped in to join forces and
bring the entire project to a new level. So stay tuned,
because you're about to explore the big foe home too, as we
journey inside the black ball.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of
choice. I'm your host, john Greenwald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault calm. And today I'm doing what I feel
anyway is something a little bit different. And I'm super excited
to bring these two gentlemen on. I've got Luis Jimenez and
Michael metal Looney, both very prominently placed here on
YouTube, if that's how you are watching me right now. They've
got the unidentified celebrity review. That would be Louisa
show, and the singularity lab, which is Michael show, both of
which are popular and growing in popularity. So I'm excited to
have these two gents on you guys. Thanks for taking some
time and spending it with me today. Heck, yeah. Excited to be
here, john. It's our pleasure. Yeah. So I'm excited to bring
you on because you have started Luis, I think that this was your
brainchild. And please guys, correct me if I get any facts
wrong. But you started something called the big phone home. Yeah,
I want to start with you, Luis and tell me a little bit of a
rundown of the big phone home. You've already done. One, the
second one's coming. And we'll get to that. But in a nutshell,
what is it?
Luis Jimenez: It's essentially a gathering of professionals,
amateurs, journalists, military members and enthusiasts to come
together on the same day and call Congress and demand more
transparency, more data, more more serious discussion, more
scientific discussions, and and congressional hearings is what
the main focus of the big phone home to is going to be. But
that's essentially it. In a nutshell, it's just a way for us
to find common ground. For the first one, it was 24 hours for
this one, it'll be 24 full hours, like our eight hours live
stream was the first one this one we're doing three live
streams in eight hour sets. So you're getting around all day of
shows in discussion, but
John Greenewald: yeah, that's the idea. And it's the dates are
coming up. We're less than 30 days away, September 4, fifth,
and sixth. And Michael, I know that you played a role not only
in the first one, but a big one in the second. What is it that
that you aim to accomplish with all this same as Luis or do you
have a different viewpoint? What are you trying to do with it?
Michael Mataluni: Well, when I first heard about the original
big phone home, I thought it was such a fabulous idea. And Luis
reached out to me we had just met and done a podcast together
and people were like, Man, you guys have some real chemistry.
And so he invited me to co host the big phone home with him. And
so you know, we ripped together a quick website and we just did
everything Everything was low budget and the with the only
goal of going live for eight hours and demanding that
Congress released the UAP TF report on time and yeah, they
did and we were thrilled about it. And so we believe that the
if you want have, you know, we live in an age of conspiracy
theories, right. So if you want to eliminate conspiracy
theories, you have to tell the truth. And the more transparency
you give, the less, the less you have of people filling in the
blanks on their own. So that's what the big phone home two is
all about. It's about getting hearings in Congress on the UAP
phenomenon, so that we can make a lasting imprint in people's
minds. And it becomes more real than ever, so that we can
continue moving forward towards disclosure, whatever that means,
in the end.
John Greenewald: So getting rid of the conspiracy theory, what
if the truth comes out? And it reinforces the conspiracy
theory? It will, in what way? Yeah, well, you tell me I mean,
the conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory, obviously, is
there's this massive cover up, I feel there is I feel the
evidence is there. But if it What if it really truly just
reinforces what we all feared, and that is the government is
truly hiding this, there is an extra terrestrial connection,
and the general public is going to be left in the dark? Do you
feel that Congress would have the power to overturn a cover up
like that?
Luis Jimenez: Oh, I don't know if they have the power to
overturn it completely. But I can tell you, it's definitely
not going to happen if they don't hear from their
constituency. And so that's the idea. We're trying to inspire
people to pick up the phone and make a phone call to their local
or state representative, which is already a huge task in itself
if we actually succeed in that awesome. But will he also
provide other tools for you to do it? Well, you don't have to
pick up a phone, you can send an email, you could send a tweet,
we're gonna make it we're gonna give you as many tools in this
tool belt to activate yourself as you can. I don't think we can
overturn a secret that big in one hearing or one event. I
think if we're going to unravel that knot, it's going to be a
1520 year process. But the way we get that process rolling, is
to demand it. We have to ask for it. We've never done it before.
So we might as well try it. And if it doesn't work, then we can
say okay, well, we at least we tried. Yeah, but we have we've
never even put in the effort before. And the first one, you
know, it was essentially just me. And then Michael came in, he
helped me build the website. He helped me hosted. But I mean,
like he said, it was a shoestring budget, we were
putting I was putting things together by myself a lot. And it
was hard. It was really hard, but particularly when it came to
picking, well, who were going to contact you know, so when I
talked to Steven Bassett, he told me to focus on eight
committees. And so those are the eight committees I focused on
and and i really hit them hard as much as I could. And I
encouraged my, my fan base and the people I didn't The reason
why I asked so many people to come join me to do this effort
is because I'm nobody I'm especially at the time I had
less than 1000 subscribers. Now I've only got you know, 3700 I'm
not. I'm not a tastemaker, or a trendsetter, yet. We get there
one day,
John Greenewald: that would be fun. You don't give yourself
enough credit, man, you have done an amazing amount of pre
accomplished. No, I'm being serious. And I'm not just saying
that. So you got to make sure you give yourself some credit to
because you've done a lot.
Luis Jimenez: No, I look, I here's what I do is I set my
expectations really low, as low as I can possibly set them. So
that way if I exceed them, awesome, it's icing on the cake.
But we've just I can't get excited. I can't start patting
myself on the back end. Because there's so much more work to do.
I need 50,000 people calling in the Congress not 500 I need an
army of people to to to assemble. And that's why I
reached out to all of these different people in the Twitter,
UFO universe, I reached out to everybody, even if I didn't like
them or didn't agree with them personally like them. I don't
even know them. How can I not like them, but if my
philosophies clash with them, I still wanted them to come on
board because who out of all who's going to argue for now we
shouldn't ask for congressional hearings? Who's gonna argue for
that? Like, Mick was the only one I found who for some reason
doesn't want more data? So fine, but I not doesn't, you know, I
asked him to join the big phone home. We want to make Wes there
because Mick West is a valuable voice in debunking a lot of
these things that come across the table. He's valuable. And so
that's why I wanted him there. Because I also want his
following his men above verse to go, Hey, you know what, let's
call Why might as well let's see if we can get some congressional
hearings, because now you get people to testify in a
congressional hearing. They're sworn under oath, if they get
called lying under oath. Now there are some serious
consequences to that are going to come with that. And that's
what we have to do. We have to put the pressure but I can't do
it by myself. Because I'm honestly man, I'm nobody, you
know, I need john Greenwald, I need Jeremy korbel, I need Danny
Silva. I need all of them. I need everybody on board just for
three days, three days, and then we could go back to arguing
about whatever the hell it is you want to argue, you know,
like, we need to come together at this table for three days and
demand congressional hearings. It's what we've been asked to
do, by the people that are the leaders of this movement. And I
don't think they would call themselves the leaders of this
movement. But when you listen, when you look at Christopher
melons, blogs, when you listen to the countless of hours of Lou
Elizondo, speaking about this topic, the two things that they
always tell you is, we need people to say something, we need
people to activate themselves, nothing is going to happen. And
and I'm sorry, to people aren't going to give us the information
we want. Not three people, not five, not 100, it's going to
take 1000s of us in one voice, demanding this. That's what I
truly believe. Because for me, this issue is bipartisan, it's
an issue that you can really pull a lot of ideas and
philosophies and ways of thinking under this umbrella of
UAP. Because if it's real, if it is a cover up as as you think it
might be, john, at least that's the way that the the information
is pointing, right? If that's what it turns out to be. All of
a sudden, borders be nothing. You know, like, now we've become
a planetary race. It's no longer, you know, let's draw
lines in the sand and throw bombs at each other. It's Oh my
God, we have now a common. I don't want to call it enemy
because we don't know if it's an enemy, but a common goal, or a
bully or whatever you want to call it. If this thing turns out
to be money relevant. We would have to band together we would
have to come together and even if it's not even if it's a piece
bearing civilization or whatever it is, we still have to come
together. We still have to erase these borders, because we have
to catch up to a spacefaring civilization like, do you think
they have borders? Do you think they just show up on planets and
plant the flag and go, this is mine? No, I don't think that's
the way they think. And, and I think eventually, this idea of
and Elizondo says it all the time, you know, it's it's, we're
gonna have to come together under one flag, you know, it
doesn't necessarily have to be united states flag or Chinese
flag or Russian flag, maybe we can meld all these things into
one big beautiful flag that we can all fly under that we can
all be proud to represent and stop looking at each other as
the enemy and start looking at each other as solutions.
John Greenewald: Mike, Michael, if the if the end goal for you
guys, is those congressional hearings? If they happen? Number
one, I know that you would want them public. But number two,
what do you think would ultimately be revealed? Do you
have this dream scenario? Do you have a thought prediction of
what might happen? If you were to achieve that through the big
phone? Oh,
Michael Mataluni: yeah. So I do not have a dream scenario. I do
not believe this is an end game, the big phone home to is is
another chess move that we're looking to make and
congressional hearings are a part of that. When it comes to
the cover up? Or what's being covered up or what's being not
not transparent? I don't know. Right? I don't have the I don't
have the answer. I don't. And to be honest, to be frank, I'm
really not interested in what I believe I'm interested in the
truth. And so by revealing this your we know that the US
government is very good at obfuscating. I can I can name
many examples throughout history, including MK Ultra and
the the Japanese dropping bombs on the United States that nobody
ever knew about and fugo. I mean, there are so many things
that the government tries to obviously obfuscate. And so our
goal is simply to get to the truth to get to the get to the
facts. And I think what Louie says about you know, people like
people like Mick West and meta bunk, we need those people on
our team, because the more voices we have, the better and
it's good when you have people who can clarify and help debunk
things that aren't things we should be looking at. But
whether it's extraterrestrial, interdimensional ultra
terrestrial, or us or them, right, it doesn't matter that
what matters is we get to the bottom of it, because we need
the truth in order to figure out what the next steps are on this
journey. And we can't make good decisions without good data. And
so I believe the information belongs to the people I believe
the government is, was created for the people and by the people
in the United States and we need to hold their butts accountable
to that.
John Greenewald: I'm bringing up the way All right now you guys
did a great job with this, you have an area where you can find
your representative, so who to contact and then essentially
make a call, write an email or letter or send a tweet. When you
guys did the big phone home one, do you have an idea of I know,
Louis, you threw out a 500 number, but I don't know if that
was just an analogy you were talking about? But do you have
an idea of how many people did pick up the phone? How many
people did send a letter or tweet,
Luis Jimenez: I have no clue. There was no way for me to track
that the only things I know are the statistics that my channel
received. So you know, we had over 10,000 people watching the
live streams when we did it. And then when I looked at somebody
sent me the analytics of it, and it said that it reached 1.3
million people. That means 1.3 million people were looking at
their phones, and they were scrolling and we popped up in
front of them. Right? Um, I have no clue. And that's a great
question. And that was something eventually we're gonna have,
we're gonna figure that out. As literally, I was thinking about
it today. I'm like, man, how can we track this? It's so great.
And I think maybe next time, if there's going to be if there's a
way to do it, it would be you have to use the website, first
send a letter, make a phone call, write an email, before you
get a permission to join the live stream. Gotcha. So that
way, whoever's in the live stream, made a phone call made a
tweet or did something active, that would might be a way to
track it. But it's just those are things that are really hard
to implement. If you don't have an IT team, which we do. Now.
John Greenewald: The first one was an April of 2021. Regardless
of how many people took part, I'm sure you had quite a few
just based on the people that were watching the stream. And,
you know, I see how much interaction you get through UCR
and and singularity lab. And I know that it's a very tight knit
group. So I'm sure you had a lot of people that were sending
those letters. Yeah. Did you ever hear about responses?
Luis Jimenez: I've heard of a couple folks got responses to
their letters. Some people got responses through emails. I
don't think there were many phone calls that got returned.
Um, I do know that we definitely got the attention of folks
within the government. Lawmakers, God Navy, evade,
we're on the radar now. So that's a good thing. Again, I
you know, I was setting my expectations as low as possible.
If I was like, I in my brain, I was like, if I could get 100
people to call that would be successful. Honestly, like,
that's a tough ask. Thankfully, though, at this around the same
time, James Fox had also put out his website ua p act now. So I
just kind of hijacked that and said, Hey, I'm gonna push this
website, because this is a really great way to it's another
tool in the tool belt, you know, and he also had a template to
send the Congress. So I use his template, I use my template, I
use his website and my website, and I said, Hey, here are the
tools you guys do it. However you can, whatever is easiest for
you, if you're the soccer mom who's busy, but you really have
a passion for this, you could do a couple clicks of the button,
and you've done your activism for the year. If you're a person
like me, who's got some time and wants to do all three aspects,
and then combine all three of those aspects and start reaching
outside of their state to personally call these senators
and congressmen that are specially and say, like the
budget Oversight Committee, or the intelligence, subcommittees
and things like that. Absolutely. Go for it. I mean,
just I'm trying to provide the tools there. But man, I would
kill to track it. Because I think that's important data
that, you know, because if we're getting 5000 people, this time
calling man, that's a lot. That's a lot of people to call
to take their time out of a Saturday, Sunday or Monday to
demand more UAP transparency, because like we talked about
this all the show all the time on the show, our goal is to take
this topic seriously, but never take ourselves too seriously.
Because we're asking people to call Congress and demand more
UAP data, instead of more police reform or instead of, you know,
a more substantial, you know, progressive, you know, social
rights legislation, like there's so many I don't want to get too
specific because I don't want to piss anybody off. But there are
other political platforms that we could be encouraging people
to do. Like nobody's lost their life because there wasn't enough
UAP data. You know, nobody's mother got lost, you know,
gotten lost in the shuffle or never made it across a border
because of mean people or you know, like this you a piece.
It's important, but it's even for me, like this is not the
front burner of the topics of what's happening in the world
today. But I think man, it should be close to being
switched out with something else because the current
conversation, we just had a very interesting conversation on
Michael's channel about drone technology, and how there's a
huge hole in security when it comes to simple drone systems
that can be swarm together and carry small payloads. Like,
that's a very easy terrorist attack to coordinate that's on
the same level of 911. And we hear this coming out of
Elizondo. And Mellon, I say it's a it's a two part thing. They're
trying to D stigmatize it. So maybe they can get a control of
this drone issue. And then the double side of that is like,
Well, hey, maybe we can also get some answers to this UAP thing
that's insanely interesting. Yes, it is. It is. There's,
there's so much paperwork, there's so much history that
goes into what the hell's going on with this UAP man like
there's gotta be something here. But especially when you get
Elizondo, his emails being erased that you know, that folks
like you were able to, to make public and make people aware of,
like, these are all wonderful, progressive things. And I think
it's it's like the marijuana discussion in 1994. Nobody would
touch it with a template foot pole legally, especially if you
were a senator or a congressman, today, it's almost a legalized
substance. I mean, we're we're having the conversation. I mean,
the president just denied it, which is crazy. But next
president, I don't think Well, I mean, like, we're, it's gonna be
a pretty much like beer in the United States. So those things
don't happen unless, unless we talk about it unless we put the
pressure unless we call unless we write and we have the ability
to tweet at them. There's so many great tools to get in touch
with these folks. And now that it you know, the thing that gets
me excited about the big phone home, too, is if we've got
10,000 people in the stream, which is what we had on the
first one, and I think we're gonna exceed it. But let's just
say we have 10,000. And I can get half of those people
galvanized to tweet at Marco Rubio all at the same time.
Now you've got some legitimate political power. Maybe we get
Marco Rubio on the show, and we could talk to him for 15 or 20
minutes about this topic, and express to him, the bipartisan
pneus of it, like why it's a bipartisan issue and why
government needs to do this, because government's got a trust
issue right now, a big trust issue. And it's like every
veteran that comes on the show has a trust with its own
government. You know, every scientist, every journalist,
every everyone who comes on the show, doesn't trust the
government. Why? You have to start being like the mirror
government. I know. It's not just one entity, there's many
nuances and moving parts to the government. I'm not trying to
just paint a brush here. But why don't people trust our
government?
John Greenewald: Well, decade's worth of lies, right one. But
Michael, let me let me ask you, and I'll put you in the
spotlight right now. Because, you know, Luis, you could tell
the passion behind it and the intent for real results. Let's
just pretend we blasted Marco Rubio, you got him on the show,
you had 10 minutes with them to ask whatever you want, or tell
him whatever you want. What would you ask him? Or what would
you tell them?
Michael Mataluni: Well, I mean, number one, I don't think he's
going to share anything classified. So I would certainly
push to get information beyond what we already know from Rubio.
I mean, one of the things that he talks about very specifically
and consistently is, we need to look at these things from the
threat narrative perspective. And I think that's the only way
you get the government even looking at this. And what he
talks about is what he's been reporting on, which is the
nuclear issues. UAE, UAE or UAE, turning off nuclear, you know,
nuclear systems. And that is something truly extraordinary
that we have to make sure that we get a handle on whether it's
a purely UAP or you a V, we don't know. You know, again,
Luis just mentioned this, we had somebody, David Hambling from
Forbes magazine, and Popular Mechanics. He's a writer, and he
was just on our show a couple minutes ago. And one of the
things he was talking about was the threat of domestic terrorism
with with UAE drones, etc. So that's something that we have to
we need to manage and get our get our hands around. But when
it comes to UAP, the reason that so many folks are fascinated by
this topic. You know, what I want to know is what they know.
And I think the biggest problem is I don't think Marco Rubio
knows very much. But what I would push for Marco Rubio to do
is push for congressional hearings, I would want him to
know that there is a grassroots movement of people out there who
are willing to lift you know, raise their fist, pick up their
telephones and write to their senators that so he knows and
others like him know that we're serious and we're demanding
answers. It's not enough to placate us. It's not enough to
obfuscate. It's not enough to tell us we've got everything
under control, you need to develop or redevelop trust. And
I know it sounds naive. But the goal here is to improve the
relationship between the United States public and our governing
our federal government, and it is at an all time low. And if
this is the issue that can actually bring people together
and build trust between the people and their government
again, then hell, let's do it. Let's push for it. And maybe we
can get some other things done. along the way. I think, you
know, I think it's an extraordinary opportunity for us
to be heard. And even though there are only 10,000 people who
listened to the first big phone number were that on the first
day of home from live, you know, our goal is to get more but even
then, you know, I can't prove this. But we had anecdotal
evidence, we had people come back who were connected to the
Pentagon saying, What the hell are these guys doing? This is
not cool. And so if we can get their attention with 10,000
people, what can we do at 20? What can we do with 50? What can
we do with 100,000 people across the spectrum, not just UFO
Twitter, that's the most important thing. There are other
real threats that need to be identified, that have to do with
everyone, every single person United States has it has a role
to play here has it can be impacted by this phenomenon. And
we need to get ourselves together galvanized to create a
movement that gets the transparency that we're looking
for. And again, I don't have any vested interest in the outcome.
All I have is a vested interest in the truth.
John Greenewald: And kudos to you for that mindset. You guys
brought up a couple times, and I agree with you the threat.
potential is what resonates in Washington, whether people like
it or not, right, it's the T word that that a lot of people
don't want to talk about. But I truly feel that the threat
potential here, backed by evidence and decade's worth of
declassified documents is there to show whatever this phenomena
is that is being covered up what it is, I don't know, I wouldn't
bet my house on any going theory, but I want to stick with
the threat thing for a second. When you guys do the big phone
home or when you're doing the shows, and when you're reaching
out and getting people excited about this. Why do you think
that there is an apprehension with some people to that threat
potential. It's like if you say the T word. There's a lot of
people that push back into whoa, wait, you can't go there. Or
whoa, wait, it's a big conspiracy because well, maillet
pushing it Elizondo is pushing it. Well, they're right to push
it because it's true. But and that's one thing I've never
harped on him for I've harped on him a lot for things. But that's
one thing I've always been very much in line with. But for you
guys, you know, with with the intention of what you have, is
that something that we should ignore? Is it something we
should spotlight or why do you think that every apprehension is
there? And if one of you can answer
Michael Mataluni: Yeah, well, let me let me real quick, and
then I'll turn it over to you, Louise, because I have I have
something to say about this. So specifically, I think one of the
one of the problems with the threat narrative when it comes
to folks who don't necessarily all none of us really know what
this is, right? We don't know if there's an actual threat. Or it
when you talk about the diamond into the roof view. ap is right,
the the Dietrich and Fraser incident the Nimitz incident
with the Tic Tac none of us know what that is, whether it's a
threat or not. And I think there's a certain danger in
saying and pointing to something like that and saying it's a
threat, because it could make people afraid for literally no
reason. Now, when it comes to drones and UHV. Absolutely,
there's a potential threat and we should absolutely be talking
about it. But I think it's important to distinguish those
things. And I think there's a huge disconnect with people's
ability to distinguish the phenomenon because we put it
under one umbrella. And it's not, it's absolutely not we have
real threats that are terrestrial that are coming from
other countries and potentially could be harmful. We have
unknown phenomenon like the what happened off the Nimitz that we
just can't explain, and potentially many, many others.
So I think it's dangerous to blanket it all under a single
umbrella, and point to the threat narrative. But I think
it's very important for us to be comfortable talking about the
threat narrative when it comes to actual threats, like drone
technology swarming and things that can offer a payload that
are very easy to hide, and very easy to maneuver.
John Greenewald: I just saw a headline the other day that the
Air Force is experimenting with like mosquito sized drones,
something to that effect, and I laughed because there's a CIA
program that I just filmed a television series about it'll
air I can't actually I shouldn't say the network, but it'll air
on a major cable network. I'll announce it when I can. But
regardless, we dealt with a CIA drone from like the 1960s. That
was the size of a mosquito. Right? What was funny or a
dragon fly? Excuse me. So what was funny was that they're
profiling this thing in the mainstream media now with the
Air Force. And it's like, well, wait a minute, guys, where have
you been like they've had this stuff for decades and decades.
So anyway, I always get a kick out of that, but the threat and
I also punch the word potential, and connect it to threat because
we don't know. And you're absolutely right. We shouldn't
just blanket it. Luis, though. Let me bounce it to you. Do you
think that that threat potential, that threat narrative
that has been really kind of prevalent through the message of
Luis Elizondo, and Christopher Mellon, and that entire push? Do
you think that that is ultimately what resonated in
Washington more than all else?
Luis Jimenez: Definitely. And I'll tell you why I here's my
theory on it is since the day I was born, which is August
4 1980. So I'm 41 years old, I have not known this country to
not have a threat. When I was really small, it was rocky
versus Drago, you know, it was Russia and the United States,
then the Berlin Wall fell, and we had no one to fight all of a
sudden Saddam Hussein shows up. And even though we gave Saddam
Hussein gas to, you know, and weapons to kill his own people,
and we, we propped them up millions of different ways. We
created Saddam Hussein, essentially. But now he's a
threat. And so now we're in the first Gulf War. That was five,
six years, then we had 911. And now it was terrorism is a
threat. And Saddam Hussein is a threat and Afghanistan is a
threat. And now I've been we've been at war since I've been 21
years old, half my life an active military campaign that
has cost this country trillions of dollars and millions of lives
if you consider the other side. It angers me, it boils my blood
when they paint the word threat on things it really really does.
I don't have a good taste for it in my mouth, being the age that
I am because every time they sell me a threat, that means
they're trying to get a new something started it's usually a
war of full fledged war. So when I heard threat for the first
time I really hated it. hated it. Stepping back now seeing
where things are. I understand why they did it. Because it
immediately got some fires under the asses of some really
important people that got the ball rolling that got the
funding for a tip they got Lou Elizondo his position that got
the videos that we got, you know, and and then we revealed
that we've got this now UFO secret program that's been there
for we think at least what 1012 years john maybe longer. Um it's
funny of the change name of the program, from a tip to the UAP
Task Force. I think they know that that word is a trigger for
a lot of my generation. And they were wise to take it out. Um,
that's my theory on it. But I understand why they did it. I
don't think it's Is it a part of the big phone home discussion?
It's a great question. I we never mentioned once the word
threat in the first big phone home. It might come up in this
one just because I think drones are going to be a big part of
the discussion this we did the for the big phone home before
the first Tyler rogue away article. That's how I went rogue
away or that article opened my eyes to an issue that I had no
clue about. Yeah, and I don't think most Americans have one
iota of clue. And I think that article and and David Favre and
Alex Dietrich, especially coming out on 60 minutes, adding layers
and nuance to this story. And perspective was wonderful. But
yeah, I think it'll be brought up. I think it's an important
part to discuss, but I don't want to paint this phenomenon
with a threat. If it was a threat, we would know. He would
know like this would have been over a long time ago just
redirect in any big rockin space to just plop boom done. No, no
human issue. No, no, you know, Art of War where, you know,
humans dig in like ticks and they becomes too expensive for
the aliens to stay here because it's just the too much of a pain
and they can end it all tomorrow, man. If they're real,
if they're actually here, if that's what's happening. But
yeah, I don't like painting. Something that we haven't
interacted with yet. The enemy. Do you think that's a wise move?
John Greenewald: You say that the threat narrative potential
resonated the most in Washington. I don't disagree
with that. What do you think resonates the most with the
general public that will help motivate them to get in involved
with the big phone home?
Luis Jimenez: curiosity? curiosity? I think curiosity is
the number one thing. And here's the golden opportunity that our
government has. I mean, we talk about this all the time, man.
I'm not interested in the process. I don't care how you
collected the data. I just want to see the data. I just want to
see it. I want to be able to go Hey, make West explain this. And
him go. I can't. That's what I want to see. I want to see Neil
deGrasse Tyson go, Oh, and I want to see his brain melt on
CNN when they give him something that he can't explain. And I
want to see the paradigm shift. That's what I want. Like, I
don't care how we get to the to the end result. I really don't
maybe in 30 years, we fight we finally get, you know, the full
video or the full whatever. But um, yeah, I think it's
curiosity, man. I think it's, it's people want to know, and
they and again, the government has a golden opportunity if they
give us just a little bit, a little bit of truth on this.
Okay, just a little bit. It buys so much credit and runway for
the government to approve pretty much whatever you want. Like you
give us truth on UAP. I will let you I will let you open any
program you want government, okay, you why you you wanna you
want, I don't care. I don't care, dude. Just give me some
truth. And I think they're starting to realize that I
really do like, these analytics experts in our government aren't
stupid man. They listen to our phone calls, they look at our
emails, they look at our traffic, our web traffic and
things that we look at. They know they can see how excited
people get 160 Minutes interview drops, or, you know, the New
Yorker puts out an article or Leslie Kane drops of knowledge
like she does. People get excited. And they and they and
they The first thing they do john, they look to the
government for more What else you got, man? Like what else he
like, it's dry. What else do you got? You know, and that's who we
are with a lap dogs, man, we're sitting here we're looking up at
a table and we're waiting for any scrap to fall on the floor.
So we can just gobble it up. And the government knows this. And
if they want more money for whatever toys they want to play
with, just give us a little more truth. Anything, anything once a
year, though, and give it to us in a serious way. Give it to us
and a congressional format, you know, a hearings format, give it
to us when we get the title, you know, I would love to see
congressional hearings, what I'd like to see if we can get it
like military day with like flavor and Dietrich come and
tell Congress their story, then you'd get scientists you know,
to come in and and and scientists who actually got to
look at the data, okay, and then tell their version of what
they're looking at. So then now we got a scientific perspective,
and then we got this. And then you can bring in whoever the
hell you want after that doesn't really matter to me. But I think
it's got to be something short, concise, to the point. So
congressmen can say, Okay, cool. We done here, because I gotta go
back to my office and make some phone calls because I got money
to raise, because that's 70% of my job. You know? So like,
that's, I think it's curiosity. Man, curiosity is the thing
that's going to drive people to pick up the phone, send an
email, because people are curious on both sides. Doesn't
matter, Republican, Democrat, independent? You're curious man.
John Greenewald: Michael, do you agree curiosity will resonate
the most with the public? Is there anything else? And how
would you reach those that are maybe on the fence, my my
channel, I love the audience that I have, because there's a
lot of people that are going to be right there. And they're
going to call for you. And and I know that for a fact. But what's
also great about the audience that I know, that I built here
on YouTube, is that there's some that aren't sure, and that they
may not pick up the phone because, you know, they're not
as passionate as me or you, or Luis or whomever that's ready to
just go. How would you reach them? What would you say to
those that that are kind of curious. But they're they're not
sure what the motivation is to pick up the phone? What would
you tell them? That's such an amazing question. No pressure.
Yeah, no worries. No. Your project hinges on your answer.
Do we get normies to call Congress for more? Yeah,
Michael Mataluni: I mean, I'm not I I actually do think the
threat narrative works for that. Is it ideal? No. Do I think that
we should be pushing the threat narrative when it comes to this
idea of extraterrestrial intelligence? Absolutely not. I
don't, because I don't think it's the fact I think it's a I
think it's a silly argument. But there are a lot of actual
threats. There are a lot of real threats about thing from things
that are flying in the sky by unknowns. And those are threats
that we should be pushing. So when you have people Who are
still on the fence about this? And you know, go listen, go
listen right now to the singularity lab, the show we
just did with David Hambling, who is sharing what he knows he
wrote a book called drone swarms. how tiny has small
drones will take over the world? This is a real phenomenon. That
is without question. Right. I do believe there are other
phenomenon that we can't explain with drones. But I think
curiosity drives people for that. I don't think it drives
people who don't believe in in, you know, potential Extra
Terrestrial cover ups. I think the thing that's going to drive
those people is the threat narrative surrounding drones.
And what's what's coming? Because it is very real. It is
it is it Luis and I like after the show, we're just sitting
here to scratching our heads, like almost speechless going,
Oh, my God, I can't I don't even I'm so shocked and shook by what
we just talked about, and listened to and heard. Luckily,
we have a very fun show. So we laugh a lot at ourselves, but we
take the subject matter very seriously. But it's scary. And
there are real things out there that are that are very present
and very terrestrial, that we need transparency on from the
government as well. So I believe we have two camps here, I
believe we have the UFO UAP camp, who significantly believes
that there is something very real either extraterrestrial
interdimensional that is here, or maybe breakaway civilization,
future humans with whichever hypothesis you want to put your
finger on or you know, pick. And I think that is a very real
possibility that we should be aware of. But in addition to
that, there's this incredibly real technological, terrestrial
problem that we're facing. And so I think you get the rest of
the people who have no interest in UFOs, or think the silly
topic. Those are, that's how you get those people. And I think
you got to do both.
John Greenewald: Michael sticking with you, do you and
this is going towards personal beliefs. So you guys may not
want to answer which is okay. I
Michael Mataluni: love to speculate on my personal
beliefs. But please know that I will be speculating and using my
personal beliefs. So go ahead,
John Greenewald: go. No, that's a good No. Good caveat. So when
it comes to the objective here on I know, you said that you
don't have any expectations. So with that being said, when it
comes to the phenomena itself, when it comes to the true root
of whatever this cover up, is covering up, whatever we may
ultimately get in a public hearing. I have my doubts about
that. If it's anything close to a extraterrestrial connected
anything, I don't think that would be in a public hearing.
But regardless on a personal level. And Michael, we'll start
with you. And then Luis, I'll bring in Do you feel that at the
heart of this, there is a portion that is connected to
extraterrestrials? Are you convinced?
Michael Mataluni: I'm not absolutely convinced? No. I do
believe it's very possible. And my mind is wide open. You know,
it's like the old adage, don't you know, keep your mind open.
But delay brains fall out. That's where I'm at. The Tic Tac
is a flavors incident like that. That's still to me. That's
that's the most astounding. And maybe it's something we don't
understand at all. Right? So yeah, you know, we just watched
the Mirage men, we just reviewed it for our show the other on
Wednesday on UCR. Check that out, guys. But one of the things
that, you know, that show or that documentary really pointed
out was the government's ability to obfuscate and you know, the
potential for them, allowing this alien threat narrative to
cover secret projects, secret technology. So when you look at
it from that context, I don't think it's healthy to be certain
in any particular way, because you could be wrong, and you
don't wanna be putting all your eggs in one basket, that can be
devastating for you. But we always talked about this in the
show don't, it's so important not to invest your entire
identity on an outcome. Because that leaves you vulnerable to
bias. It leaves you vulnerable to irrationality, it leaves you
vulnerable to depression, when you link your entire identity to
an outcome, so it's dangerous. That's why I don't do that. Do I
believe it's very possible there is an extra terrestrial cover. I
still do. Do I believe that? It's a mix between the two?
Sure. It could it be 99%. us tech and this threat narrative
and obfuscation and point 01 percent Extra Terrestrial could
be? I don't know, I don't have the answer to that question. But
what I do know is we need transparency. We need it from
the government. And we did it now and it doesn't matter what I
believe.
John Greenewald: Yeah. Well, that But no, but it does, you
know, because I always love to get into people's passions and
why they do what they do. And Louise, I'm pulling you in next.
But really quickly on what you said a moment ago, I've tweeted
a couple times about this and posted it on social media, I'm
just saying tweet, because whatever. But regardless on
social media, and even in a couple radio shows that I've
done, talking about the value, the absolute hardcore value to
the counter intelligence world, inside the intelligence
community, when it comes to uaps is absolute gold, it is massive,
the value is massive. Because regardless of if there is a
small percentage, medium percentage, whatever connected
to extraterrestrials, let's just say, regardless, that can all be
used, even if it's 0%. That extra terrestrial connection,
the idea yeah, can be used. And I don't want to go off on a
tangent, I'll make another video and not take your gentleman's
time away of bantering about it. But I did want to make a comment
that you're you nailed it, because there is such a counter
intelligence value to this entire debate, whatever the
conclusion is, the CIA effort that has to be done to really
talk about obfuscated ops god I'm getting Thank you. Drake.
Every time
Luis Jimenez: Michael says it, because he said about 14. Just
today, yeah. He's it's his. It's his big dollar. Where did my
last week here?
John Greenewald: What's funny, yeah, anyway, but to muddy the
waters, we'll just make it easier. But but for them to do
that. They don't have to do a whole lot of effort, you know.
And so easy thing is how the public plays a role, how the
mainstream media plays a role, all in this counter intelligence
effort, which doesn't take a whole lot of time, or energy.
But anyway, yeah, well,
Michael Mataluni: I just want to say, yeah, there's one thing I
want to say about that, because we got in this whole big
Twitter, beef today over of over this very issue, because we
were, we were we had just watched Mirage men or I had just
watched Mirage for the first time. And we were reviewing it
on the unidentified celebrity view on Wednesday. And we were
talking about Richard doty. And then we're talking about
counterintelligence. And then we brought up Lou Elizondo, and we
were just talking these things through, and some people got
very upset that we were talking about it not giving, you know,
Lou an opportunity to back up so even we did we didn't accuse Lou
of anything. We didn't say we were having the conversation, I
think it's important conversation to have. But, you
know, the idea was, Well, why don't you Why don't you ask Lou
if he's a disinformation agent? And I'm like, dude, do you hear
yourself?
John Greenewald: Yeah, he'll come out and say it. Like, what?
Michael Mataluni: What What do you even mean by that? Like,
that doesn't make any sense. Absolutely give somebody a
chance to defend themselves, give them a chance to tell them
about their background, bring him on, we do those things.
Right. We have Luan all the time, and we're happy to have
him back. And we appreciate and respect blue. And I don't think
he's a different information agent. But I don't know. Right?
I don't have that information. I can't prove that. But when you
have something, you know, when you the idea of ask a
disinformation agent, if they're a distributor, it's just it's so
mind boggling. You know,
John Greenewald: I there's a an Luis, I want to bring you in.
But there is a apprehension by a portion of those involved in
this conversation, whether it be on UFO, Twitter, or other social
media, whatever, that if you do say anything that may seem
remotely either insulting or insinuating something, you don't
come after unity, you know, and what we have to remember, and
this will get me in trouble. I'll get hate mail from this.
But we have to remember and I like Lou as well. He's a counter
intelligence guy at his core. And that's by his own word. And
when you look at the debate that we're having, and Michael,
you've said it a couple times about drones and that threat.
That's exactly what Luis Elizondo put on the paper to
describe the FLIR, the gimbal and the go fast. And even though
I've asked him about that, that's not anything I'm saying
behind his back. I asked him on my channel here in my interview,
I'm with respect to him. I am not sold on the answer that I
got. But regardless, there is another onionskin layer to all
of this. And when I talk about that, that that ci value that
counter intelligence value to all of this, to know that the
guy in the Pentagon was counter intelligence that was heading
this effort, if that's what he was doing. There's something to
that, whether or not it's anything nefarious, I'm not
insinuating that. It's something to absolutely, keep in mind. So
Louise, let me come back to you to what we were talking about
before and we kind of got a little bit sidetracked. So
whichever, in that conversation that you want to comment on, by
all means the floor is yours. Um, well, I guess the first
question was, you know, do I have a belief system? Well, if
you want to go there, so yeah, what I had asked was do you have
pty? qurum on a personal level,
Luis Jimenez: on a personal level, on a personal level, I've
had a sighting. And so I always it's very hard for me to
compartmentalize that, but I still try and do it as best I
can. Even though I had a sighting, it was very close. It
was life changing. I wasn't the only one who saw it. I had 1520
people that saw with me as well, adults as well. Okay. Um, I
still don't know, what I was looking at could have been
military could have been a multitude of things. And not
only that, it's just at this point, it's a 37 year old
memory, it's or not 3627 28 year old memory. It happened a long
time ago. So I can't, I can't put my flag in the ground and
go, they're real. They're here. I've seen them. And I know,
like, it's absurd for me to do that. But I have a pretty good
idea. I think, you know, like, at least I believe, but I can
never, here's the thing. This is my, my standard, right is, can I
put this in front of a senator and convince them to look into
this more to make this part of their daily routine? And if the
answer's no, then I kick it to the curb. And that's what I got
to do with my own personal beliefs and bias and, and so I'm
gonna go with Michael, I don't know. Like, I don't know, I
can't, I can't give you a solid answer. 100% I lean, you know,
toward an extra terrestrial possibility. But there's no
smoking gun. There's no evidence even though I have my own
sighting, but I didn't see aliens. And even if I did see
beings, how do I know? They're aliens? How do I know? They're
from another planet? How don't like Sean Cahill told me he's
like, how does anybody know anything? The only way you know
is if you can follow the back to where they came from. And nobody
has done that. Nobody's followed them back to where they came
from. So nobody knows. Nobody has a clue. So I'm open for it
to be anything. Um, and then what was the second thing that
we touched on there that we sort of went on?
John Greenewald: Yeah, well, the disinformation.
Luis Jimenez: I mean, well, that's why I brought Lou
Elizondo data on my show, because I want to hear from his
father, which is a great episode, by the way, know what I
mean? I want to hear from his dad, because I want to know what
kind of man he raised. And we're gonna do that version of the
show again soon, hopefully. Because it's very hard to get
lose dad, to where Lou lives, and vice versa. So it's, um, it
was an enlightening episode, because we got a picture into
how this man was raised, and what his father believes about
this, this mission that he's on, you know, most of the show was
just learning about Cuba learning about Lou's upbringing,
how he was raised, who his mother specifically and how he
was influenced by his mom and how proud his father is of the
man that he's become. are we calling is that is this
information agent now to where we're gonna go? You know, like
if he was such a disinformation agent, why would he do why would
he put his family member on camera for us like that? I think
there's a genuineness to him. I believe Lou, and the reason why
I'm gonna go ahead and believe him is because he hasn't shown
me yet that he's a liar. There's nothing that we've caught him on
and go whoa, wait a second guy. What is this? You know, it's not
like a Steven Greer, or even a Bible is are when we look at the
story. We go, Wow, man, there's a lot of holes here. There's a
lot of holes in Lou Elizondo story. But there's also a lot of
credibility. And there's a lot of things he can't talk about.
And there's a lot of things that he obfuscates right
John Greenewald: there, rewinding word of the day,
Luis Jimenez: right. But I'm gonna give him the benefit of
the doubt, because the man has shown me as best he can, with
every request that I give him, that he's trying to be honest
and open and forward with you. So I'm gonna give the man the
benefit of the doubt and say, I think he's being honest with me,
even with his military background, even with all of the
things I think he may have gotten into, because if this is
a guy that interviewed and got information from terrorists at
Guantanamo Bay, now if we know anything about Guantanamo Bay,
the first thing that clicks in my brain waterboarding, illegal
prison, you know, these are things that Castro did. Like I
cannot fathom a Cuban immigrant who fought whose fathers fought
in a revolution would go to a prison to torture somebody for
information. It's very difficult for me to believe that or even
think that way. I've got so much respect for this guy. And but we
have to ask these questions. Like we have to be have the room
to say, you know what, maybe Louis tell The truth, but maybe
he was pushed to tell that truth. You know, maybe he was
coerced into telling that truth. And maybe this is the, the line
that the Gov the God wants out there. because like you said,
john, it's an invaluable distraction to do a multitude of
other things. Everybody's yelling and screaming about UFOs
they can secretly tell the airforce Hey, get your shit
together because this drone pumps gonna be it's gonna be a
problem. Get your shit together right now. And they're secretly
putting all of their resources into trying to figure out this
drone issue. And, and they're they're, they're distracting
everybody with the UFO puppet, you know, and maybe lose them. I
don't think Lou knowingly is doing that. But a wouldn't shock
me if he was pushed. And being used in that way without him
knowing.
John Greenewald: I was. I was gonna make a joke a couple
minutes ago that his dad that you had on his show was actually
a former CIA retired. But you made it all serious. And I was
like, I can't don't do that joke. And I'm just glad it's a
joke as if it's true. What a baby he was he nothing has ever
wanted seem so you never
Luis Jimenez: know meetings never know. He was having
meetings with US government officials and planning to go
back to Cuba and attack Cuba. He was talking to the CIA, without
a doubt his father. So he has those roots. He has those
intelligence routes. I just I based off of the conversations
that I've had. I don't feel that those are the men that I was
presented with short, right. You know if that makes sense.
John Greenewald: Yeah, no, no, absolutely. And that that leads
into if you guys are okay with five, 510 more minutes, and I
won't put you in a house that dark time is all your time.
Right. Appreciate that. And even though that light hearted
comment on my side, kind of leads into a very serious one,
which I'd love to get both of your reactions to and Luis,
we'll start with you. Let me preface it by saying I want
everybody who's watching this video right now to take part in
the big phone home to write. So let me say that up front. I
think it is a awesome effort. That's why I wanted to bring you
guys on and make sure that I encourage everybody to do it.
But the reason why I wanted to say that for this particular
question is I don't want to deter anybody. But it's a very
important question that I'd like your reactions to. And that is
for decades upon decades with ample evidence there is a cover
up here with cover up of what who knows, but a cover up right?
We can all comfortably say that with evidence that is
orchestrated by the government by the intelligence community.
It's one big gigantic house that's doing this. We are now
demanding answers from that big gigantic house that has misled
us for decades upon decades upon decades. So Luis, I'll start
with you. If they were to come out with something, whether it
be there's nothing to the topic, we looked into it, it's
classified tech or whatever they want to say? Or if they say,
look, there's really something to this, we're going to be
investigating this for decades to come. Regardless of what that
answer is, how can we trust it?
Luis Jimenez: We can't. We can't. That's why we need
bequests. That's why we need john Greenwald. You know, like
that's why we need to have the conversations and think of every
single angle of this information that's coming our way. That's
why we need to dissect every video dissect every paper
dissect everything as much as we can. You know, I rely a lot on
the great investigators out there. You know, we do shows
about a days a week, we can't we have full time jobs as well.
This is not it, we'd love to make it one day where we can sit
here and read. But you know, files and papers and and do like
actual research, but which is a commentary show. You know, we
hear the news, we talk about it, we discuss it, we figure out
ways how can we use it to maybe take it to a senator, it gets
some more data, but we can never trust it. But that's what we
have. That's what we have right now. And I think part of getting
the conversation going getting congressional hearings, and
getting say a ua PTF report every single year is we could
also start to lobby Congress to start giving some scientific
grants public grants, so we can give Harvard more money we can
give the you know, the ace, the GALILEO produkter No, I was
gonna well, SETI, you know, Seth shostack, I don't think is on
the level of what we wanted to really look at. But I was
thinking of the SEO right now. So institutions of learning or
institutions were higher level thinkers, PhDs, philosophers are
coming together and give them the grants instead of giving a
$20 million grant to a tip. Let's give a $20 million grant
to the SEC. You, and let's start collecting this data ourselves.
So that way, we don't have to rely on the government. But what
would be cool. And I think, again, another golden
opportunity for our government, and lawmakers to really think
about and contemplate is, hey, we can give Harvard this you say
$100 million grant to study this for the next four years. Um,
they get the instruments, they get all everything set up. And
they collect data, and whatever data they collect every year,
the government and Harvard could come together and compare notes
and say, Okay, here's where the data conflicts, here's where it
meets, let's let's present this to the public. And then let's
see where they want to go from there. Or let's see where the
data takes us really is where it should go from there. But this
idea that hey, look, we're willing to collect the data
ourselves if you give us the the opportunity and the budget to do
so. And then we'll also at the same time, we'll give you guys
the budget to because we think that the the UA PTF, I
personally would love for them to have $100 million budget
every year, every year, give them a big budget. But with that
budget, we want a report either every six months or every year
at the very least. And we just want some transparency, we want
an open discussion, we want scientists to be able to safely
talk about this. The The goal of this is to D stigmatize
congressional hearings are great, but really it's to D
stigmatize the conversation for everybody. So we can start
moving forward on what solutions can we actually start talking
about like, we we need to scientifically measure these
things we need to have 50 you know, 500, more Avi loves would
be great. You know, we need more than one we we need Avi low res
what it might go last night, Jacqueline 11 5 million, which
is first ranty. 2 million almost straight, that dude needs at 90
million to launch the kind of study he wants, he needs more
money. And so that's where I think the government comes in,
just as long as there's no strings attached to that money
other than, hey, just compare the data you guys get to keep
it, it's yours. So public, anybody could come and open
source it and look at it and share it. But just bring it to
this meeting with us. And let's compare notes. And let's see
what we could pull from the government. Let's see if there's
any other data points, or videos or radar tracking or anything
that we can say, Oh, look at this, check this out public
level we got from them, you know, and now it's no longer
please, please give us please, government please. Like, just
give us the tools to be successful. And let us do the
work for you. That's all.
John Greenewald: Sadly, I think it would be a matter of time, if
some of those government funds went to a private corporation or
scientists for the conspiracy theories to start. I'm not
saying that I would, I would want to accentuate them. But I'm
saying that is the you know, the sad part of part of this is
anytime even just the money of government going into anything
or funding something on a public or private level, like a
Harvard, you know, comes with, with baggage, sadly. So Michael,
one of the last questions here, then the same to you, how do we
trust? If if we get those hearings, or we get more reports
or whatever it may be? How do we feel comfortable to say Okay,
now we're starting to see the truth?
Michael Mataluni: That's such a great question. And the answer
is and I'm going to piggyback on a couple things Louis said here
cuz I think they're really important and worth
accentuating. Number one is we don't write we can't trust the
government, we know that it's and then we can ask the
government if we can trust them. And they'll tell us Yes. And
we'll know the answer's no. So what we've got to do is exactly
what Avi Lowe is doing exactly what Luis is talking about. Now,
I would argue that I would. And this is Abby lobes argument he
argues that he doesn't want to even to look at the government
data because he wants to be free. He wants the freedom to
look wherever he wants to look, he wants to freedom not to
report back to them. He wants the freedom to gather the data
and report it as he sees fit. And I completely agree with
that. I wish the government was trustworthy enough for us to
partner with them in this but I think you have to completely
pull this out of the military industrial complex for us to get
the actual truth. You know, and whatever that is, and I believe
Abby and I talked about this several months ago on the
debrief, actually. And we were talking about how science so
often a scientist will come up with a hypothesis in academia,
they'll test it, the wait for peer review, and eventually the
public might see that data everything that's a mistake, he
thinks process of science should be transparent. He thinks the
data should be reported throughout, regardless of what
the results are just put it out there and make sure it's
transparent. And I think that's what he's going to do with the
GALILEO project. I hope that's what he's going to do with the
GALILEO project, because it sounded like he was sincere
about that when we spoke about this almost a year ago. So I
think that's the key. It's, we can't trust the government. But
the reason that we're doing the big phone home too, and the
reason we'll continue to do the big phone home, it's a game of
chess, we're looking to D stigmatize this topic. And if
you can have public congressional hearings, with
this topic, I don't expect anything from the government
from these hearings. What I hope and believe it will do is it
will impress upon the majority of people in this country that
this is a serious topic that should be taken seriously. Once
we have that, then we can get your money, Abbi, because that's
the key here. public approval, public opinion, public support.
Luis brought up marijuana earlier, marijuana took me 20
years, 25 years to get legalized when and what happened? And why?
Because of public support. So the big fan only
Luis Jimenez: that money, like they saw how much my state saw
how much money was in it. And it's, yes, there's a lot of
money in studying this, I think.
Michael Mataluni: I don't know, I don't know, we can have that
we can have that debate. But and come over to the unidentified
slavery review and the singularity lab, and you'll hear
us have these debates. But I think you know, I think the
bottom line is, we need the big fund home to the goal is to get
public hearing so that we can de stigmatize this topic in the
mind of the American people. Once we accomplish that, then we
continue to focus on things like the GALILEO project with Avi
Loeb and the SEIU and we start funding those things so that we
can sidestep the military industrial complex in the USG
and deliver the data directly to the people and that's the goal
of the big phone home.
John Greenewald: Awesome. And Louise, I want to give you the
last word here, obviously thank you both for your time. But just
in the closing minute here two minutes. Speak to everybody
watching what what do you want to say to them as your closing
words, to motivate them to either pick up the phone or on
the website they can write an email or letter or send a tweet
you know what what is it that you would say to them and the
floor is yours.
Luis Jimenez: It's looking to maritime you know, it's gut
check time. If you want more data if you want more
transparency, if you want more discussion, if you want more
things like congressional hearings, you want to de
stigmatize this topic. You want more Alex Dietrich's to come
out, you want more David framers to come forward, you want more
witnesses, you want more radar, you want more data. You want
more science, join us make a phone call, send an email, write
a tweet, you would be shocked how far it goes. Join us, either
one or all three days, you know, we're gonna have a focus on the
first day for amateurs. experiencers the ladies, we're
gonna have a ladies our Canadian reporters in, I'll be there for
today, john Greenwald will be there. I'm in the ladies our Oh,
there you go. That's funny, I like it. And then the second
day, we were thinking about, you know, journalists, scientists,
particularly, is what we're going to be focusing on the
second day, we've got Avi Loeb and the GALILEO members of the
GALILEO project, we're gonna have rich Hoffman, Simon reached
out to him but he agreed a while ago, we're gonna have rich
Hoffman, from the SEO and others, SEIU members, and we're
gonna focus on science, discussion of the UAP on the
second day, and then on the third day is going to be
veterans and current military members. So we're going to try
and cover all three gamuts of this discussion. So nobody's
left out. Nobody feels left out in the dark, we're going to have
fans interact, you're going to be able to call and share with
us your activism efforts in the last hour of every day. There's
going to be a lot of ways that we're all going to be able to
get together and tweet at senators and get their attention
and your you know, your help you guys can possibly help us get
guests on and and and put some fire under the feet. You know,
if I hadn't Senator Rubio in front of me, my question to him
would be what would congressional hearings look
like? How do you get the ball rolling on it? Who would you
talk to first things like that? Like, these aren't questions
that TMZ are asking, you know, like, these are questions that I
would like answers to even if he gives me a political flub
answer, but the only way we do it is if we come together on
these three days and just try to put in an effort just try and
and it doesn't have to be a lot I mean this we've got options
where you can sit down for hours and really dive deep into into
the contacting representative Or it could take you as little as
five minutes or two minutes or three minutes, whatever it's
going to end up being. But But the point is, is if you're
interested, if you're listening to this conversation, you're
curious you have to be, it's the only reason you're here. If
you're curious, pick up the phone with us September 3, or
fourth, fifth and six. And really, honestly, you could do
it anytime you want. The big phone home is not a date, it's a
state of mind. You know, if you want change, you have to, you
have to ask for it. So I hope that motivates you.
John Greenewald: That's awesome. It's a very, very well said, and
to both of you, thank you both very, very much for taking your
time. I do. I'll repeat it, encourage everybody that's
watching this take part in the big phone home to September 4,
fifth, and six, the address is on your screen if you're
watching on YouTube. And if you're listening on the podcast,
just go to the big phone home.com. And in the podcast
description in the YouTube description, there will be links
to all of Louise's channels, social media, Michael's channel,
and social media. And I highly recommend these two are a lot of
fun to be on their side of the interview. So it was a lot of
fun for me this time to switch roles, I had a fun opportunity
to be on both of your shows here in the last month or so at
different times and had a blast, you guys both asked great
questions, and you have a great balance between having fun and
asking great questions. So well done to both of you. And I wish
you all the best with this. And however I can help, definitely
let me know. So thank you guys. So much. One
Luis Jimenez: other quick thing, if I'm not sure when you're
going to post this interview, but if you go to the website,
and these buttons aren't working, we should have all of
these buttons and all of these systems in place. By August, I'm
gonna say just 12 just to give us an extra little bit extra
buffer. You know, the website right now it's just the
skeleton. But by the 12th week, all of this stuff should be
implemented in working maybe even sooner. But again, I'm just
saying the 12th just to give ourselves a buffer, but the
websites up just so you guys can get an idea of who's running it
who's going to be in it's going to be updated constantly. So
just know that about the website. But if you have any
questions, don't hesitate to reach out to us either through
email, which is the big phone home@gmail.com. Or you can reach
out through us on our show, you can watch our show and chat to
us there because we're live every single day Monday through
Friday. So yeah, that's it. Very good. Well,
John Greenewald: thank you for that. And thank you all for
listening and watching, we'll make sure that I get again, all
of your social media links, because I'm sure you would
encourage them to follow there as well and all of the updates
when the website changes will be posted there as well. But thank
you guys a lot for your time today. Thank you so much an
absolute honor and pleasure to be here. I appreciate that. And
thank you all for listening and watching. This is John
Greenewald Jr signing off, and we'll see you next time.