RADIODecember 13, 2024

Are the New Jersey Drones RECREATIONS of Alien Spacecraft?

Everyone is watching the skies in New Jersey after tons of mysterious large drone sightings. But the government either can’t verify them or is refusing to. So, what’s going on here? Glenn’s head researcher & former Dept. of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill joins to explain one theory: These are U.S. military recreations of UFO craft. While countries like Russia have gone “all in” on hypersonic weapons, why has the U.S. not? Is it because we have something better? And does this explain why the Pentagon has confirmed UFO sightings and why experts have testified to Congress that the U.S. government is “reproducing” or reverse-engineering alien spacecraft? Or is this all just a psy-op?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So Jason Buttrill is our head researcher for the show.

And head writer for TV. And -- and also, former military intelligence.

I wanted you to come on, because I wanted you to explain, the reverse engineering, that these drones may be.

Because Stu and I were talking earlier today.

Like in the last five years. The New York Times printed, UFOs are real. And we were like, wait what?

And nobody paid attention to it. Well, UFOs are real, but we're not really sure.

Well, we're not really sure. But we have pieces have UFOs. That are definitely otherworldly.

Huh. And then there was testimony after testimony. And the latest testimony was, they're real.

Well, they may not be real.

But we do have devices that don't come from this world.

And we're trying to reengineer. Because China and Russia and everything else is trying to reverse design these things.

And you're like, my -- my head is going to explode.

So what do you think is -- because all of this could be misdirection.

What -- tell me the reverse engineering thing. And do you believe that?

JASON: Okay. That's a loaded question. It's kind of like when Michael Shellenberger, just testified at the UAP, you know, thing in front of Congress. Where he was like -- he was the one extremely brutally honest person. Said, look, these things are real, I don't know they come from.

I don't know where they come from.

I will say, that the last time, the UFO phenomenon has been brought out so much, especially as kind of a cover for what the government was doing, was the stealth program.

Exactly, the B2. All that tech.

There was story after story after story of the government encouraging UFO talk, because they wanted to mask what was going on.

Now, there's things going on right now.

There's a couple of different technologies in the military-industrial complexes all over the world. One is hypersonic weapons. Russia has gone all in on hypersonic weapons.

China, eh.

Secondary. The US. Eh. Secondary. That's kind of just odd to me. Why would we be like, eh. And kind of look at Russia as they kind of go all out. News today, that the United States and NATO is expecting another hypersonic attack/tests from Russia, their Oreshnik missile, hypersonic missile, is going to be used in the next 24 to 48 hours. That's what they're expecting.

GLENN: It's good they're telling us in advance.

JASON: They're telling us, letting us know. But, again, why is this not such a big deal to us?

Why are we -- are we prioritizing some other tech?

Now, I start thinking about that. And I start thinking about this entire UFO phenomenon. You talk about the retro fitting. And reverse engineering.

GLENN: Reverse engineering.

JASON: It came out in that -- in that congressional hearing.

GLENN: It came out a couple of times. But in that congressional hearing where Shellenberger was there with so much credibility.

JASON: They talked about a program. The government program called the immaculate constellation. And they were very honed in on what they called reproduction vehicles. Which, the first thought in my mind was the back of granddad's '57 Chevy. That sounded like a reproduction vehicle.

GLENN: I don't think that's what they meant.

JASON: That's not what they meant.

GLENN: That this was immaculate.

JASON: Exactly right. Now I get the reason for the name. We're connecting dots like only you can.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. They're not making 57 Chevies.
(laughter)
All right.

JASON: But so what they meant, actually meant by that was UFO craft, UPE craft, what they're hinting at, that they have either recovered or reserved. And tried to retrofit it. And tried to make it on their own. Reverse engineering.

And they even go so far as to say, these are actual government reports, that they said, they are observing hostile country off certain waters, that were doing a test of their reproduction vehicle.

Now, to me that sounds like China.

They talk about it in detail, how there was Naval assets.

They were watching to see. It looked like they were scanning, to see if it showed up on their radar. Then after the test, they dispersed and went away, and the vehicle went away.

Now, personally, I think there's huge talk about drone warfare. This is not happening in a New Jersey turnpike vacuum.

Three hours ago, there was a story from Reuters. Over the past couple of weeks. All of these random, what happened to be drones, were appearing over Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. This is happening all over the place. And it's accelerated over the, what? Past two years? Two, three years. This is accelerating. This is not just a New Jersey turnpike phenomenon. This is everywhere. Now, all the attention is right there.

And to me it's very interesting. That after Russia is going all in on hypersonic weapons, and gone to fully using them on the battlefield, in a war that we're actively engaged in.

That now we're talking about this a whole lot more.

GLENN: But how does this not make us look pathetic? Because you wouldn't believe. I mean, if Russia did this.

And also, we cannot track it on our radar.
You would be like, oh, really? Ivan. You can't track it. Wow, I believe you.

I mean, you would have to do it over somebody else that would fool their tracking. Not ours.

Why would you -- I just think that makes us look weak.

Which makes a case, that, yes. The Biden administration is behind it. Because it makes us look weak.

JASON: Right. Remember then, if a lot of these disclosures are true and accurate -- and, again, I'm not saying that they're from outer space. It could be. But I'm not saying that. It could just be --

GLENN: I don't think they are.

JASON: Would you agree that we're on the verge of a technology explosion?

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: Quantum computing and everything. Wouldn't that seem like aliens?

GLENN: Yes. Remember what I said about the Hindenburg last hour. And the war of the worlds. They knew at the time.

The whole country was unsettled. Radio was about the age of the i Phone.

And -- I mean, as far as being masked.

And people were just unsettled. War was in the air.

They knew everything was about change. It was just in the air.

That's where we are.

I mean, that's what I said Zachary Levi.

He's like, Glenn, three years from now. By 2030, no one will recognize anything.

You won't recognize your job.

You won't recognize your life.

You won't -- you won't recognize anything by 2030.

He said, 2030, I think we've got two years.

And I said, maybe. Maybe four.

STU: Those aren't -- those lines aren't that far apart from each other.

It's already 2025. It feels -- 2030 feels like it's way out in the distance.

Really, not that far away.

GLENN: But remember when I said 2030.

STU: It felt like this.

GLENN: Everyone was saying 2050. 2050.

If we ever get there.

And I said, I'm telling you, it's 2030.

And now, others are saying, it's right around. Not just Zachary Levi.

Other people who actually know things. Unlike me. Are saying, it's some place very soon.

Could be next year. Soon. But it's here.

STU: On the quantum computing front.

There's that announcement from Google this week, on the Willow chip. They say that Google claims that Willow was able to complete one particular problem, in five minutes, while the same task would have taken today's supercomputers 10 septillion years to finish.

And septillion is -- that's a lot. Ten, then zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero.

GLENN: You could have just said the federal deficit.

STU: Yeah. That's, by the way, longer than the universe existed. Has existed. That's what they say.

So that -- our today's super computers, longer than the universe has existed, and it took the Google chip five minutes.

So you add AI to that.

You're not going to go to the library. And go, I want to do this quantum computing. That is going to be sold for the highest dollar.

You're going to have to bid on the time. You're going to have a really good reason.

And it's only going to be scientist studies. Governments. That have access to these things.

Oh, one more thing. AI will have that.

Now, what do you do when you introduce something, as we talked about last, what? Tuesday, Wednesday show.

When you have something that you -- you think is your friend, but it can think in five minutes, what -- what to you, would take longer than the history of the universe.

Not even you. The supercomputer of today. Longer than the time -- the entire universe has existed.

Yeah. We're going to be able to put that back into a bottle.

It's not going to outsmart us.

DUNCAN: Yeah. I think we are on the verge of a wildly transformative time, in military hardware.

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: And I think there is a lot of posturing, as far as what is about to get exposed and used accurately.

That's personally what I think is going on right now.

I don't think every single sighting that's happening everywhere.

It's probably hobbyists. If you listen to what John Kirby actually said.

He said that most of us or some of.

He didn't say all of everything that's being observed out there, is something that they can't explain.

The difference between debate and celebrating death

There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.

Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?

For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.

So let's have that conversation here for a second.

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.

That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.

And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.

I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.

Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.

Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.

Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.

Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?

No! They're not.

Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.

That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.

It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.

There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.

You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.

So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.

But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?

I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?

I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.

And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.

He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.

If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.

If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.

What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?

Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.

What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?

To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.

A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?

I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!

I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!

But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?

Yes.

But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.

But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.

Except here. I think it is easy.

Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.

Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.

But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?

I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!

No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?

Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.

Which do you want to defend?

Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.

Which one?

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado on Overcoming Grief in Dark Times | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 266

Disclaimer: This episode was filmed prior to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But Glenn believes Max's message is needed now more than ever.
The political world is divided, constantly at war with itself. In many ways, our own lives are not much different. Why do we constantly focus on the negative? Why are we in pain? Where is God amid our anxiety and fear? Why can’t we ever seem to change? Pastor Max Lucado has found the solution: Stop thinking like that! It may seem easier said than done, but Max joins Glenn Beck to unpack the three tools he describes in his new book, “Tame Your Thoughts,” that make it easy for us to reset the way we think back to God’s factory settings. In this much-needed conversation, Max and Glenn tackle everything from feeling doubt as a parent to facing unfair hardships to ... UFOs?! Plus, Max shares what he recently got tattooed on his arm.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Are Demonic Forces to Blame for Charlie Kirk, Minnesota & Charlotte Killings?

This week has seen some of the most heinous actions in recent memory. Glenn has been discussing the growth of evil in our society, and with the assassination of civil rights leader Charlie Kirk, the recent transgender shooter who took the lives of two children at a Catholic school, and the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, how can we make sense of all this evil? On today's Friday Exclusive, Glenn speaks with BlazeTV host of "Strange Encounters" Rick Burgess to discuss the demon-possessed transgender shooter and the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. Rick breaks down the reality of demon possession and how individuals wind up possessed. Rick and Glenn also discuss the dangers of the grotesque things we see online and in movies, TV shows, and video games on a daily basis. Rick warns that when we allow our minds to be altered by substances like drugs or alcohol, it opens a door for the enemy to take control. A supernatural war is waging in our society, and it’s a Christian’s job to fight this war. Glenn and Rick remind Christians of what their first citizenship is.