The Age of Disclosure film

[Calter]

So apparently the documentary has this interesting statement

I spent ten years as an intelligence officer for the Navy. And before that, six years as Air Force intelligence.

And I spent time on the UAP task force.

I'm one of the intelligence officials that has experienced biological effects of encountering UAP. Since my first encounter, I've observed other craft, orbs, we'll call it exotic energy fields.

Unfortunately, um, those of us who have investigated it, we become part of the investigation or investigated by our colleagues.

The population had about a 25% mortality rate within seven years of having an interaction. Probably important that the public understands that this is more than just an aerial phenomenon.

When you have an anecdote that is accompanied by medical data, that's something that I can hand to another scientist, another doctor and say, "Here it is. You explain it."

We can argue about what the conclusion is, but we can't argue that the data is real.

(not sure who says it, I took it from this transcript)

Now, 25% mortality rate is a pretty big number, that's 1 in 4 people that died after interacting with a UFO.

Someone on reddit seems to have tracked down a possible source for this number

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1p79u62/the_25_mortality_rate_in_age_of_disclosure_is/


It seems to be a quote of Dr Cristopher Green from the book "Phenomena: The Secret History of the U.S. Government's Investigation into Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis"
https://archive.org/details/phenomenasecreth0000jaco/page/556/mode/2up

The actual quote is

Twenty-five percent of my patients die within five to seven years of my diagnosis

So somehow, we went from 25% of the patients that were in severe enough conditions to visit Dr Green die within 5-7 years to 25% of the people that interact with UAP die within 7 years

 

[NorCal Dave]

It seems to be a quote of Dr Cristopher Green from the book "Phenomena: The Secret History of the U.S. Government's Investigation into Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis"

Yeah, and the quote from the film you shared seems to be in context of introducing Garry Nolan. Just before your quote we get this:

[Garry Nolan] I got started working on this actually in this office.

There was a knock at the door, and two individuals who represented themselves as being with the CIA and an aerospace company came to me and asked for my help.

They had, uh, data of military personnel, intelligence officials and others associated with the Department of Defense who had direct interactions with UAP. And because of that direct interaction suffered some kind of medical harm.

I'd have to go back and look around, but I'm pretty sure the 2 people that visit Nolan are Green (CIA) and Puthoff (EarthTech International). The DIRDs that AASWAP got from BAASS were provided by Puthoff's EarthTech and included a paper by Green about the biological effects of UAP:

DIRD file #26, Anomalous Acute and Subacute Field Effects on Human Biological Tissue.

I went through it in post #11 of this thread. Sorry, I got a bit carried away so the part about Green's paper is around 1/2 through the post, but the part about former MUFON head, John Schuessler's paper that was included in the FOIA dump about AWWSAP is noteworthy as Green uses parts of it in his paper.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pe...ing-other-paranormal-stuff.12370/#post-310526

EDIT: Fixed name of Puthoff's company.

 

[Calter]

Yeah, and the quote from the film you shared seems to be in context of introducing Garry Nolan. Just before your quote we get this

Did Garry Nolan spend 10 years in intelligence for the Navy and 6 more as Air Force intelligence?

I think the person who's talking changes but the transcript just doesn't denote that (I think it's based off the subtitles so it's not perfectly accurate)

(if you just mean that the quote was for introducing him rather than him saying it then disregard this comment)

 

[Scaramanga]

He clearly was, based on his literal words, and fervent opposition to my view that sometimes we don't know if something exists or not.

I got tired of the hair splitting sophistry that totally over-ran the original point I'd made.

'Know' is not really a scientific term...it is a philosophical one, on a scale on which some might argue we don't actually 'know' anything at all. Science doesn't prove things right...it just proves alternatives wrong. Our models pass predictive tests, but they could do so and still be 'wrong' in the sense that Newtonian gravity is not 'the' explanation. All of science is thus a provisional ' our best understanding '

You say science doesn't place unproven things as non-existent. But it does...all the time. No serious scientist takes unicorns seriously, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There are no 'we don't know' articles in Nature. The only such articles are for unknown things with testable predictions. Like the multiverse, for example, for which there is zero evidence but it arises naturally out of inflation theory. However I also tend to agree with those who argue that if the multiverse is not testable....then it is not science.

Thus I stand by my assertion that exobiology is an absurd 'science'...when we have zero in the way of exo to be biologic about.

 

[JMartJr]

So if something significantly more than 75% of The Usual Gang of Suspects are still around in 8 years, is this evidence that their claims are not true?

 

[MonkeeSage]

The actual quote is

Twenty-five percent of my patients die within five to seven years of my diagnosis

So somehow, we went from 25% of the patients that were in severe enough conditions to visit Dr Green die within 5-7 years to 25% of the people that interact with UAP die within 7 years

Confirmed by Nolan that the 25% number was related to only ~100 patients in this Vice article.

Enough people were having very similar kinds of bad things happen to them, that it came to the attention of a guy by the name of Dr. Kit Green. He was in charge of studying some of these individuals. You have a smorgasbord of patients, some of whom had heard weird noises buzzing in their head, got sick, etc. A reasonable subset of them had claimed to have seen UAPs and some claimed to be close to things that got them sick.

[...]

Of the 100 or so patients that we looked at, about a quarter of them died from their injuries.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/sta...alyzing-anomalous-materials-from-ufo-crashes/

And those ~100 patients included "Havana syndrome" patients unrelated to any alleged UAP contact.

The majority of these patients had symptomology that's basically identical to what's now called Havana syndrome. We think amongst this bucket list of cases, we had the first Havana syndrome patients. Once this turned into a national security problem with the Havana syndrome I was locked out of all of the access to the files because it's now a serious potential international incident if they ever figured out who's been doing it.

That still left individuals who had seen UAPs. They didn't have Havana syndrome. They had a smorgasbord of other symptoms.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/sta...alyzing-anomalous-materials-from-ufo-crashes/

 

[jdog]

Confirmed by Nolan that the 25% number was related to only ~100 patients in this Vice article.

Enough people were having very similar kinds of bad things happen to them, that it came to the attention of a guy by the name of Dr. Kit Green. He was in charge of studying some of these individuals. You have a smorgasbord of patients, some of whom had heard weird noises buzzing in their head, got sick, etc. A reasonable subset of them had claimed to have seen UAPs and some claimed to be close to things that got them sick.

"A reasonable subset" claimed to have seen UAPs and some of those claimed to be close to "things?"

That's jawdroppingly vague.

Of course, Nolan is quoted elsewhere in the interview, about the brain condition he was investigating: "We don't think that has anything to do with UAPs. We think that that's some sort of a state actor and again related to Havana syndrome somehow."

So, 0% related to UAPs.

 

[Ann K]

No mention of the age of those patients? That would be the first thing I'd ask about, not any "mysterious encounters" they might have had.

 

[John J.]

A far as I know Nolan isn't a medical doctor. He has a BSc in biology and a PhD in genetics, and has a professorship in the pathology department of Stanford University's School of Medicine, but has never undertaken medical training (in the professional sense).

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Nolan

 

[beku-mant]

My confidence is based on:

• 100% of solved cases being proved not NHIs
• 0% of solved cases being NHIs
• Years of experience as military observer (what goes into an official file can be mind-numbingly dull.)
• Years of experience as an amateur astronomer studying the night sky
• And several decades watching humans make similar mistakes in politics, finance, and most other large scale activities.

All of which contributed to my resolving my own UFO experiences myself. Once I had enough evidence it was really pretty simple.

The film makers have not presented evidence. They have not demonstrate such evidence actually exists. They have assembled a collection of stories that merely suggest that such evidence exists and done so in a way that leads exactly nowhere we have not already been. Only you will be $20 lighter in the wallet after you rent it.

You still can't see the forest. You could run your committee for ten years and publish a report that all of the members agree to. No report that doesn't result in a levitating alien pod on the floor of the US Senate will prevent the film makers doing a few more interviews and releasing a sequel.

And yet you are a human, and despite whatever experience you've had, what you know, what you think is true, people can just point out some examples where other humans did too and were wrong, as evidence that your opinion is likely not worth a damn.

But that's not scientific. The truth just is. We're not going to figure it out by attacking a few people's credibility.

 

[Mendel]

25% of the patients that were in severe enough conditions to visit Dr Green die within 5-7 years

"Dr Kit Green killed 1 in 4 patients!"
(I bet that's more than the vaccine killed in his state.)

Thus I stand by my assertion that exobiology is an absurd 'science'...when we have zero in the way of exo to be biologic about.

Biology is about life under terrestrial conditions.
We have had biological experiments in microgravity. We can also make predictions how life could develop under non-terrestrial conditions, even though they may be hard to confirm.

 

[Gary C]

And yet you are a human, and despite whatever experience you've had, what you know, what you think is true, people can just point out some examples where other humans did too and were wrong, as evidence that your opinion is likely not worth a damn.

But that's not scientific. The truth just is. We're not going to figure it out by attacking a few people's credibility.

I haven't been keeping score but if you've read the entire thread, you should not help but conclude that:

• A majority of those interviewed have on multiple occasions made erroneous or deceptive claims about government activities related to UFOs/UAPs
• Some have documented records of dissembling or fabricating their relationships to those programs
• The film makers edited some material to portray certain figures as making statements about UAP programs when they were in fact asking witnesses to corroborate earlier testimony as a matter of record

The subject of this thread is the title film and the propagandistic nature of the final product merits "attack" [your choice of wording] for all the issues described in detail over the last seven pages.

 

[NorCal Dave]

The subject of this thread is the title film and the propagandistic nature of the final product merits "attack" [your choice of wording] for all the issues described in detail over the last seven pages.

AND, the claims of the film are being presented as true based SOLELY on the credibility of the claimants. The director is on record saying so:

Testimony is ultimately what film hinges on, and it's really the only "proof" it can offer. This, for Farah, is more compelling. He believes that "the strongest evidence" is "credible people putting their name and reputation on the line to tell you what they know at great risk".

AND Farah deliberately left out any sort of skepticism about those claims:

In The Age of Disclosure, it's clear that there is little room for push back or skepticism, particularly since there's not a single detractor in the film to serve as a foil to the plethora of resolute interviewees. And Farah, for his part, doesn't see the need for those voices to cloud the documentary's throughline. "I think when people watch this movie, one of the realizations will be that the stigma around this topic is completely illogical and makes no sense and is not good for humanity," he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/nov/22/age-of-disclosure-documentary-aliens?

The entire film is based on nothing but "credibility", so any skepticism of the claims, is by definition, skepticism of the credibility of those making the claims. It's how Farah set it up.

 

[Giddierone]

"the stigma around this topic is completely illogical and makes no sense and is not good for humanity" — Look for this small print at the bottom of your trusted dentist's certificate the next time he suggests using his equipment to trepan you.
I mean really, this is a bald declaration that the film is propaganda.
Is there anyone out there making an actual documentary about this topic?

 

[flarkey]

The entire film is based on nothing but "credibility", so any skepticism of the claims, is by definition, skepticism of the credibility of those making the claims. It's how Farah set it up.

That's an astute observation. If they provide no evidence, then there's no evidence that can assist in a debunking. If they only provide testimony from witnesses with credentials then any criticism can only be directed at the witness with the suggestion they are either mistaken or lying. I had of course realised this dichotomy before, but hadn't thought of it as an actual tactic of the filmmakers, and UAP advocates in general. Interesting.

 

[jarlrmai]

That's an astute observation. If they provide no evidence, then there's no evidence that can assist in a debunking. If they only provide testimony from witnesses with credentials then any criticism can only be directed at the witness with the suggestion they are either mistaken or lying. I had of course realised this dichotomy before, but hadn't thought of it as an actual tactic of the filmmakers, and UAP advocates in general. Interesting.

It's the entire tactic of the cleverest Ufologists, evidence is unconvincing or can be shown to be mundane, claims are personal.

 

[JMartJr]

If they only provide testimony from witnesses with credentials then any criticism can only be directed at the witness with the suggestion they are either mistaken or lying.

Or were lied to -- perhaps a subspecies of being mistaken, but it would allow for accurate mistake-free repetition of what they were told, with the deception and/or mistake happening one or more generations previously.

 

[jdog]

It's the entire tactic of the cleverest Ufologists, evidence is unconvincing or can be shown to be mundane, claims are personal.

True, no one can analyze Gallaudet's claims of non-human vessels being in the ocean because they're second-hand and non-specific (tales he's been told or videos he's interpreted, but can't share), but we're asked to believe his beliefs because he's a retired rear admiral.

 

[Gary C]

Or were lied to -- perhaps a subspecies of being mistaken, but it would allow for accurate mistake-free repetition of what they were told, with the deception and/or mistake happening one or more generations previously.

IMO this is a constant in many unsolved cases. Errors introduced anytime from the initial event through subsequent retellings that can no longer be fact-checked making them semi-immune to debunking.

 

[Giddierone]

True, no one can analyze Gallaudet's claims of non-human vessels being in the ocean because they're second-hand and non-specific (tales he's been told or videos he's interpreted, but can't share), but we're asked to believe his beliefs because he's a retired rear admiral.

and most people can't go and check the ocean floor because there be beasties there it's difficult. Just another instance of reducing the area of UFO investigation to a narrow speciality only a few have access to.

 

[Mendel]

and most people can't go and check the ocean floor because there be beasties there it's difficult. Just another instance of reducing the area of UFO investigation to a narrow speciality only a few have access to.

Surprisingly enough, the people who do look at the ocean floor professionally have not reported UUPs.

 

[Mendel]

If by now you still consider former high-ranking military and intelligence personnel credible, consider who justified a war by saying there were WMD in Iraq, contrary to what the UN weapons inspectors said.
The "high-ranking" people were wrong.

 

[FatPhil]

If by now you still consider former high-ranking military and intelligence personnel credible, consider who justified a war by saying there were WMD in Iraq, contrary to what the UN weapons inspectors said.
The "high-ranking" people were wrong.

Were one to ask oneself what qualities were and are necessary in order for such people to get themselves elevated to the highest levels of power and responsibility, "credibility" and "not being wrong" oughtn't be high on ones list, lest one also lose credibility.

 

[Gary C]

If by now you still consider former high-ranking military and intelligence personnel credible, consider who justified a war by saying there were WMD in Iraq, contrary to what the UN weapons inspectors said.
The "high-ranking" people were wrong.

They are still people and subject to human error. As an argument this is appeal to authority, nothing more.

 

[Ann K]

They are still people and subject to human error. As an argument this is appeal to authority, nothing more.

I don't know how much of that was genuine error and how much was - dare I say the infamous phrase? - "just following orders". It may be that they were merely told not to contradict the president, or decided for themselves that going along with the boss was good politics.

 

[Gary C]

I don't know how much of that was genuine error and how much was - dare I say the infamous phrase? - "just following orders". It may be that they were merely told not to contradict the president, or decided for themselves that going along with the boss was good politics.

With respect to the WMD debacle I've always had the sense that a great deal of group-think was involved on the level that lead to the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
With respect to the film though, appeal to authority fits

 

[jackfrostvc]

A long while back I had found that Ryan Graves had worked for BAE. Interesting given their involvement with drones and Electronic Warfare. But then again , not that surprising he would go there. A number of them did end up at military contractor firms including Fravor who ended up at Northdrop Grumman. The USS Lousville commander ended up with a company with contracts/ties to DARPA and were also involved in drones etc. Even Douglas Kurth had a stint at Lockheed Martin (Flight Instructor / Subject matter expert)

Anyway, someone had asked Graves about being at BAE and he responded that he didn't want people talking about it as he didnt want his job jeopardised as it was hard for a ex Navy pilot to find work . Now he is involved in this air safety organisaton which seems to be about UAP and is involved with lots of things, talks etc.

That's what stuck with me, the last bit about it being hard for him to find work. I thought about that and the current situation with ex Counter Intel, Information Warfare people coming out with Alien stories. Getting involved in the talking tours, movies, books . There has even been disclosure funds and pushes for a great deal of money for UAP "research"

What job prospects do ex Counter Intel , Info Warfare etc have I wondered, probably not a lot IMO. Same boat . What to do then. Seems they have found a very interesting cash flow

Karl Nell also seems to have been on an Up or Out clause. A whistleblowers claims that Nell made reprisals against her seems to have resulted in him being forcefully retired. ie he claims his promotion was being impacted because of that whistleblowers reprisal claim, therefor it seems he was retired due to his Up or Out clause. An up or out clause means that if he was not promoted by a certain time he would be mandatorily retired on June 1st 2022.
I wonder if he also has an axe to grind

 

[NorCal Dave]

Karl Nell also seems to have been on an Up or Out clause. A whistleblowers claims that Nell made reprisals against her seems to have been the reason he was forcefully retired. ie he claims he didn't get promoted because of that whistleblowers reprisal claim, therefor he was retired due to his up or out clause. An up or out clause means that if he was not promoted by a certain time he would be mandatorily retired on June 1st 2022.
I wonder if he also has an axe to grind

I would think a bit of caution is in order. As we've discussed up-thread, it's possible that the entire film is constructed to rely solely on the perceived credibility of the claimants. Any questioning of the claims is questioning the people making the claims. As such, anything like the possibility Knell was forced out due to a female wistleblower's complaint should be thoroughly sourced.

 

[jackfrostvc]

@NorCal Dave


Below is from Karl Nells own legal document his lawyer filed appealing the Whistleblower reprisal judgement
Source: https://militarydefense.com/wp-content/uploads/Nell-Complaint.pdf

 

[Mendel]

Now he is involved in this air safety organisaton which seems to be about UAP and is involved with lots of things, talks etc.

it's not an "air safety organisation"
UAP are not actually a threat to air safety, birds are

First, let's establish this is on topic. From https://www.safeaerospace.org/ , the list of advisors: Alex Dietrich, David Fravor, Michael Greene, Sam Fletcher, Jay Stratton, Christopher Mellon, Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Kirk McConnell. There's significant overlap with the cast of the film.

ASA purports to be "Identifying objects in our airspace and eliminating domain awareness gaps is critical to U.S. aviation safety and national security", but they don't even explain starlink flares on their site.
What they actually do is lobby for "disclosure" legislation, i.e. revealing military secrets: "In-depth analysis of UAP policy and national security implications from ASA leadership" is most of what I see them doing. Oh, and monetizing the reports that they get:

They also sell merch. So basically, most of the site main nav bar leads to pages that ask me to give them money.

I've seen at least one report on their site that has video, maybe we should analyse some of them.

 

[flarkey]

I've seen at least one report on their site that has video, maybe we should analyse some of them.

We have done.

This was shown to be the ISS.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/minneapolis-police-officers-observe-lights-in-the-sky.14504/

We also looked at this sighting that Ryan Graves that turned out to be a rocket.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ryan-graves-uap-photo-from-airliner-rocket-launch.13866/

 

[MonkeeSage]

Marco Rubio was just asked by Sean Hannity on Fox News about his part in Age of Disclosure. Below is the clip and transcript.

Hannity: But I've got to ask you, there's a show that's come out, it's called The Age of Disclosure.

Rubio: Yeah.

Hannity: Okay, I know everyone, probably, right? Everyone asks you about it?

Rubio: Sure.

Hannity: It's a new documentary. We had repeated instances of something operating in the airspace over restricted nuclear facilities. It's not ours. And presidents operate on a need-to-know basis.

Rubio: Yeah.

Hannity: Okay, that is...

Rubio: So, a couple points on it. First of all, I'm not disavowing that-- that was an interview that was done almost maybe three or four years ago when I was in the Senate...

Hannity: Right.

Rubio: So, it wasn't recent. The second point I would make-- I was describing the allegations that people have come forward with. I have people that came forward to us, you know, some of these people were Navy pilots, admirals, generals, whatever, that would come forward and say that there were programs in the U.S. government that not even presidents were made aware of. So I was describing what people had said to me, not things that I have firsthand knowledge of in that regard. A little bit of selective editing, but it's okay, because, you know, you're trying to sell a show there.

But the fundamental comments--I haven't seen it, but the clips I've seen and people have shown me--are fundamentally true. And that is, there are things, we know this, this has been documented. There have been things that fly over the airspace, restricted airspace, be it where we're conducting military exercises or the like. And everyone in the government says they're not ours. And so, what I worry most about, just me personally, is that some adversary, another country, for example, has developed some asymmetric capability for surveillance or the like that we just are not prepared for. You know, we're looking for missiles and fighter jets, and they're coming at us with drones and balloons. I remember, you know, when NORAD turned on the radars and started looking for balloons, all of a sudden they spotted a bunch of balloons flying overhead, ninety-percent of them were innocent, you know, things. A couple of them were Chinese. And so, but we never look for balloons because our radars aren't trained for that.

So that really was the point I was trying to drive at. I can't comment on the rest of the documentary. It has, as I said, claims from people that were former admirals, naval fighters, people with high clearances in government. Some of them are pretty spectacular claims. I'm not calling these people liars. I don't have independent knowledge that what they're saying is true. The one observation I had is we had people that did very important jobs in the U.S. government who are saying these things. So we have people with very high jobs in the U.S. government that are either A, liars, B, crazy, or C, telling the truth. And two of those three options are not good.

Hannity: Those are the three options?

Rubio: I don't know the answer. I don't have any point of, you know, I don't want to call them liars. I just don't have any independent way to verify everything they said.

 

[Mendel]

Below is the clip and transcript.

So I was describing what people had said to me, not things that I have firsthand knowledge of in that regard.

It's the same thing that's always happening: the usual suspects make big claims, someone takes them seriously, and then they quote that someone to confirm their claims are true.

It's like the problem Wikipedia sometimes has, where someone puts something on Wikipedia, then a journalist uses it, and now Wikipedia has a (useless) reference for the thing.

 

[FatPhil]

So I was describing what people had said to me, not things that I have firsthand knowledge of in that regard.

It's the same thing that's always happening: the usual suspects make big claims, someone takes them seriously, and then they quote that someone to confirm their claims are true.

It's like the problem Wikipedia sometimes has, where someone puts something on Wikipedia, then a journalist uses it, and now Wikipedia has a (useless) reference for the thing.

The wikipedia example has of course been canonicalised by XKCD's "Citogenesis":

-- https://xkcd.com/978/

A trail of evidence being an ourobouros isn't new. Turning it into a meme is the new thing:

(All credit to John J for realising that idea.)

 

[Calter]

So we have people with very high jobs in the U.S. government that are either A, liars, B, crazy, or C, telling the truth. And two of those three options are not good.

While I don't quite agree with the three categories, I'd say none of the three options are good.

That some people with current or past government/military association are using the secrecy and reputation of their experience as a way to spread lies maliciously or out of genuine belief from watching blurry videos is bad.

That there's an actual secret deep state that's been running secret UFO programs for the past 80 years outside of any sort of supervision in the most powerful country in the world would be horrendous.

If anything, C implies A and B are also true, the crazies/liars would just be the people in these programs rather than the whistleblowers.

 

[NoParty]

fwiw,
as I was driving last night (12/6/25), listening to NPR
(I'm guessing it was the BBC World Service Newshour, but couldn't find a link, this morning)
there was a disappointing--though not surpring, in 2025-- ~4 minute bit on Age of Disclosure.
The tone was pretty serious. My guess is that BBC doesn't consider itself expert on the topic, and felt
obligated to at least seem take all those serious ("credible") sounding Yanks seriously.
Farah was given lots of time, and not asked any hard questions.

There were two guest commentators, maybe filmmakers (?) who were asked to weigh in...
the female said the film made her take the subject much more seriously,
the male was clearly more skeptical, but didn't really make the point that under the dramatic music,
(which he did cite as a bad sign, for a "documentary") There was really no real quality evidence,
despite the long run time.

I said "disappointing, because, for decades, I've counted on BBC doing a bit better than most news sources.

This drove me to check Rotten Tomatoes, & I regained a little hope, seeing it at 30%, on a measly 10 reviews.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_age_of_disclosure

 

[Mick West]

30% from the critics. 93% from the audience.

It's very much tailored to a particular audience. Remember that millions of people have watched (and enjoyed) Ancient Aliens.

 

[Giddierone]

(I'm guessing it was the BBC World Service Newshour, but couldn't find a link, this morning)

The audio is here: starting at around 14:00

EDIT: I remain bemused by why no one seems able to turn the audio levels down on the Go Fast clip. I literally have to tear my headpones off when I hear "Whoa! GOT IT!" at a million decibels.

 

[NoParty]

View attachment 86892

30% from the critics. 93% from the audience.

It's very much tailored to a particular audience. Remember that millions of people have watched (and enjoyed) Ancient Aliens.

I noticed that, and, yes, had the same take. TBH I rarely bother w/ the audience stats...just almost no value, there.

 

[NoParty]

The audio is here: starting at around 14:00
View attachment 86895

EDIT: I remain bemused by why no one seems able to turn the audio levels down on the Go Fast clip. I literally have to tear my headpones off when I hear "Whoa! GOT IT!" at a million decibels.

Thanks.
Interestingly, though, the part interviewing the male & female that I mentioned, appears to have been edited out, here.