Matthew Brown Cites Oral Tradition of US Agreements With Nonhumans, So Where Is the Proof?

Matthew Brown has claimed on a podcast that, according to an oral tradition inside the legacy program, the United States government signed agreements with some nonhuman entity. He has offered no proof for any of it, and the more of his comments I go through, the harder it gets to tell which parts he says he knows and which parts he is simply speculating about.

The episode came out on Friday, the same day as the David Grusch interview with Joe Rogan, so it got lost in the mix. But Brown said a lot that I want to cover, because even the interviewer was taken aback, asking him what on earth he was talking about and how anyone could even write a contract with an alien species. One thing to pay attention to as we go through it is how hard Brown tries to avoid the word aliens, and I have more on that below.

Matthew Brown says agreements with a nonhuman entity were passed down orally in the legacy program

The interviewer framed it as some level of input or collaboration with the beings to keep this information., and asked Brown what he meant. Brown said two things were going on. One was his own analysis of international dynamics, applying his training to the question of why no country other than the United States has disclosed over the many decades.

The other was that he now has reason to believe, at least to some degree, that it is the oral tradition inside the legacy program that agreements were signed between the United States government and a nonhuman entity. As for whether that was an organization or a single being, he said: "whether that's an organization or a specific being itself, I don't know."

When the interviewer asked how such an agreement could be written at all, and whether it was in English, Brown said presumably in English, "at least for our copy." He argued that if these beings have been here for the duration of this iteration of human civilization, they know our language. "They watch it develop," he said.

I think the interviewer pushed back in a fair way. He clearly thought it sounded crazy from the start, and it does sound crazy. We supposedly have these agreements with nonhumans, and again, where is the proof? Brown does not provide any. It is based on his own thinking, on him putting things together, and on this oral tradition.

Why an oral tradition across 80 years makes no sense to me

If you do not know what the oral tradition means, it is the claim made by many people that information inside the legacy program is passed down verbally rather than written down, handed on through the generations by word of mouth. Think about how little sense that makes. There have been tens of thousands of people involved with the legacy programs over the course of 80 years, spanning the entire globe, and you are telling me they pass the information around verbally?

Ever played the game of telephone? Exactly. How can you trust information that has travelled like that? To me it is just an excuse to say that somebody told you something but cannot show you proof, and the reason given is that there is no paper trail. Yet at the same time, other people claim there is a paper trail. The claims do not add up.

Still, Brown making these claims is interesting because he is quite convinced. The problem is that he blurs the line between speculation and what he knows. From that first clip it is not clear what he is actually saying. Then, on the language question, he says they would know our language because they have been following us. How do you know they have been watching us for thousands of years, or however long it is? You do not know any of this.

If it is just speculation, say that at the beginning, because when you are a UFO whistleblower you have to be very careful with that line. People think you are blowing the whistle on things when you are not. I love speculating, but when declarations of fact are disguised as speculation, or the other way round, it becomes ambiguous, and that kind of thing is very frustrating to me.

Brown places the agreements between Truman and Eisenhower, then says he is moving to speculation

The interviewer described what Brown was saying as a cornerstone agreement between the US intelligence community and an alien species. Brown corrected him: agreements, a series of them. He said he thinks the US executive made the agreement, with the intelligence community supposedly below that, and that it happened somewhere between Truman and Eisenhower. He said it was with at least one organization, because it could be one interest or faction rather than a whole race.

According to Brown, this agreement or series of agreements established the "rules of the road" for our relationship with them, for their technology, and for what we are allowed to do with derived technology. Then, when asked what they would get out of it, he said he was "moving aside from the information I know to speculation."

That line insinuates that everything he said up to that point is what he knows. It is my opinion that Matthew Brown does not know any of that. He may speculate it, he may think it, he may lean that way based on research and information he has gathered, but that is different from knowing it for a fact. Him stating it that way is quite disturbing to me, because he does not know what agreements we have.

Why the word nonhumans bothers me

Notice how, while talking about a whole race, Brown actually said aliens and then caught himself: sorry, not aliens, nonhumans. He clearly did not want to say aliens. But aliens means nonhumans. Nobody is confused by that word.

Nonhumans, on the other hand, can be ambiguous. That could be AI. That could be a dog. That could be a cow. It is not a word I like, because it can include other things that are not what we are talking about. So when he talks about us setting rules of the road with these beings, I find myself blown away, both by this and by all the whistleblowers who come out claiming they know these things.

Zero proof from Brown, zero from Grusch

Some will say I am always coming down on these guys. So let me ask this: what proof did Matthew Brown provide for any of the claims he has made that he says he knows, not the speculation? Zero. Ask yourself how much proof David Grusch showed. Zero. So I am suspicious and skeptical of all of these claims until proof is provided. Why would you make a claim like that without having some receipts? It sounds bonkers.

Here is what I think has happened with a lot of these whistleblowers. They sit inside a bubble, an echo chamber of people supporting them, telling them how great they are and what a sacrifice they have made. Then when they talk to people outside that bubble, you can see those people looking at them as if they are crazy, indulging them because it makes for an interesting podcast, not because they believe them. Inside the echo chamber, they cannot see how ludicrous it sounds to say these things without proof.

If it were me, I would be working behind the scenes to get proof for the claims I wanted to make publicly. Otherwise you are just hoping people will believe you because you speak in a soft, direct voice, pause, think about what you are going to say, and then say it with conviction. "But see, I'm not fooled by that. Where's the proof? It's that simple." I do not need to know whether Brown is legit or credible. Proof will solve it all.

Brown's own speculation: off limits territory and a document to wave

Once he said he was speculating, Brown offered two things that seem probable to him, looking with fresh eyes at the history. One is that certain areas in the continental United States are left alone, made off limits, with no human development because it is their territory. The other is some sort of access to or communication with human beings for their own purposes, unimpeded by the United States government. "Again, this is not direct information for me," he said.

The interviewer asked the obvious question: if they can do all these things, why bother with an agreement, since there is nothing we could do to stop them? Brown suggested that if this is one faction of these beings, they might have their own political systems, and to avoid being punished they could wave the document and say "the leadership of this country consented to these terms." He acknowledged that was speculative, and said there has to be something they gain from interacting with us, or something they want to control.

He is speculating there, which is fine. But if you notice, mixed into the middle are things that sound like he is claiming to know them. Again, that is the problem: we cannot tell.

We don't make agreements with ants

Even taking it as speculation, it makes no sense to me at all. If they are so much more advanced than us, why would they make an agreement with us? We do not make agreements with ants. I use that example because it is used a lot in the UFO community: we are ants to them. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say we are ants to them and also say we made an agreement with them.

And if it is true, we should all be up in arms. There should be global protest that a couple of human beings decided to represent the entire human race and make an agreement, or agreements as Brown puts it, with these entities. Agreements about what? Go ahead and abduct people? I do not know how you get there without any semblance of proof.

I do not mind speculating about this stuff. I wish that was all it was. But Brown blends speculation with what he claims to know, and people will take that seriously as fact, which I think is a dangerous thing. Unfortunately, I think some of these people have gone so deep down the rabbit hole that they will never get out, and to them, those of us who are skeptical are the crazy ones.

Big claim, big pushback

I am curious to see where people are in five or ten years when disclosure does not happen and they are still saying the same stuff. What is Matthew Brown going to do five years from now? Keep talking about these agreements on shows? I do not see an endgame, and I do not know if they thought this through. I think a lot of people in the community pumped each other up.

Some will think I am being harsh. I am not; I am being fair. These whistleblowers may look at someone like me and see a hater, but a lot of people follow my work, and I think I represent a lot of people who think like this. Not everybody, of course, but there are people who are skeptical and want to see proof, and I would say the majority. "So, I don't think it's being harsh. I think it's being real."

If you go to the police and report a murder, a claim a thousand times smaller than agreements with aliens, they investigate hard, talk to witnesses and look for a body. You cannot make a claim like this and expect nobody to push back. "Big claim, big push back."

No evidence of extraterrestrials, yet agreements anyway

Brown also said: "I have not seen evidence to show it's extraterrestrial." He described the phenomenon as certainly anomalous, said most likely at least some of it is not human and is post-biological, and said that even though there is evidence they traverse our atmosphere, that does not get all the way to something from another solar system. He added that he does not think that is impossible.

Well, I have not seen evidence of extraterrestrials either, so that means nothing. Here he is saying we do not know what they are, yet we have agreements. How do you have that information but not know what kind of entities you made the agreements with?

Meanwhile, the same day, David Grusch was on Rogan talking about reptilians and grays fighting in the sky. How can Grusch and Brown be saying such completely different things if that is the truth? If it is, then one of them is lying, or both are. These facts do not line up, and we are just supposed to take it in because it is entertaining. I will keep it at entertaining, because it is. But if they want real movement because people believe them, good luck.

It makes me sad, because I think they risk living in a small echo chamber and throwing their lives away. I hope there is still time for them to turn it around in a few years when they realize nothing is happening. If there are aliens interacting with us, agreements, craft, and proof of it, I will believe it. But random guys going on podcasts and saying things does not get me across the finish line on the most important discovery in the history of mankind. I need proof.

Do you think Matthew Brown is sharing something he genuinely knows, or speculation dressed up as fact?