Latest news with #disclosure
The Sun
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Sun
I'm a top UK cop-turned UFO hunter – here's why Donald Trump is running out of time to ‘come clean' about alien secrets
DONALD Trump should come clean on UFOs before a "catastrophic event", a former British detective has warned. Gary Heseltine believes the US president should disclose the truth before a sighting causes mass panic. 8 8 8 Gary, who probed the 7/7 London bombings for the British Transport Police, is now a leading UFO detective, giving lectures around the world. The 65-year-old, who took early retirement in 2013 to launch his own UFO magazine after 24 years in the force, says it's only a matter of time before an incident would go viral over the internet sparking alarm. And he believes the pressure is growing to reveal the truth after several whistleblowers have come forward to give evidence before the US Congress and a new documentary featuring 34 high level military and government officials - including Senator Marco Rubio - has been released. He said: "With the arrival of President Trump for a second term in the White House many people wondered if he would become the 'Disclosure' President. "This was after many others who would go on to become senior officials in the administration had openly and publicly stated their views on the need for transparency on the UAP issue prior to taking office. "People like Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, Kash Patel, the Director of the FBI and John Ratcliffe, the Director of the CIA. "These people have openly advocated UAP transparency but in the first four months of the administration they have said nothing on the issue publicly. Why not?" With wars waging in Ukraine and the Middle East, Gary believes now would be the right time to admit we are being visited by non human intelligence (NHI) to unite the planet. He adds: "While the new President has walked into several major world issues like the Ukraine/Russia conflict and tensions in the Middle-East with the war with Israel/Palestine and further activity in Yemen, Iran, Syria and Lebanon etc., some might argue that it might be an appropriate time to announce Disclosure. "Such a revelation might galvanise nations away from the polarisation we see currently. Area 51 at risk as huge fire creeps closer to base with black smoke filling air sparking wild UFO conspiracy theories "This may sound fanciful but no-one doubts that as and when Disclosure occurs, that it will be the most profound moment in human history. "UAP are the Elephant in the room, no-one is talking about Non Human Intelligence because there hasn't been a Disclosure announcement, yet, we know from fast developing events in the U.S. that it is seemingly just around the corner. "Whether it is this year or next, the reality is that such an announcement is likely to occur soon and when it does and the reality of NHI sinks in, nothing in politics, the military and life in general will ever quite be the same. "We know that the Five Eyes countries (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) have been briefed on UAP activity in May 2023 and perhaps several more countries have been too, but the question is to what level are our military and political leaders informed. While the new President has walked into several major world issues like the Ukraine/Russia conflict and tensions in the Middle-East with the war with Israel/Palestine and further activity in Yemen, Iran, Syria and Lebanon etc., some might argue that it might be an appropriate time to announce Disclosure. Such a revelation might galvanise nations away from the polarisation we see currently. Gary HeseltineEx-cop and UFO expert "It remains a big question, just how much do our political leaders know about the reality of UAP? "I fear that they are vastly under informed and under prepared for an NHI Disclosure world." Gary, of Wakefield, West Yorkshire, who edits UFO Truth Magazine, is hopeful about a new documentary called Age Of Disclosure - featuring dozens of top officials including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio - could bring about "a new dawn in mankind's history." The retired cop said: "After giving it much thought I think 2025 could be a crucial year for the Disclosure issue. By Sayan Bose DONALD Trump vowed last year to reveal exclusive UFO footage if he was elected back to the White House. The Republican presidential candidate said he would push the Pentagon to declassify the alleged UFO sighting videos in a sensational interview. Trump, who went on to trounce Democratic rival Kamla Harris in the presidential elections in November 2024, is known to have a decade-long fascination with aliens and unexplainable sightings. He told popular American podcaster Lex Fridman that he would "surely" make secret footage of alleged UFO sightings public. During the chat, Fridman asked Trump: "Will you help push the Pentagon to release more footage, which a lot of people claim is available?" To which Trump readily agreed and said: "Oh yeah, sure, I'll do that. I would do that. I'd love to do that. I have to do that." The Republican leader also claimed he had faced pressure to declassify previous records of alien encounters as he admitted "there could be life on other planets". He added: "People begged me not to do it but I'll be doing that very early on." "Clearly the Trump administration is not going anywhere near the NHI topic at the moment, so when will the issue be broached? It's a good question. "The Federal Secrets Task Force under the stewardship of Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna was given only a six-month mandate to look at the likes of the JFK, RFK assassinations etc, but it was also supposed to look at UFO/UAP/USOs yet, the latter dates to discuss that have been put back until no-one knows. "If things don't develop soon on that front, then the six months mandate may soon expire. What then? "Approximately two months ago a major new UAP documentary film, 'The Age of Disclosure' premiered at a mid-west film festival and it received very favourable reviews in the mainstream media yet, the roll-out of the film nationwide/worldwide did not follow and has been put on hold. "Why? My guess it is all about timing. "I suspect the volatile situations in Europe and the Middle-East have put paid to addressing the UAP issue for the time being. "I think it will be interesting to see when the film is released, and indeed how it is rolled out. "Some people think it may get a national cinema run which would be very interesting if that occurs. "I believe the documentary may hold the key to a 'Disclosure' moment as it is meant to usher in a new dawn in mankind's history. "Senator Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State for the United States is featured in the film and he is seen as third only to the President and the Vice President in terms of his place in the administration. 8 8 8 "His appearance in the film is bound to be a major talking point for the media. "Whilst I have not seen the film the excellent trailer states that 34 key people appear in it, including several current politicians. "In the film trailer, Jay Stratton, the former head of the UAP Task Force states openly that he has seen NHI craft and Non-Human bodies. That in itself is highly noteworthy. He's never said anything like that publicly before. "In recent months two eminent scientists involved in UAP research for decades have finally revealed things in public for the very first time. "Hal Puthoff, arguably the most important scientist ever to work on the UAP issue, said recently on the Joe Rogan podcast, that the U.S. has 10 NHI craft in its possession. "And only in just the last few weeks, Eric Davis, a scientist who has worked with Puthoff for many years said at a UAP Disclosure Fund event in Congress, that there are four different types of NHI, the Greys, Reptilians, Mantids and Nordics! "What has long been suspected has now been confirmed by one of the world's leading scientists on the UAP issue. His public statement is something of a wow moment for me." 'PHOENIX LIGHTS' Back in March 1997, thousands of people, including Hollywood actor Kurt Russell and a former US governor, witnessed the so-called Phoenix Lights. Some people managed to film the lights using camcorders as camera phones were not available. But smartphones are everywhere now and Gary believes another major event could not be easily hushed up or dismissed by the powers that be like they did before. He said: "I think we are truly at a crossroads on the Disclosure issue. "There is a real chance this year that things will come together and the film 'Age of Disclosure' will be used to support an announcement by President Trump of the reality of NHI. "However, if that does not happen this year then the moment we have all hoped for so long may have been lost for who knows how long and the prospect of 'Catastrophic Disclosure', a term coined by Colonel Karl Nell, may be the only way that the NHI story finally breaks into the mainstream world. What were the Phoenix Lights? The Phoenix Lights were a series of widely sighted unidentified flying objects (UFOs) observed over Arizona and Nevada on March 13, 1997. Thousands of people reported seeing a V-shaped formation of lights moving silently across the sky, and stationary lights in the Phoenix area. While some believe it was a UFO sighting, the official explanation is that they were flares dropped during military exercises. The lights were observed between 7.30 pm and 10.30pm MST, spanning a distance of about 300 miles, from the Nevada border through Phoenix to Tucson. The Air Force stated the lights were flares dropped during military exercises at the Barry M. Goldwater Range near Phoenix. Despite the official explanation, many people believe the lights were a genuine UFO sighting, and the incident has become a significant event in UFO lore. The Phoenix Lights remain a subject of debate and fascination, with many still questioning the official explanation. "Yet 'Catastrophic Disclosure' should be a last resort measure because of the uncertainty such an event may cause. "For decades the forces that have controlled the UAP narrative have risked such an event but were half prepared to combat such a scenario, the risk for panic and alarm is now much higher because of the internet, new technology and the use of social media. "Think about it, everyone carries a smartphone with high quality video cameras and applications that offer immediate 'live streaming'. "I've been saying it for several years that if the 1997 Phoenix Lights event took place now that it would likely cause a 'Catastrophic Disclosure' moment. "Back then the authorities were able to cast doubt on grainy poor quality videos of lights in the sky above the city and they just about managed to 'control' of the media and officials but it was a close shave. "But here is the kicker, I believe that if that same event happened today and was seen by over 50,000 people, and was captured in 4k, 8k video and 'live streamed' within minutes of it occurring the authorities would not have time to contain it. "Such an event would likely go viral across the world on social media in minutes …. and the cat would be out of the bag. "A mile wide craft of unknown origin captured in stark reality over the city of Phoenix and with it 'Catastrophic Disclosure' on an unprepared world. "So this is a choice for our political leaders. I would urge President Trump to inform the world about the reality of NHI soon or risk causing major public panic with a 'Catastrophic Disclosure' event. "The clock is ticking like never before." 8 8
Globe and Mail
6 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Nidec Announces the Disclosure of the Financial Results for the First Quarter of the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2026, Exceeding 45 Days After the Quarter-End
Nidec Corporation (TOKYO: 6594; OTC US: NJDCY) (the 'Company') hereby announces that the scheduled disclosure date of the financial results for the first quarter of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, will exceed 45 days after the quarter-end, as detailed below. 1. Reason for the Delay in the Disclosure of the Financial Results As announced in our press release dated June 26, 2025, titled "Notice concerning board of directors' resolution of application for approval of deadline extension for submission of securities report for 52nd fiscal year," the Company is continuing additional investigations concerning issues related to trade transactions and customs issues involving one of our consolidated subsidiaries. Consequently, the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, have not yet been finalized. Furthermore, as stated in our press release dated June 27, 2025, titled "Notice concerning approval of deadline extension for submission of the securities report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025," we are working to submit the annual securities report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, by the extended deadline of September 26, 2025. However, due to the ongoing additional investigations mentioned above, delays have also occurred in the procedures for the financial results for the first quarter of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026. As a result, the disclosure of the financial results for the first quarter of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, will be postponed. 2. Future Disclosure Schedule The new disclosure date for the financial results for the first quarter of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, will be announced promptly once determined. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience and concern this may cause to our shareholders, investors, and other stakeholders.
CNN
22-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
Through any number of controversies over the years, President Donald Trump's modus operandi has been to never give an inch. Steve Bannon calls it Trump's 'fight club mentality,' and it's certainly more pronounced in his more bare-knuckle second term. The idea is that giving in to pressure – even a little – just rewards it and allows your opponents to win. But Trump hasn't been able to hold that line on the Jeffrey Epstein files. For the second time in a week now, the administration has made a concession that seeks to quell the growing storm in the MAGA base demanding more disclosure about Epstein. First, it was the administration on Friday seeking to unseal grand jury testimony; now, it's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's Tuesday statement that he intends to meet with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. But both of those moves appear to be pretty thin gruel for a base hungry for much more – to the extent that base recognizes what it's being fed. And the administration could be playing a dangerous game. Trump ordered the first gambit in the wake of a Wall Street Journal story about a 2003 birthday letter to Epstein bearing his name and an outline of a naked woman — which Trump has denied is from him. (He's sued the newspaper's publisher and the reporters.) 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump posted on Truth Social last Thursday night after the story published. But that last clause – 'subject to Court approval' – looms large. Grand jury testimony is generally kept secret for a reason, and courts will be reluctant to release it. Public interest can be a valid reason for more disclosure, but legal experts say it's unlikely we'll get a huge raft of new information. (Two judges have said that they need more information before unsealing any grand jury transcripts and gave the Justice Department a next Tuesday deadline to provide that, while Maxwell will oppose the unsealing of grand jury materials related to her and Epstein, according to a person close to her.) Whatever may eventually be unsealed could be, in large part, federal agents' summaries of their interviews rather than full transcripts. And even that could take a long time, given the courts will want to review everything and consult with victims and other people who haven't been charged with crimes but could see their names surface. The grand jury materials also represent only a small portion of the documents that could be in the files. In other words, it seems like a great way for the administration to look like it's giving people something in order to take the heat off and hope the story dies down. That clearly wasn't enough, though, so the administration made another concession Tuesday, regarding Maxwell. Blanche said he planned to meet Maxwell 'in the coming days' to see what she might know about anyone else who has committed crimes. 'If Ghislane [sic] Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in his statement, adding: 'Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.' The first question is why that's only changing now. If the administration was interested in uncovering more crimes and full disclosure, why hadn't it already gone to a living source of the crimes – someone who could seemingly shed some light? Far-right activist Laura Loomer and others were asking such questions Tuesday shortly after the announcement, with Loomer calling it a 'massive cope' by the DOJ. Another question is why it's Blanche. Such interviews could seemingly be conducted by prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Blanche is not only a political appointee, but he happens to have been Trump's former personal defense lawyer. (Trump said Tuesday he wasn't aware of Blanche's plans but said it 'sounds appropriate' and praised his former attorney.) Are people who are very concerned about a federal coverup going to believe that Blanche will be a neutral arbiter here, given Trump's demonstrated past relationship with Epstein? Will this interview be shared publicly, or will the administration ask people to trust it to summarize it? (The administration has not said what it will do with any information Maxwell gives it.) There are other personal politics involved here, as well. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence and could be tempted to say the kinds of things the administration wants her to say. That's not just because, as some surmised, she might want a pardon; it seems ridiculous to think Trump might pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker. It could also logically bear on how the Justice Department treats her appeals, which remain ongoing. Trump's DOJ has shown little compunction about intermingling politics with official actions that are normally insulated from them, such as in the Eric Adams case. Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, has also been solicitous of Trump in his public statements. Last week, he labeled Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' and suggested the president might prevail on his Justice Department to change its course in the appeals process. In further comments after the Blanche announcement Tuesday, Markus praised Trump's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.' Whether Trump actually has any intent in helping Maxwell, these statements can't help but raise caution flags about whatever might come out of this process. As recently as last week, Maxwell's own lawyer suggested Trump could get involved in helping her. And Trump, of course, made those odd repeat statements about Maxwell – 'I wish her well' – after she was charged in 2020. In other words, to those skeptical about the administration's transparency and who think there's a real scandal to uncover here – which is lots of people and also lots of Republicans – there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about these steps. But even beyond that, there is danger for the administration. Both of these steps could have unintended consequences. Who knows, for instance, what grand jury materials might ultimately be released – and what theories those might seed about what remains under wraps? The Trump team would seemingly be familiar with those materials if it truly reviewed the case extensively, but it's handling of the matter hasn't exactly been flawless. The bigger wildcard, though, is what Maxwell might say. Despite her attorney's kind words for Trump – and perhaps despite the administration potentially being confident about what she might say – you never really know until you open up that can of worms. She, like Epstein, had a relationship with Trump dating back years and could seemingly shed light on that, to the extent we actually learn all of what she might say. And if the administration doesn't release a video or a transcript of that meeting, it could seed further suspicions about a cover-up. The administration is treading water on Epstein, and there are no great answers for Trump right now. But the administration's actions clearly show the pressure is getting to it, and it feels the need to do something. Whether the somethings it's choosing are going to satisfy people is another matter entirely.
CNN
22-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
Through any number of controversies over the years, President Donald Trump's modus operandi has been to never give an inch. Steve Bannon calls it Trump's 'fight club mentality,' and it's certainly more pronounced in his more bare-knuckle second term. The idea is that giving in to pressure – even a little – just rewards it and allows your opponents to win. But Trump hasn't been able to hold that line on the Jeffrey Epstein files. For the second time in a week now, the administration has made a concession that seeks to quell the growing storm in the MAGA base demanding more disclosure about Epstein. First, it was the administration on Friday seeking to unseal grand jury testimony; now, it's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's Tuesday statement that he intends to meet with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. But both of those moves appear to be pretty thin gruel for a base hungry for much more – to the extent that base recognizes what it's being fed. And the administration could be playing a dangerous game. Trump ordered the first gambit in the wake of a Wall Street Journal story about a 2003 birthday letter to Epstein bearing his name and an outline of a naked woman — which Trump has denied is from him. (He's sued the newspaper's publisher and the reporters.) 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump posted on Truth Social last Thursday night after the story published. But that last clause – 'subject to Court approval' – looms large. Grand jury testimony is generally kept secret for a reason, and courts will be reluctant to release it. Public interest can be a valid reason for more disclosure, but legal experts say it's unlikely we'll get a huge raft of new information. (Two judges have said that they need more information before unsealing any grand jury transcripts and gave the Justice Department a next Tuesday deadline to provide that, while Maxwell will oppose the unsealing of grand jury materials related to her and Epstein, according to a person close to her.) Whatever may eventually be unsealed could be, in large part, federal agents' summaries of their interviews rather than full transcripts. And even that could take a long time, given the courts will want to review everything and consult with victims and other people who haven't been charged with crimes but could see their names surface. The grand jury materials also represent only a small portion of the documents that could be in the files. In other words, it seems like a great way for the administration to look like it's giving people something in order to take the heat off and hope the story dies down. That clearly wasn't enough, though, so the administration made another concession Tuesday, regarding Maxwell. Blanche said he planned to meet Maxwell 'in the coming days' to see what she might know about anyone else who has committed crimes. 'If Ghislane [sic] Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in his statement, adding: 'Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.' The first question is why that's only changing now. If the administration was interested in uncovering more crimes and full disclosure, why hadn't it already gone to a living source of the crimes – someone who could seemingly shed some light? Far-right activist Laura Loomer and others were asking such questions Tuesday shortly after the announcement, with Loomer calling it a 'massive cope' by the DOJ. Another question is why it's Blanche. Such interviews could seemingly be conducted by prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Blanche is not only a political appointee, but he happens to have been Trump's former personal defense lawyer. (Trump said Tuesday he wasn't aware of Blanche's plans but said it 'sounds appropriate' and praised his former attorney.) Are people who are very concerned about a federal coverup going to believe that Blanche will be a neutral arbiter here, given Trump's demonstrated past relationship with Epstein? Will this interview be shared publicly, or will the administration ask people to trust it to summarize it? (The administration has not said what it will do with any information Maxwell gives it.) There are other personal politics involved here, as well. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence and could be tempted to say the kinds of things the administration wants her to say. That's not just because, as some surmised, she might want a pardon; it seems ridiculous to think Trump might pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker. It could also logically bear on how the Justice Department treats her appeals, which remain ongoing. Trump's DOJ has shown little compunction about intermingling politics with official actions that are normally insulated from them, such as in the Eric Adams case. Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, has also been solicitous of Trump in his public statements. Last week, he labeled Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' and suggested the president might prevail on his Justice Department to change its course in the appeals process. In further comments after the Blanche announcement Tuesday, Markus praised Trump's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.' Whether Trump actually has any intent in helping Maxwell, these statements can't help but raise caution flags about whatever might come out of this process. As recently as last week, Maxwell's own lawyer suggested Trump could get involved in helping her. And Trump, of course, made those odd repeat statements about Maxwell – 'I wish her well' – after she was charged in 2020. In other words, to those skeptical about the administration's transparency and who think there's a real scandal to uncover here – which is lots of people and also lots of Republicans – there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about these steps. But even beyond that, there is danger for the administration. Both of these steps could have unintended consequences. Who knows, for instance, what grand jury materials might ultimately be released – and what theories those might seed about what remains under wraps? The Trump team would seemingly be familiar with those materials if it truly reviewed the case extensively, but it's handling of the matter hasn't exactly been flawless. The bigger wildcard, though, is what Maxwell might say. Despite her attorney's kind words for Trump – and perhaps despite the administration potentially being confident about what she might say – you never really know until you open up that can of worms. She, like Epstein, had a relationship with Trump dating back years and could seemingly shed light on that, to the extent we actually learn all of what she might say. And if the administration doesn't release a video or a transcript of that meeting, it could seed further suspicions about a cover-up. The administration is treading water on Epstein, and there are no great answers for Trump right now. But the administration's actions clearly show the pressure is getting to it, and it feels the need to do something. Whether the somethings it's choosing are going to satisfy people is another matter entirely.
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
C.S.T. Spark Inc. refiles Management Reports of Fund Performance and Fund Facts
TORONTO, July 21, 2025 /CNW/ - C.S.T. Spark Inc. has refiled the Annual and Semi-Annual Management Reports of Fund Performance ("MRFPs") and filed new Fund Facts for each of the CST Spark Education Portfolios (the "Funds"). The purpose of the filings is to correct an inadvertent error in the performance returns in the disclosure of each of the Funds' year-to-year performance and other performance information. A summary of changes in the performance returns can be found at The revised MRFPs and new Fund Facts are available through SEDAR+ at and through the CST Spark Funds' designated website at About CST Founded in 1960, the Canadian Scholarship Trust Foundation is dedicated to improving access to post-secondary education to foster a more resilient and inclusive country for generations to come. For more than 60 years, CST has helped almost 700,000 Canadian families set their children up for success through post-secondary education. As the creators of education savings plans in Canada, CST has awarded over $3 million to students pursuing post-secondary education through its scholarship and bursary programs. For more Information, please visit The Canadian Scholarship Trust Foundation and its subsidiaries, C.S.T. Savings Inc. and C.S.T. Spark Inc., operate under the master brand name CST. The terms "we", "us" and "our" refer to CST. CST Spark Education Portfolios are sold only by prospectus. Investors should read the prospectus before investing. Mutual funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated. Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with mutual fund investments. Please read the Fund Facts or Prospectus before investing. Mutual fund securities are not covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or by any other government deposit insurer. SOURCE C.S.T. Spark Inc. View original content to download multimedia: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
