September 12, 2025 • 43 mins
BONUS EPISODE!!
The congressional hearing on "Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection" delivered stunning testimony from military witnesses who risked everything to speak truth about unexplained encounters that defy conventional explanation.
Five witnesses took the stand: Air Force veterans Jeffrey Nucatelli and Dylan Borland, Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Alexander Wiggins, renowned UAP journalist George Knapp, and Joe Spielberger from the Project on Government Oversight. Their collective testimony painted a troubling picture not only of extraordinary encounters but of systematic suppression targeting those who dare report them.
The most jaw-dropping moment came with the release of previously classified footage showing a Hellfire missile—America's premier weapon—bouncing harmlessly off an unidentified aerial object off Yemen's coast in 2022. When asked if anything in the U.S. arsenal could withstand such an impact, the witnesses unanimously confirmed nothing could. The security implications sent shockwaves through the committee members, with Representative Moskowitz acknowledging, "I don't know what's true, but I know when we're being lied to."
A stark contrast emerged between military branches' handling of UAP reports. While Chief Wiggins described receiving full Navy support for his 2023 sighting of a "self-luminous, tic-tac shaped object" emerging from the ocean, Air Force veterans detailed career-destroying retaliation. Borland remains unemployed years after reporting his encounter, stripped of security clearances and professional opportunities. Nucatelli described multiple witnesses at Vandenberg Air Force Base being "threatened and intimidated" after reporting massive craft performing impossible maneuvers over sensitive missile defense installations.
George Knapp's testimony added crucial historical perspective, revealing how he smuggled classified KGB documents from Russia showing similar UAP programs operated by Soviet intelligence. His journalistic approach emphasized that transparency isn't about confirming extraterrestrial origins but acknowledging that something truly extraordinary is occurring in our skies—something beyond current human technological capabilities.
Have you noticed how mainstream coverage of these hearings tends to disappear within days? Subscribe to stay informed about developments that challenge our understanding of reality and raise profound questions about technological capabilities far beyond what's publicly acknowledged. The truth is emerging—be part of the conversation.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 3 (00:04):
aliens yes but maybe no.
Well, well, welcome back to ourshow.
Aliens, yes, but maybe, butMaybe no, with Josh and Travis.
(00:25):
I'm Travis, I'm Josh, and thisis an otherworldly podcast, as
ambiguous as our title.
Very good, did I get it?
Yeah, did I get it right.
Yeah, oh, my God, all right, Iwas worried that the internet
was going to get in the way, butit didn't.
Nope, josh, why are you worriedabout the internet getting in
(00:49):
the way?
Don't we meet in person?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
well, we used to oh my gosh, it's a sad day.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
It was a sad day, but now I get to see your face
through ones and zeros and zerosand ones.
Yep, yeah, travis and I aredoing it remote this time I
moved yeah, travis moved I moved, and I moved that we still get
to do this podcast you are moved, that you still get to.
I moved and I moved sad westill get to do this podcast.
You are moved that you stillget to.
I moved and I moved Sad faceemoji.
Can I do that reaction?
I don't see.
I don't see one available.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
They don't allow sadness.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
on podcasting no it's already full of sad people.
If you're recording a podcast,you're trying to sell something.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, yeah, and we are actually doing a special
episode.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
This isn't going to be one of our normal drops.
We are and guess what?
It's going to be released thesame day as another episode.
So how much do we love you guysthat you get a double record, a
twofer pretty exciting.
The answer is a lot.
We love you guys a lot.
We do too much, actually.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Whoa, I didn't say that we love you guys a lot.
We do Too much actually, whoa.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I didn't say that I love you guys.
Just the right amount.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Yeah, so today we're recording this because we just
had another congressionalhearing.
Yeah, and that's important, theusual oversight committee.
Yep.
The topic of the congressionalhearing was titled Restoring
Public Trust Through UAPTransparency and Whistleblower
Protection Yep.
So that was on September 9th,mm-hmm, and I loved it.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
I liked it too.
I think there was a lot ofinformation.
So let's talk about who we sawhere really quick.
The witnesses right, yeah, soI'm just going to run through
and then then, josh, you cangive me a little bit of
background information on them.
But we had jeffrey nusatelli,chief alexandro wiggins, george
knapp, the boss, dylan borland,joe spielberger.
(02:36):
So, really quick, when it saidchief wiggins, I couldn't stop
laughing because of simpsonsexactly Simpsons, but it's Chief
Wiggum.
Oh yeah, it just was like suchan easy, it's close enough.
It was yeah, it was just likesuch an easy connection to make,
and so every time I saw it Iwas just like I'm an idiot.
So just surprising nobody.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, and he is a US Navy senior chief petty officer,
his Navy senior chief pettyofficer.
His opening statement is abouta specific unexplained event he
witnessed and the need formilitary leadership to address
these encounters.
Officially Right, that was hisopening statement.
He was nervous too, I couldtell.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Another guy that I thought was pretty nervous.
Actually I thought they allwere, but I think I mean being
put in a congressional hearingto testify over something like
whistleblowing is going to makeanybody nervous.
But then you put George Knapp,who's been doing this for a very
long time, and then you haveJeremy Wright there sitting in
his perfect posture, his handsfolded, never moving.
My daughter watched part of itwith me and she's like who is
(03:37):
that guy?
And I was like he's like thisdocumentarian.
He's been at every one of thesehearings and he sits in the
exact same place and the exactsame posture and he's like he
looks like an alien.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
So those are the guys ?
Yep, those are the guys.
So I'll kind of go through eachone and kind of what their
opening statement was Yep, soJeffrey Nucatelli he was the US
Air Force veteran.
His opening statement focusedon the psychological impact of
seeing a UAP and how the stigmaprevented him from speaking out
for years.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
These events profoundly changed my life and
the lives of my friends.
We stand at a pivotal moment inhistory.
The question is no longerwhether these events are real,
but whether we have the courageto face them.
True leadership requires vision, a willingness to confront the
unknown with transparency andresolve.
So I ask the Congress to helpwe, the people, enact this
(04:33):
vision.
There are three goals Fundindependent research and treat
UAP study with the sameseriousness as we would any
other scientific field.
Two end secrecy andover-classification.
Transparency is the foundationof truth.
Without it, witnesses like usare dismissed.
(04:54):
Three protect the witnesses.
Many stay silent out of fearfor their careers, reputations
and the safety of their families.
Protect them and you willembolden others to join this
cause.
These phenomenon challenge ourdeepest assumptions about
reality, consciousness and ourplace in the universe.
(05:15):
Exploring them can unlocktransformative breakthroughs in
technology, biology and humanunderstanding.
Technology, biology and humanunderstanding.
Let this be the moment whenAmerica chooses courage over
fear, transparency over secrecyand progress over stagnation.
Let's show the world that ournation leads not only through
(05:36):
strength, but through fearlesspursuit of the truth.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Yeah, and so these guys were all.
They all had firsthandexperience, right.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Not all of them.
I don't think Joe Spielbergerdid or George Knapp.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Joe Spielberger was the one that was on the far
right who didn't really have awhole lot to say.
Nobody really asked him a lotof questions.
I felt like George Knapp andBorland kind of dominated this
hearing.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
And.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
I felt like Borland was also very nervous this
hearing and I feel like Borlandwas also very nervous.
He came off as somebody who hadlike a lot of real nervous
energy but wanted to get hisside out.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Yes, and Borland was the one that his career was
ruined, right.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
That's what he said.
He said that he'd served upuntil 2013.
Yeah, in the US Air Force, yep,and he was on a.
I believe he was on a ship, buthe had applied for promotions,
and this was after he had talkedto his senior officers about
this experience that he had andwas denied any sort of promotion
until he left the military in2013.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
And he still can't get a job.
Did he say he was stillunemployed?
Yeah, he said he was onunemployment for the next three
weeks, until it was done.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
So he's been unemployed since 2013?
Speaker 1 (06:46):
From my understanding , he can't find any work in the
field that he's qualified for.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
I do remember him leaning on that unemployment
thing really hard and I was likesame buddy, I totally
understand.
But I found he was like a goodentrance point for people
watching this.
He had like a real approachable, even though nervous,
personality.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
And a little bitter which I mean he should be
because he reported what he sawand experienced to the right
people and they treated himreally bad and basically just
canceled him from anything thathas to do with military or
government.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
And it sounds like everybody was trying to cancel
Kirkpatrick.
He was the former head of Arrow.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yes, she even said that she would love to subpoena
him.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Yeah, Right from the jump she said that he's a
documented liar, but she cameout guns blazing against this
one former head.
It was wild.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Well, he's the one where George Knapp kind of
talked about it, where he, inhis position in Arrow, he opened
it up for whistleblowers tocome and be safe and talk about
it, and then he said it kind ofturned into a disinformation
campaign, witch hunt, and itmade it so the whistleblowers
would not come forward becausethey were just.
Anytime someone brought uptheir experience they would be
(08:02):
instantly like, oh, that's nottrue.
We actually got the footage andwhat you saw it was not real,
Right.
And George Knapp's like therewas no footage, Like the footage
was taken away.
They don't have the footage.
So the guy sounds like acomplete ass.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Kirkpatrick.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Yeah, so we talked about Jeffrey Nucatelli, dylan
Borland.
He kind of talked about hisretaliation that he faced when
coming forward and he'sadvocating for stronger legal
protection for thewhistleblowers.
Speaker 7 (08:31):
As I sit before you today, I and many other
whistleblowers have no jobprospects, no foreseeable
professional future in a nationevery single one of us came
forward to defend.
Numerous individuals have comeforward in various ways to
reveal the truth of the UAPreality, as patriots and
defenders of our nation.
Yet many feel discarded,isolated, hopeless, separated
(08:51):
from the country they serve.
Efforts to rectify thissituation for all whistleblowers
have been difficult andtroubling, and to my fellow
whistleblowers and officials whoknow this information, I offer
you my apology, something that Ihave never gotten and I'm
giving it to you.
I swore an oath to theConstitution of the United
(09:11):
States, a note that demandstruth and transparency for our
democratic republic to function.
Each day, these truths remainhidden from our citizens'
humanity dressed further fromthe principles our nation was
founded to uphold.
Each day, victims of crimescommitted by agencies and
companies maintaining thissecrecy are denied.
Justice is another day ourconstitution is shredded In
(09:33):
2023,.
Patriots provided thiscommittee and the executive
branch with undeniable proof ofthe UAP reality and I commend
your continued commitment.
The future of humanity is onewhich we either travel to the
stars or regress to the StoneAge with this technology.
My career has been to delivercritical information to decision
makers.
Your role, as elected by yourrepresentatives, is to act on it
(09:58):
.
The time to act is now.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
And that was a big theme in this whole hearing,
mm-hmm.
Then Alexander Wiggins I wassaying he was the US Navy senior
chief petty officer and itsounds like he had a pretty easy
going.
So he experienced somethingunexplained and he was wanting
the need for military leadershipto address these encounters
officially.
Speaker 6 (10:19):
How were you treated?
I've had no pushback at all.
I haven't had anyone reach outto me or try to dissuade me in
either direction, militarilyspeaking.
So I was treated fair and Iappreciate the Navy itself with
assisting me, with coming here,to being able to testify.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Him being in the Navy versus Dylan Borland being in
the Air Force.
There's a huge difference.
It seems like the Air Force waslike, no, absolutely don't talk
about this.
The Navy was just like, yeah,no, you need to talk about this.
He had no resistance and heactually had a little bit of
help.
It seemed like yeah.
So Air Force bad, navy good.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I wouldn't make a sweeping comment like that,
because it all depends on who'sin charge.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
And the sort of culture they're trying to create
, and that changes over time.
As people move on and out ofmilitary branches and with like
accessibility of information, Ithink people are being a lot
more aware of what they're doingand saying, because it's a lot
easier now for people to havethat comeuppance right.
Like, yeah, you can't hidethings like you once could, even
back in 2013.
Like, things are coming tolight and then there's just so
much information out there, soyou have to be very careful
(11:35):
about what you do and say.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah, and George Knapp and I think one of the
representatives mentioned aswell that the people that are
coming in and out of thegovernment, these people that
started all this campaign withaliens and the government and
everything, they're all gone.
So these are new people comingin and most of the time newer
people aren't going to comeforward and whistle blow
especially if they're brand new,you know they have their whole
career ahead of them.
(11:57):
There's no original people, soit's a legacy program, basically
.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
What do you mean?
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Legacy, where they're continuing the legacy of
another generation, and GeorgeKnapp was saying that it's so
embedded.
He was very apparent like thisis great that we're doing all
this, but I don't think it'sgoing to help.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
That was the thing.
So when Rep Erlison, who cameoff as like a little bit of a
kook, tried to paint thispicture that the government was
actually hiding this and that isGeorge Knapp kept correcting
him, saying no, he didn't saythe military, but he was saying
it's, it is not the government.
Like we're here in this hearing, we've been trying to get this
brought to light, just like youguys have been for the last 50
(12:37):
to 75 years, like we've beentrying.
There are people, though, thatare involved in keeping this
quiet, but it's not like thepeople that we're seeing before
you here.
Yeah, and then Burleson waslike I think it was either
George Knapp or maybe Borlandwas talking about the technology
, and like we haven't discoveredthe origin of this technology.
And then, yeah, we won't beable to until we go to their
planets.
And I was like, oh my God, yeah, I mean, let's say it is
(13:01):
extraterrestrial, which nobodyreally said there.
It could be extraterrestrial.
It's mostly unknown.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
It was interesting because was it Borland who was
talking about that?
Speaker 3 (13:14):
I'm going to just defer to Borland because he took
up a bunch of time.
They had to pick out thewitnesses they wanted to hear
from because Borland just kepttalking.
He had a lot that he wanted toget off his chest.
I think you were saying alittle bit of an ax to grind and
was just wanting to air hisgrievances.
I feel like because of that, wedidn't get to hear from
Spielberg or a whole lot, or.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Nisoteli.
Well, he was saying how Arrowor the scientists, for them to
say that this is trulyextraterrestrial or alien tech,
they have to go to the planet,get the tech from them and bring
it back to have an absolute.
Speaker 7 (13:48):
You know, I would put it to you this way the
statement Arrow has made isscientific evidence of
extraterrestrials.
Scientific evidence requires ascientific control.
Extraterrestrial is an entityon another planet.
The only way to scientificallyprove extraterrestrial is we
have to go to that planet,acquire technology, bring it
back and compare it to what wehave here.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
So you're saying they won't let anything out because
or they won't come forwardunless they confirm that it,
unless they go to the planet andconfirm where its origin is.
Speaker 7 (14:20):
That would be scientific evidence.
Yes, and by that statementArrow found no scientific
evidence of extraterrestrials isbasically I don't want to call
it a psyop, but amisrepresentation, because we do
have things, but making thatstatement is not technically a
lie, it's a misrepresentation ofthe full truth.
Love it.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
So when they say it's not alien tech, it's because
they can't prove and that is thedefinition of proving it to
them.
So they're not lying when theysay they don't have it, but they
do have it and you can concludethat it is alien tech because
it is not ours and we don't haveanything like it.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
I think part of George's testimony was pretty
remarkable, where I think it wasin that Russian document that
he had snuck here.
He talked about them witnessingthese UAPs, these phenomena,
and trying to suss out thetechnology just by the video.
So they were like what is itcalled Like reverse engineer,
(15:18):
these things?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Like visually, because they don't have it.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Yeah, without either.
Like, how do we make somethingmove side to side, like this, up
and down, like this?
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Yeah, going back to witnesses in the opening
statements.
George Knapp, he's a UAPjournalist, he's the boss man.
He's been doing this 40 years.
His opening statementhighlighted the years of
government secrecy and theimportance of free press in
holding institutions accountablefor UAP transparency.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
The DIA's contractor, robert Bigelow of Las Vegas,
made a bold attempt to acquirephysical proof of UFO crashes.
It's been widely reported andsuspected that Lockheed Martin
is one of the contractors thedefense contractors that has
held this stuff, stored it awayin secrecy and tried to figure
out how it works.
I have confirmed on the recordthat Robert Bigelow and a
(16:07):
trusted colleague from OSAP metwith and negotiated with senior
executives at Lockheed Martinand hammered out a deal wherein
Bigelow's company, bass, wouldreceive a quantity of unusual
material that had been stashedaway and protected at a facility
in California.
That material was not made here.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
It was really interesting how he spoke a lot
of the times when he talks aboutthese private contractors like
Lockheed Martin, where he's justlike they're not doing anything
wrong.
They're doing what they're toldto do by the government.
Yeah, and they're doing itreally well.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
We can't blame them for that.
And then, because he's ajournalist, he gave a couple
names of people that had givenhim these documents, but then
also said Lockheed, martin,lockheed.
And then he's like you know whothe other ones are?
They're big players in thisfield, yeah, but I always forget
that George Knapp comes at thisfrom a journalistic point of
view and so he's justinterrogating the way a
(17:00):
journalist would, trying to findanswers.
And that's what I love aboutGeorge Knapp it's just like a
curiosity.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, he is, and he has nothing.
He can't get in trouble, youknow, like some of these guys
that are actively serving.
Oh, he could.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
I mean, I mean he could but he's not killed all
the time journalism could be avery dangerous business.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
He's not gonna get canceled like he has nothing to
lose I don't think.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
I don't think that's true at all.
He could still lose all of thestuff he could.
He lose everything but notstuff.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
He could lose everything, but not as easy as
some of these guys saying thewrong thing.
You know anything that Knapp isgoing to say he doesn't have to
have a skiff.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
I don't think so.
I think that's what gives himpower.
I think that's what makes histestimony so powerful.
Is that because he has so muchto lose?
I think all these people thatis what this whole hearing was
about was whistleblowing and howit needs to be protected, and
there's a reason.
George Knapp is there.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Yeah, George Knapp was probably my favorite out of
all this.
If you were going to make ahighlight reel, every time he
spoke would be in that highlightreel.
He was just such a good.
I mean, he's a professionalspeaker.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Except in that one video we saw where he was
recording from a pool.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Oh yeah, on the Bob Lazar movie.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
They did invoke Bob Lazar in this hearing, which was
great.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Yep George Knapp dead .
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I agree with your take on George Knapp.
I find him to be veryarticulate and, again, he's such
a big figure in this world thatI forget that he comes at it
from a journalism standpoint.
Yeah, it's not experience that?
Brought him here comes at itfrom a journalism standpoint.
Yeah, it's not experience thatbrought him here, it's just like
a curiosity.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Yeah, he's wonderful.
I hope he lives 40 more years.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
If he wants, sure, I think it's great.
But I mean, there are peoplethat are willing to pick up the
mantle.
I know he works pretty closelywith Jeremy.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Who just is always, like always, there, man, like,
if nothing else, he knows whereto be and how to sit.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
But Jeremy is a little more aggressive.
George Knapp is very gentle andcalm.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Kind of like a therapist, like if you've been
in therapy, where therapistswill ask you a question and then
they'll just sit there quietlyand let you do all the talking.
I feel like George Knapp comesfrom that school of journalism.
Instead of like, the newer formof journalism is like rapid
fire questions and that is aform of gaslighting because you
can't answer all these questions.
And then you're like left inthe lurch, like nobody's really
(19:20):
interested in getting an answer.
They're interested in justlooking like they have all the
answers.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Yeah, and not only is he like that, but he's also a
badass, because he went toRussia and multiple
representatives were blown awaythat he was able to smuggle out
top secret KGB documents fromRussia and not have his life
ruined.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I did something kind of dumb.
I met with these officials whoyou know, during that time
period Glasnost, perestroika theRussians were trying to open up
to the world and I saw it as awindow of opportunity and it was
and we were able to talk thesefolks into providing us
information that otherwise wewould never have seen.
Some of that was classified.
I found out that they onlystamped the top pages of these
(20:05):
documents that were classified,so I just removed them.
I removed those pages and Icarried them out, and if they'd
caught me I'd be in a gulagstill.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And they asked him multiple times and he's so
nonchalant.
He's like yep, just saw theright time and went there and
put it in my bag and left.
They're just like how, how didyou do this?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
The right people in the right time.
He said that if this was fiveyears before he would have been
put in jail and if it was 10years before he would have been
shot.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Yep.
He went over there, met withpeople in the government, got
the documents.
The Soviet Union was crumbling,or it was crumbled and Putin
wasn't in power yet, so therewas just this weird transition.
And he noticed that transitionand he went and got the
documents.
And the documents are about theprograms that the KGB used,
(20:51):
very similar to ours for the UAPprograms.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
Yeah, well said.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
So, listener, dear dear listener, we are one day
away from this hearing, so weare still processing some of our
thoughts and trying to figureout exactly what this means,
just for us.
Yeah, you can say that, yeah,there's a lot, and we're not
going to touch on everything,because we're we are still
processing some of our thoughtsand trying to figure out exactly
what this means, just for us.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Yeah, you can say that, yeah, there's a lot and
we're not going to touch oneverything because we're still
going to process it.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
There was a lot, but my biggest takeaway was like
protecting whistleblowers, whichI think is crucial.
And then, if you kind ofseparate a lot of the political
grandstanding that happened,where they were like invoking
Obama's name and Trump's nameand all these other presidents
and saying like well, who was incharge during this time and why
did?
they fuck up and who's in chargeduring this time and why are
they fucking up currently?
(21:35):
You know, and that's great, andthis is a political hearing
with political representatives,and so there is going to be some
grandstanding and people tryingto make a name for themselves,
and that's fine, yeah, that'spolitics, right, yeah.
But when you watch these kindof things, you have to set that
stuff aside.
And if you read some of thecomments, the comments were
(21:56):
getting very heated depending onwhen you watched it.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
I turned the comments off.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
If you watched it live, there was some stuff about
anal drones and like wild stuff.
I only caught the tail end ofthe live hearing and then
watched a recording and I thinkit was through like Talk of the
Nation or something like that.
They were different commentsand some of them were very
racist and I didn't, so Istopped looking through the
comments.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
When I saw it live, right away, there was one that
said can we block this person?
It's obviously a government bot.
And I'm just like, oh my gosh,close comments.
Yeah, it's obviously agovernment bot.
And I'm just like oh my gosh.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
close comments.
Yeah, it is fun to go in thecomments for a little bit until
it gets unhinged, which italways does.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Yeah, so last person for opening statements and kind
of what they are was JoeSpielberger.
He's the project on governmentoversight, or POGO.
His opening statement providedan institutional perspective,
arguing for increased oversightof UAP-related spending and
programs to ensureaccountability.
Speaker 8 (22:53):
Whistleblowers are the first line of defense to
root out waste, fraud, abuse ofpower and corruption in our
government.
Congress relies onwhistleblowers so that it can
fully exercise its oversight andlegislative authorities.
It's understandable that formerpresidents of both parties have
often taken a hostile approachtoward whistleblowers.
Their disclosures can embarrassthe president and their
(23:15):
political party or even lead toa national scandal.
But whistleblowers continue toplay a vital role during both
Democratic and Republicanadministrations.
They help Congress and thepublic identify and understand
what government corruption lookslike.
Their disclosures fuelinvestigations and allow us to
address wrongdoing and holdthose responsible to account.
(23:38):
That's why, historically,there's been a strong bipartisan
consensus in Congress tosupport and protect
whistleblowers.
Doing so protects the countryand ensures our government is
more responsive and accountabletoblowers.
Doing so protects the countryand ensures our government is
more responsive and accountableto the people.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
And he didn't speak that much.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
No, he was called on a couple of times, answered a
couple of questions and that wasthat.
Was it Pretty quiet?
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Yeah, he seemed kind of like a HR person or like a
union rep.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Sure yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Because they would ask him questions about, like
how are we handling this as agovernment, and he would just
have the answers for that that'sgood.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
It's always good to have one of those guys there oh,
absolutely.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
There are a few things that happened in the
testimonies.
All the testimonies were great.
The questionings were a lotbetter, I think from the
representatives.
This time, for a majority ofthem, it looks like they did a
little bit more homework.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
I think some, I think some questions were great, I
think some were just frustrating.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Like the question I don't remember who it was.
He asked George Knapp how muchmoney was being spent on all the
black op operations andeverything.
Basically, if you add it all upand George is like no one knows
that.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
Like no one's seen that.
I don't know that man.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
I'm not even in the government Like why would I have
that info?
But with the testimonies therewas evidence prevented in the
hearing as well.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
How many times did they say skiff, your favorite
word.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Oh man, they said skiff quite a lot.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Yeah, that was Borland.
Borland was like I can't answerthat question.
I can't answer that questionand I don't know that I can even
answer that question to you,like I don't think you are
authorized to hear what I haveto say.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
So he often said that he's like.
I can talk about that in askiff if you have the clearance.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
Exactly, that was like basically what he said.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Yeah, so the US Navy Chief Petty Officer, alexander
Wiggins, his testimony says thathe witnessed a self-luminous,
tic-tac-shaped object.
Speaker 6 (25:28):
On the evening of February 15th 2023, at
approximately 1915 PST, in theWhiskey 291 warning area off the
coast of Southern California.
I was serving on board USSJackson.
During that period, I movedbetween the Interior
(25:49):
Communications Center, ICC-1,and the bridge wing, correlating
the sensor picture with visualobservations, part of my routine
responsibilities for surfaceand air picture management.
What I observed and what ourcrew recorded was not consistent
with conventional aircraft ordrones as they appear on our
(26:10):
system.
A self-luminous, tic-tac-shapedobject emerged from the ocean
before linking up with threeother similar objects.
The four then disappearedsimultaneously with a high
synchronized, near instantaneousacceleration.
I observed no sonic boom and noconventional propulsion
(26:34):
signatures, no exhaust plume, nocontrol surface articulation on
the SAFIRE image system Shortlyafter the synchronized
departure radar tracks dropped.
These observations weremulti-sensor and recorded inside
of ICC-1, with time locationoverlay visible in our source
(26:57):
frames that have been madepublic by journalists.
From my experience operating inthis region over many years,
and consistent with our publiccharacterized encounters,
unidentified objects reoccur inUnited States operation areas
off Southern California.
That fact alone does not tellus what they are.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
I mean, he had a first person encounter, yeah,
and I think, like I mentioned atthe top of this episode, he
wasn't criticized, he was kindof guided on what to do and
everything led him to comingforward in this congressional
hearing and he had the supportof the Navy, which is really
nice, and that hasn't reallyhappened for most of the people,
that's true.
(27:40):
I mean, most of the peopleended up like crush, which they
mentioned, and he was there.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
He was there yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
He got stripped of everything, basically, but he
was relieved of his duty fromthe military and private medical
records were released, which ishorrible.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Yeah, it sucks.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
But what I liked about Wiggins' testimony was he
was very authentic, very real,and he is in a position of high
power in the military and Ithink there's some credibility
that comes along with that,especially with the military
doing routine mental checks andpsychological checks and
physicals Like to be able tomove up, you have to be some of
(28:18):
the best of the best.
Yeah, he's still a young guyand he's mentally sound and he
has a high position and he saidthis is what happened, which is
really cool.
The next one I really thoughtwas great was Jeffrey
Nekotelli's testimony from theAir Force.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
He was the first testimony.
He started off the wholeshebang.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Yeah, it was him first and then.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Oh, so you're ranking your guys.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Kind of.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
Yeah, mine Knapp, borland, wiggins, nusatelli,
spielberger, as far asinformation goes.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
My top two is George Knapp and then number three is
no.
As far as information goes, mytop two is George Knapp and then
number three is no.
So George Knapp all the way, Icould have listened to him talk
the entire time.
Yeah, George Knapp, Wiggins,Nucatelli, Borland and then
Spielberger.
So Jeffrey Nucatelli, histestimony.
Nucatelli's testimony was aboutseeing massive objects pulsing
(29:11):
and moving strangely nearVandenberg's Space Force Base.
Speaker 5 (29:15):
Between 2003 and 2005 , five UAP incidents occurred at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, hometo the National Missile Defense
Project, a top nationalsecurity priority.
At the time, we were conductinglaunches deemed by the National
Reconnaissance Office as themost important in 25 years.
These were historic launches.
(29:37):
These facilities were vital andthey were repeatedly visited by
UAP.
Each incident was witnessed bymultiple personnel, documented,
investigated and reported up thechain of command.
We sent information up, but wegot no guidance down on how to
handle these events.
(29:57):
I personally witnessed one ofthese events and investigated
others as they occurred.
Six other service members haveprovided me with the information
that I will share with youtoday.
The incursions began on October14, 2003, when Boeing
contractors reported a massive,glowing red square silently
(30:20):
hovering over two missiledefense sites.
After several minutes itdrifted further east onto the
base and vanished over the hills.
This event, now known as theVandenberg Red Square, was
referenced by RepresentativeLuna at the first hearing on
this topic.
Official Air Force records ofthis event are in possession by
(30:41):
Aero and the FBI.
Later that night, while I was onduty, security guards at a
critical launch site reported abright, fast-moving object over
the ocean.
I responded to the incident.
Chaos ensued over the radio.
As the object approachedrapidly, I heard my friends
screaming it's coming right atus, it's coming right for us,
(31:04):
and now it's right here.
Moments later, I heard them saythat it had shot off and was
gone.
Moments later, I heard them saythat it had shot off and was
gone.
When I arrived on scene, Italked to five shaken witnesses
who described a massivetriangular craft larger than a
football field that hoveredsilently for about 45 seconds
over their entry control pointbefore shooting away at
(31:25):
impossible speed.
About a week later, anotherpatrol reported a light over the
ocean behaving erratically,believing it might be an
unannounced aircraft.
They declared an emergency andan armed response force
responded.
Before the forces could arrive,the object descended and either
(31:52):
landed or hovered on our flightline and then took off, again
at impossible speed.
The witnesses to this eventwere threatened and intimidated.
Afterward they were told tokeep quiet and think about what
they were reporting.
After that, things did get quietuntil about 2005 when another
patrol reported a massivetriangular craft, larger than a
(32:14):
C-130, silently floating overthe installation.
He watched it for a few minutes.
It traveled west anddisappeared into the night, and
then I had my own encounteragain in 2005.
I was off duty, sitting in mybackyard with two other police
officers when we noticed whatfirst appeared to be a satellite
(32:35):
in orbit, but it wasn't actinglike a satellite.
The light was strange.
It was pulsing and then itstarted to maneuver.
It dropped in elevation, attimes it would vanish from view
and reappear in a differentlocation in the sky, and
eventually it reappeared 200feet over my house.
It was a 30 foot diametersphere of light.
(32:56):
My friends and I watched it fora moment and then it gently
accelerated and traveled up anddisappeared into the stars
typical air force.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
Air Force Okay.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
It's pretty wild, you know, and they were told to
hush.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yeah, I mean, I can understand why, because this is
a guy who was in a position ofpower and then he sees this
thing and they're like, don'tsay that, it makes you sound
insane.
Like that, I feel like, is theapproach that a lot of these
people get, but they reallybelieve it and it hurts their
feelings and they're trying toshare something that they
experience, whether or not it'strue or not, but it was an
(33:36):
experience they had, and they'regetting shut down.
So we saw that with Borland,like acting, you know, out of
spite maybe, and having hurtfeelings that nobody was taking
his experience seriously.
And it's the same, I think,with this guy, nesateli, taking
his experience seriously andit's the same, I think, with
this guy, nassit Tully.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
That's the exciting part about these hearings is,
and especially focusing onwhistleblowers.
This one particularly, thatstigma was there and it kind of
still is, but it is going awayand they're going to be putting
in, or they're trying to put in,protection against
whistleblowers so that they cancome forward without any of this
retaliation againstwhistleblowers so that they can
come forward without any of thisretaliation.
(34:13):
These guys are talking about theepitome of what is wrong with
the military, why you can't talkabout any of this.
Yeah, so his was fascinating.
He described it very well.
And then there's the lasthighlight.
For me is the one that you'veprobably seen going around If I
go on social media or look upthis congressional hearing.
This is the main highlight wasthe Hellfire Missile video.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
Happened last year, 2024.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Yep, which isn't long ago.
No, in this video you see, it'sa night vision video and it's
like a top down.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
This was captured by a drone.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Yeah, it was a MQ-9 drone.
It shot the Hellfire missileand then another drone top down
was recording the whole thing.
Yep, and this glowing orb offthe coast of Yemen.
You can hear the operator'svoice giving the command to fire
.
The Hellfire missile streakstowards the orb, but instead of
the explosion that you'd expectfrom our Something named
(35:08):
Hellfire.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Which sounds bad.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Yeah, exactly as Lou Elizondo called it, the premier
military tech in a News Nationinterview.
He's like yeah, there'ssomething that can make our
premier weapon not work.
That's scary.
It bounced off and it lookedlike maybe there was a little
bit of debris that came off, butthe debris kind of kept
traveling with, but that couldhave been from the missile.
That could have been from themissile.
(35:31):
That could have been from themissile doesn't necessarily mean
there was from that.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
So I think it's like, okay, we try to pick a fight
with this thing.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
It knows it's been in a fight, but like it definitely
won yeah, and then the videokind of changes from night
vision to it looked like just aregular video and it continued
just showing this craft after itstopped wobbling it reacted to
being hit it like moved aroundand then kind of wiggled a bit
right and then shot off again.
Speaker 3 (35:59):
Yeah, it only barely slowed it down, like it knew
something had happened.
This craft, this phenomena,knew something had happened to
it.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
It was just like yeah , okay, like a bug hitting a
windshield, yeah, like a reallybig bug it's like if you were
running a race and someone cameand pushed you pretty hard but
you didn't fall over, you kindof stumbled and then you went
back up running or just likemaybe somebody you're racing
against bumped into you and itknocked you a little bit off
(36:28):
your trajectory and you're justlike, oh, that's annoying, yeah,
why would you do that?
Speaker 3 (36:31):
that's a little bit off your trajectory and you're
just like, oh, that's annoying,yeah, why would you do that?
Speaker 1 (36:33):
That's a good way to put it yeah.
Later in the hearing I think itwas Luna she asked does that
video scare you?
And each person said yeah,except George Knapp.
Speaker 4 (36:42):
Okay, While this is still rolling, Mr Nusatelli,
real quick yes or no answers.
Are you aware of anything inthe government United States
government arsenal that cansplit a Hellfire missile like
this?
No, and do whatever blob thingit did and then keep going
Nothing.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Nothing.
Speaker 4 (36:57):
All right, how about you, chief Wiggins?
Speaker 6 (37:00):
Nothing to my knowledge, ma'am.
Speaker 4 (37:01):
Okay, and how about you, mr Borland?
Speaker 7 (37:03):
I prefer to answer that in a skiff.
Speaker 4 (37:06):
Okay.
Does this video scare you guys?
Yes or no?
Speaker 5 (37:12):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
Wiggins.
Speaker 5 (37:14):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Nat.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
I had a different reaction.
I was really happy that it gotout.
Speaker 4 (37:20):
Thanks for providing that Curiosity calls the cat.
All right, mr Moreland.
Yes, for OK All right, that isthe end of my questioning.
Ok, all right, that is the endof my questioning.
Speaker 3 (37:31):
Well, I mean again, he is approaching this from a
journalistic standpoint, andthis is information.
Speaker 1 (37:37):
Yeah, he wants all info.
Speaker 3 (37:38):
Yeah, love it.
Moskowitz came in and saidsomething I thought was eye
opening.
He said that he doesn't reallyknow what is true.
He doesn't know on the subject,but I do know when we're being
lied to, and we're definitelybeing lied to.
There's no doubt about that,and I was just like to hear a
representative acknowledge that.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
I think I thought was pretty wild.
Yeah, I think at the top of thewhole congressional thing,
George Knapp was asked couldthis all be psyops?
Could this all be fake?
Speaker 8 (38:06):
Do you think that any of this is a psyop by the US
government?
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Entirely possible.
I mean, our government andother governments have admitted
that they've tried to use UFOsto cover secret projects, but I
think they also do some reverseengineering of those claims.
So years after people startseeing UFOs over Area 51, for
example they come up with astory oh yeah, that was we
(38:31):
planted that story.
So I read in a major newspaperjust a couple of weeks ago they
planted this story.
An Air Force colonel went outinto the desert, went to a bar,
at Rachel, and gave them somefake UFO photos, and that's how
the whole story about Area 51started, which is preposterous.
Speaker 1 (38:48):
It very well could be , but it just seems as though it
is real, with how much is outthere, how much we have recorded
.
You could go into thesecompanies saying that it's their
tech.
But was it their tech 70 yearsago too?
That doesn't make sense.
If it is their tech, theydidn't get it from earth because
we didn't have this tech in the40s.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
We don't have that tech now.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
No, we don't have it now.
The best missile in the worlddoesn't work against this Spooky
.
Yeah, but those are my three.
Did you have any standout?
Speaker 3 (39:20):
My takeaway again I can't say this enough is I am
impressed by George Knapp everytime.
I see him speak and I keepforgetting how curious he is and
how he's trying to bring stuffto light.
I found it very interestingthat a lot of reps are in the
dark, yeah, and they are just asinterested in this topic as we
(39:41):
are, you know, and that makessense.
I mean, they're human beingsliving in this world and there's
information that's beingwithheld.
I did like how a lot of thepeople on that panel were
pushing back and saying it's notnecessarily the government
that's doing this, that's hidingthis stuff.
The government is obviouslyinterested in releasing this.
It's a lot of the military.
And then you look at Borland'sexperience, like not being able
(40:03):
to get promoted and Grush beingdoxed, and that was all done,
I'm sure, by military higher ups.
Oh yeah, and they're the onesthat are documenting and they
have this information andthey're not releasing it.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
And you have to be very specific about what you're
asking the military to do.
Kind of like Lockheed Martin,they're hiding it or lying to us
because they're being told notto release it and Lockheed is
like a military contractor.
Speaker 1 (40:30):
Yeah, and you can't get that information unless you
have the code word or the keyphrase and you wouldn't know
unless you knew, and you don'tknow how to ask for the
information, because you don'thave that Exactly A lot of these
Congress people don't even knowwhere to go or what questions
to ask to get the rightclearance to be able to hear any
of this.
Speaker 4 (40:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, I think this whole thing.
I think it was great these guysweren't just out there telling
their stories, they were riskingit all for the sake of
transparency.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
So what were your takeaways?
Speaker 1 (41:01):
Yeah, so my takeaway is that they're there advocating
for transparency all of them.
Like you said, we see the costof whistleblowing and what that
can do, just through Grush andBorland, george Knapp talking
about the push for transparency.
That's what all it is, just theconversation opening it up.
It's amazing that it ishappening.
It is happening, but it's notenough.
(41:23):
I don't think, overall, thereis definitive proof about all of
this, because we haven't beento the planet, we haven't gotten
the stuff.
I don't like it's.
It's so silly, but there's somethings that you don't need the
scientific proof.
Speaker 3 (41:40):
You know, like it's there well, you don't need to go
to whatever the planet is tounderstand why things work the
way they do.
I thought that was just like awhat we have to go to this
planet.
Well, what planet though it was?
It was just a wild jump to make.
Like, the way we have toreverse engineer this technology
is by actually going to theplanet.
That's the only way to do it,it's silly.
(42:01):
Just to hear somebody talkabout that in a congressional
hearing was wild.
Speaker 1 (42:05):
Yeah, I think the fact that Congress is listening
and, like we've mentioned in thepast, these are professionals.
For better or worse, we've seenthe worst side of the
professionals not doing a goodjob, but they also do know how
to do their job and they areprofessionals at loopholes and
trying to figure out how to getinto stuff and they're working
on it and I think we will getthere.
(42:26):
I don't know when, but they areworking on it.
I mean, they're mentioningabout subpoenas.
I don't know when, but they areworking on it.
I mean they're mentioning aboutsubpoenas this subcommittee
since it's not a full committee,they can't actually issue the
subpoena themselves, but theywere already kind of talking
about how to get that done withwhat they have.
But it's a huge step forward,specifically for public trust,
which is what we're trying to dofirst and foremost is earn the
(42:49):
trust back of the public.
Yeah, and then just UAPtransparency.
I think it was phenomenal.
Let us know what you guys think, share your thoughts with us
and all the people around you.
Annoy the shit out of them.
Get this knowledge out there.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Sure, get it going.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
Thank you for listening.
Like we said, this is a specialepisode.
Speaker 3 (43:07):
To today.
Enjoy it yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
Back special episode to today.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
Enjoy it.
Yeah, back to back, josh andtravis.
Yeah, oh boy, all right, well,we will chat at you next episode
.
Okay, see you on the flippityflop bye.
aliens yes but maybe no.
Well, well, welcome back to ourshow.
Aliens, yes, but maybe, butMaybe no, with Josh and Travis.
(00:25):
I'm Travis, I'm Josh, and thisis an otherworldly podcast, as
ambiguous as our title.
Very good, did I get it?
Yeah, did I get it right.
Yeah, oh, my God, all right, Iwas worried that the internet
was going to get in the way, butit didn't.
Nope, josh, why are you worriedabout the internet getting in
(00:49):
the way?
Don't we meet in person?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
well, we used to oh my gosh, it's a sad day.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
It was a sad day, but now I get to see your face
through ones and zeros and zerosand ones.
Yep, yeah, travis and I aredoing it remote this time I
moved yeah, travis moved I moved, and I moved that we still get
to do this podcast you are moved, that you still get to.
I moved and I moved sad westill get to do this podcast.
You are moved that you stillget to.
I moved and I moved Sad faceemoji.
Can I do that reaction?
I don't see.
I don't see one available.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
They don't allow sadness.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
on podcasting no it's already full of sad people.
If you're recording a podcast,you're trying to sell something.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, yeah, and we are actually doing a special
episode.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
This isn't going to be one of our normal drops.
We are and guess what?
It's going to be released thesame day as another episode.
So how much do we love you guysthat you get a double record, a
twofer pretty exciting.
The answer is a lot.
We love you guys a lot.
We do too much, actually.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Whoa, I didn't say that we love you guys a lot.
We do Too much actually, whoa.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I didn't say that I love you guys.
Just the right amount.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Yeah, so today we're recording this because we just
had another congressionalhearing.
Yeah, and that's important, theusual oversight committee.
Yep.
The topic of the congressionalhearing was titled Restoring
Public Trust Through UAPTransparency and Whistleblower
Protection Yep.
So that was on September 9th,mm-hmm, and I loved it.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
I liked it too.
I think there was a lot ofinformation.
So let's talk about who we sawhere really quick.
The witnesses right, yeah, soI'm just going to run through
and then then, josh, you cangive me a little bit of
background information on them.
But we had jeffrey nusatelli,chief alexandro wiggins, george
knapp, the boss, dylan borland,joe spielberger.
(02:36):
So, really quick, when it saidchief wiggins, I couldn't stop
laughing because of simpsonsexactly Simpsons, but it's Chief
Wiggum.
Oh yeah, it just was like suchan easy, it's close enough.
It was yeah, it was just likesuch an easy connection to make,
and so every time I saw it Iwas just like I'm an idiot.
So just surprising nobody.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, and he is a US Navy senior chief petty officer,
his Navy senior chief pettyofficer.
His opening statement is abouta specific unexplained event he
witnessed and the need formilitary leadership to address
these encounters.
Officially Right, that was hisopening statement.
He was nervous too, I couldtell.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Another guy that I thought was pretty nervous.
Actually I thought they allwere, but I think I mean being
put in a congressional hearingto testify over something like
whistleblowing is going to makeanybody nervous.
But then you put George Knapp,who's been doing this for a very
long time, and then you haveJeremy Wright there sitting in
his perfect posture, his handsfolded, never moving.
My daughter watched part of itwith me and she's like who is
(03:37):
that guy?
And I was like he's like thisdocumentarian.
He's been at every one of thesehearings and he sits in the
exact same place and the exactsame posture and he's like he
looks like an alien.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
So those are the guys ?
Yep, those are the guys.
So I'll kind of go through eachone and kind of what their
opening statement was Yep, soJeffrey Nucatelli he was the US
Air Force veteran.
His opening statement focusedon the psychological impact of
seeing a UAP and how the stigmaprevented him from speaking out
for years.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
These events profoundly changed my life and
the lives of my friends.
We stand at a pivotal moment inhistory.
The question is no longerwhether these events are real,
but whether we have the courageto face them.
True leadership requires vision, a willingness to confront the
unknown with transparency andresolve.
So I ask the Congress to helpwe, the people, enact this
(04:33):
vision.
There are three goals Fundindependent research and treat
UAP study with the sameseriousness as we would any
other scientific field.
Two end secrecy andover-classification.
Transparency is the foundationof truth.
Without it, witnesses like usare dismissed.
(04:54):
Three protect the witnesses.
Many stay silent out of fearfor their careers, reputations
and the safety of their families.
Protect them and you willembolden others to join this
cause.
These phenomenon challenge ourdeepest assumptions about
reality, consciousness and ourplace in the universe.
(05:15):
Exploring them can unlocktransformative breakthroughs in
technology, biology and humanunderstanding.
Technology, biology and humanunderstanding.
Let this be the moment whenAmerica chooses courage over
fear, transparency over secrecyand progress over stagnation.
Let's show the world that ournation leads not only through
(05:36):
strength, but through fearlesspursuit of the truth.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Yeah, and so these guys were all.
They all had firsthandexperience, right.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Not all of them.
I don't think Joe Spielbergerdid or George Knapp.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Joe Spielberger was the one that was on the far
right who didn't really have awhole lot to say.
Nobody really asked him a lotof questions.
I felt like George Knapp andBorland kind of dominated this
hearing.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
And.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
I felt like Borland was also very nervous this
hearing and I feel like Borlandwas also very nervous.
He came off as somebody who hadlike a lot of real nervous
energy but wanted to get hisside out.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Yes, and Borland was the one that his career was
ruined, right.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
That's what he said.
He said that he'd served upuntil 2013.
Yeah, in the US Air Force, yep,and he was on a.
I believe he was on a ship, buthe had applied for promotions,
and this was after he had talkedto his senior officers about
this experience that he had andwas denied any sort of promotion
until he left the military in2013.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
And he still can't get a job.
Did he say he was stillunemployed?
Yeah, he said he was onunemployment for the next three
weeks, until it was done.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
So he's been unemployed since 2013?
Speaker 1 (06:46):
From my understanding , he can't find any work in the
field that he's qualified for.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
I do remember him leaning on that unemployment
thing really hard and I was likesame buddy, I totally
understand.
But I found he was like a goodentrance point for people
watching this.
He had like a real approachable, even though nervous,
personality.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
And a little bitter which I mean he should be
because he reported what he sawand experienced to the right
people and they treated himreally bad and basically just
canceled him from anything thathas to do with military or
government.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
And it sounds like everybody was trying to cancel
Kirkpatrick.
He was the former head of Arrow.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yes, she even said that she would love to subpoena
him.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Yeah, Right from the jump she said that he's a
documented liar, but she cameout guns blazing against this
one former head.
It was wild.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Well, he's the one where George Knapp kind of
talked about it, where he, inhis position in Arrow, he opened
it up for whistleblowers tocome and be safe and talk about
it, and then he said it kind ofturned into a disinformation
campaign, witch hunt, and itmade it so the whistleblowers
would not come forward becausethey were just.
Anytime someone brought uptheir experience they would be
(08:02):
instantly like, oh, that's nottrue.
We actually got the footage andwhat you saw it was not real,
Right.
And George Knapp's like therewas no footage, Like the footage
was taken away.
They don't have the footage.
So the guy sounds like acomplete ass.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Kirkpatrick.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Yeah, so we talked about Jeffrey Nucatelli, dylan
Borland.
He kind of talked about hisretaliation that he faced when
coming forward and he'sadvocating for stronger legal
protection for thewhistleblowers.
Speaker 7 (08:31):
As I sit before you today, I and many other
whistleblowers have no jobprospects, no foreseeable
professional future in a nationevery single one of us came
forward to defend.
Numerous individuals have comeforward in various ways to
reveal the truth of the UAPreality, as patriots and
defenders of our nation.
Yet many feel discarded,isolated, hopeless, separated
(08:51):
from the country they serve.
Efforts to rectify thissituation for all whistleblowers
have been difficult andtroubling, and to my fellow
whistleblowers and officials whoknow this information, I offer
you my apology, something that Ihave never gotten and I'm
giving it to you.
I swore an oath to theConstitution of the United
(09:11):
States, a note that demandstruth and transparency for our
democratic republic to function.
Each day, these truths remainhidden from our citizens'
humanity dressed further fromthe principles our nation was
founded to uphold.
Each day, victims of crimescommitted by agencies and
companies maintaining thissecrecy are denied.
Justice is another day ourconstitution is shredded In
(09:33):
2023,.
Patriots provided thiscommittee and the executive
branch with undeniable proof ofthe UAP reality and I commend
your continued commitment.
The future of humanity is onewhich we either travel to the
stars or regress to the StoneAge with this technology.
My career has been to delivercritical information to decision
makers.
Your role, as elected by yourrepresentatives, is to act on it
(09:58):
.
The time to act is now.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
And that was a big theme in this whole hearing,
mm-hmm.
Then Alexander Wiggins I wassaying he was the US Navy senior
chief petty officer and itsounds like he had a pretty easy
going.
So he experienced somethingunexplained and he was wanting
the need for military leadershipto address these encounters
officially.
Speaker 6 (10:19):
How were you treated?
I've had no pushback at all.
I haven't had anyone reach outto me or try to dissuade me in
either direction, militarilyspeaking.
So I was treated fair and Iappreciate the Navy itself with
assisting me, with coming here,to being able to testify.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Him being in the Navy versus Dylan Borland being in
the Air Force.
There's a huge difference.
It seems like the Air Force waslike, no, absolutely don't talk
about this.
The Navy was just like, yeah,no, you need to talk about this.
He had no resistance and heactually had a little bit of
help.
It seemed like yeah.
So Air Force bad, navy good.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I wouldn't make a sweeping comment like that,
because it all depends on who'sin charge.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
And the sort of culture they're trying to create
, and that changes over time.
As people move on and out ofmilitary branches and with like
accessibility of information, Ithink people are being a lot
more aware of what they're doingand saying, because it's a lot
easier now for people to havethat comeuppance right.
Like, yeah, you can't hidethings like you once could, even
back in 2013.
Like, things are coming tolight and then there's just so
much information out there, soyou have to be very careful
(11:35):
about what you do and say.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah, and George Knapp and I think one of the
representatives mentioned aswell that the people that are
coming in and out of thegovernment, these people that
started all this campaign withaliens and the government and
everything, they're all gone.
So these are new people comingin and most of the time newer
people aren't going to comeforward and whistle blow
especially if they're brand new,you know they have their whole
career ahead of them.
(11:57):
There's no original people, soit's a legacy program, basically
.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
What do you mean?
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Legacy, where they're continuing the legacy of
another generation, and GeorgeKnapp was saying that it's so
embedded.
He was very apparent like thisis great that we're doing all
this, but I don't think it'sgoing to help.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
That was the thing.
So when Rep Erlison, who cameoff as like a little bit of a
kook, tried to paint thispicture that the government was
actually hiding this and that isGeorge Knapp kept correcting
him, saying no, he didn't saythe military, but he was saying
it's, it is not the government.
Like we're here in this hearing, we've been trying to get this
brought to light, just like youguys have been for the last 50
(12:37):
to 75 years, like we've beentrying.
There are people, though, thatare involved in keeping this
quiet, but it's not like thepeople that we're seeing before
you here.
Yeah, and then Burleson waslike I think it was either
George Knapp or maybe Borlandwas talking about the technology
, and like we haven't discoveredthe origin of this technology.
And then, yeah, we won't beable to until we go to their
planets.
And I was like, oh my God, yeah, I mean, let's say it is
(13:01):
extraterrestrial, which nobodyreally said there.
It could be extraterrestrial.
It's mostly unknown.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
It was interesting because was it Borland who was
talking about that?
Speaker 3 (13:14):
I'm going to just defer to Borland because he took
up a bunch of time.
They had to pick out thewitnesses they wanted to hear
from because Borland just kepttalking.
He had a lot that he wanted toget off his chest.
I think you were saying alittle bit of an ax to grind and
was just wanting to air hisgrievances.
I feel like because of that, wedidn't get to hear from
Spielberg or a whole lot, or.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Nisoteli.
Well, he was saying how Arrowor the scientists, for them to
say that this is trulyextraterrestrial or alien tech,
they have to go to the planet,get the tech from them and bring
it back to have an absolute.
Speaker 7 (13:48):
You know, I would put it to you this way the
statement Arrow has made isscientific evidence of
extraterrestrials.
Scientific evidence requires ascientific control.
Extraterrestrial is an entityon another planet.
The only way to scientificallyprove extraterrestrial is we
have to go to that planet,acquire technology, bring it
back and compare it to what wehave here.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
So you're saying they won't let anything out because
or they won't come forwardunless they confirm that it,
unless they go to the planet andconfirm where its origin is.
Speaker 7 (14:20):
That would be scientific evidence.
Yes, and by that statementArrow found no scientific
evidence of extraterrestrials isbasically I don't want to call
it a psyop, but amisrepresentation, because we do
have things, but making thatstatement is not technically a
lie, it's a misrepresentation ofthe full truth.
Love it.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
So when they say it's not alien tech, it's because
they can't prove and that is thedefinition of proving it to
them.
So they're not lying when theysay they don't have it, but they
do have it and you can concludethat it is alien tech because
it is not ours and we don't haveanything like it.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
I think part of George's testimony was pretty
remarkable, where I think it wasin that Russian document that
he had snuck here.
He talked about them witnessingthese UAPs, these phenomena,
and trying to suss out thetechnology just by the video.
So they were like what is itcalled Like reverse engineer,
(15:18):
these things?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Like visually, because they don't have it.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Yeah, without either.
Like, how do we make somethingmove side to side, like this, up
and down, like this?
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Yeah, going back to witnesses in the opening
statements.
George Knapp, he's a UAPjournalist, he's the boss man.
He's been doing this 40 years.
His opening statementhighlighted the years of
government secrecy and theimportance of free press in
holding institutions accountablefor UAP transparency.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
The DIA's contractor, robert Bigelow of Las Vegas,
made a bold attempt to acquirephysical proof of UFO crashes.
It's been widely reported andsuspected that Lockheed Martin
is one of the contractors thedefense contractors that has
held this stuff, stored it awayin secrecy and tried to figure
out how it works.
I have confirmed on the recordthat Robert Bigelow and a
(16:07):
trusted colleague from OSAP metwith and negotiated with senior
executives at Lockheed Martinand hammered out a deal wherein
Bigelow's company, bass, wouldreceive a quantity of unusual
material that had been stashedaway and protected at a facility
in California.
That material was not made here.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
It was really interesting how he spoke a lot
of the times when he talks aboutthese private contractors like
Lockheed Martin, where he's justlike they're not doing anything
wrong.
They're doing what they're toldto do by the government.
Yeah, and they're doing itreally well.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
We can't blame them for that.
And then, because he's ajournalist, he gave a couple
names of people that had givenhim these documents, but then
also said Lockheed, martin,lockheed.
And then he's like you know whothe other ones are?
They're big players in thisfield, yeah, but I always forget
that George Knapp comes at thisfrom a journalistic point of
view and so he's justinterrogating the way a
(17:00):
journalist would, trying to findanswers.
And that's what I love aboutGeorge Knapp it's just like a
curiosity.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, he is, and he has nothing.
He can't get in trouble, youknow, like some of these guys
that are actively serving.
Oh, he could.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
I mean, I mean he could but he's not killed all
the time journalism could be avery dangerous business.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
He's not gonna get canceled like he has nothing to
lose I don't think.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
I don't think that's true at all.
He could still lose all of thestuff he could.
He lose everything but notstuff.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
He could lose everything, but not as easy as
some of these guys saying thewrong thing.
You know anything that Knapp isgoing to say he doesn't have to
have a skiff.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
I don't think so.
I think that's what gives himpower.
I think that's what makes histestimony so powerful.
Is that because he has so muchto lose?
I think all these people thatis what this whole hearing was
about was whistleblowing and howit needs to be protected, and
there's a reason.
George Knapp is there.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Yeah, George Knapp was probably my favorite out of
all this.
If you were going to make ahighlight reel, every time he
spoke would be in that highlightreel.
He was just such a good.
I mean, he's a professionalspeaker.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Except in that one video we saw where he was
recording from a pool.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Oh yeah, on the Bob Lazar movie.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
They did invoke Bob Lazar in this hearing, which was
great.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Yep George Knapp dead .
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I agree with your take on George Knapp.
I find him to be veryarticulate and, again, he's such
a big figure in this world thatI forget that he comes at it
from a journalism standpoint.
Yeah, it's not experience that?
Brought him here comes at itfrom a journalism standpoint.
Yeah, it's not experience thatbrought him here, it's just like
a curiosity.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Yeah, he's wonderful.
I hope he lives 40 more years.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
If he wants, sure, I think it's great.
But I mean, there are peoplethat are willing to pick up the
mantle.
I know he works pretty closelywith Jeremy.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Who just is always, like always, there, man, like,
if nothing else, he knows whereto be and how to sit.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
But Jeremy is a little more aggressive.
George Knapp is very gentle andcalm.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Kind of like a therapist, like if you've been
in therapy, where therapistswill ask you a question and then
they'll just sit there quietlyand let you do all the talking.
I feel like George Knapp comesfrom that school of journalism.
Instead of like, the newer formof journalism is like rapid
fire questions and that is aform of gaslighting because you
can't answer all these questions.
And then you're like left inthe lurch, like nobody's really
(19:20):
interested in getting an answer.
They're interested in justlooking like they have all the
answers.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Yeah, and not only is he like that, but he's also a
badass, because he went toRussia and multiple
representatives were blown awaythat he was able to smuggle out
top secret KGB documents fromRussia and not have his life
ruined.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I did something kind of dumb.
I met with these officials whoyou know, during that time
period Glasnost, perestroika theRussians were trying to open up
to the world and I saw it as awindow of opportunity and it was
and we were able to talk thesefolks into providing us
information that otherwise wewould never have seen.
Some of that was classified.
I found out that they onlystamped the top pages of these
(20:05):
documents that were classified,so I just removed them.
I removed those pages and Icarried them out, and if they'd
caught me I'd be in a gulagstill.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And they asked him multiple times and he's so
nonchalant.
He's like yep, just saw theright time and went there and
put it in my bag and left.
They're just like how, how didyou do this?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
The right people in the right time.
He said that if this was fiveyears before he would have been
put in jail and if it was 10years before he would have been
shot.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Yep.
He went over there, met withpeople in the government, got
the documents.
The Soviet Union was crumbling,or it was crumbled and Putin
wasn't in power yet, so therewas just this weird transition.
And he noticed that transitionand he went and got the
documents.
And the documents are about theprograms that the KGB used,
(20:51):
very similar to ours for the UAPprograms.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
Yeah, well said.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
So, listener, dear dear listener, we are one day
away from this hearing, so weare still processing some of our
thoughts and trying to figureout exactly what this means,
just for us.
Yeah, you can say that, yeah,there's a lot, and we're not
going to touch on everything,because we're we are still
processing some of our thoughtsand trying to figure out exactly
what this means, just for us.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Yeah, you can say that, yeah, there's a lot and
we're not going to touch oneverything because we're still
going to process it.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
There was a lot, but my biggest takeaway was like
protecting whistleblowers, whichI think is crucial.
And then, if you kind ofseparate a lot of the political
grandstanding that happened,where they were like invoking
Obama's name and Trump's nameand all these other presidents
and saying like well, who was incharge during this time and why
did?
they fuck up and who's in chargeduring this time and why are
they fucking up currently?
(21:35):
You know, and that's great, andthis is a political hearing
with political representatives,and so there is going to be some
grandstanding and people tryingto make a name for themselves,
and that's fine, yeah, that'spolitics, right, yeah.
But when you watch these kindof things, you have to set that
stuff aside.
And if you read some of thecomments, the comments were
(21:56):
getting very heated depending onwhen you watched it.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
I turned the comments off.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
If you watched it live, there was some stuff about
anal drones and like wild stuff.
I only caught the tail end ofthe live hearing and then
watched a recording and I thinkit was through like Talk of the
Nation or something like that.
They were different commentsand some of them were very
racist and I didn't, so Istopped looking through the
comments.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
When I saw it live, right away, there was one that
said can we block this person?
It's obviously a government bot.
And I'm just like, oh my gosh,close comments.
Yeah, it's obviously agovernment bot.
And I'm just like oh my gosh.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
close comments.
Yeah, it is fun to go in thecomments for a little bit until
it gets unhinged, which italways does.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Yeah, so last person for opening statements and kind
of what they are was JoeSpielberger.
He's the project on governmentoversight, or POGO.
His opening statement providedan institutional perspective,
arguing for increased oversightof UAP-related spending and
programs to ensureaccountability.
Speaker 8 (22:53):
Whistleblowers are the first line of defense to
root out waste, fraud, abuse ofpower and corruption in our
government.
Congress relies onwhistleblowers so that it can
fully exercise its oversight andlegislative authorities.
It's understandable that formerpresidents of both parties have
often taken a hostile approachtoward whistleblowers.
Their disclosures can embarrassthe president and their
(23:15):
political party or even lead toa national scandal.
But whistleblowers continue toplay a vital role during both
Democratic and Republicanadministrations.
They help Congress and thepublic identify and understand
what government corruption lookslike.
Their disclosures fuelinvestigations and allow us to
address wrongdoing and holdthose responsible to account.
(23:38):
That's why, historically,there's been a strong bipartisan
consensus in Congress tosupport and protect
whistleblowers.
Doing so protects the countryand ensures our government is
more responsive and accountabletoblowers.
Doing so protects the countryand ensures our government is
more responsive and accountableto the people.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
And he didn't speak that much.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
No, he was called on a couple of times, answered a
couple of questions and that wasthat.
Was it Pretty quiet?
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Yeah, he seemed kind of like a HR person or like a
union rep.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Sure yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Because they would ask him questions about, like
how are we handling this as agovernment, and he would just
have the answers for that that'sgood.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
It's always good to have one of those guys there oh,
absolutely.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
There are a few things that happened in the
testimonies.
All the testimonies were great.
The questionings were a lotbetter, I think from the
representatives.
This time, for a majority ofthem, it looks like they did a
little bit more homework.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
I think some, I think some questions were great, I
think some were just frustrating.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Like the question I don't remember who it was.
He asked George Knapp how muchmoney was being spent on all the
black op operations andeverything.
Basically, if you add it all upand George is like no one knows
that.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
Like no one's seen that.
I don't know that man.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
I'm not even in the government Like why would I have
that info?
But with the testimonies therewas evidence prevented in the
hearing as well.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
How many times did they say skiff, your favorite
word.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Oh man, they said skiff quite a lot.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Yeah, that was Borland.
Borland was like I can't answerthat question.
I can't answer that questionand I don't know that I can even
answer that question to you,like I don't think you are
authorized to hear what I haveto say.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
So he often said that he's like.
I can talk about that in askiff if you have the clearance.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
Exactly, that was like basically what he said.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Yeah, so the US Navy Chief Petty Officer, alexander
Wiggins, his testimony says thathe witnessed a self-luminous,
tic-tac-shaped object.
Speaker 6 (25:28):
On the evening of February 15th 2023, at
approximately 1915 PST, in theWhiskey 291 warning area off the
coast of Southern California.
I was serving on board USSJackson.
During that period, I movedbetween the Interior
(25:49):
Communications Center, ICC-1,and the bridge wing, correlating
the sensor picture with visualobservations, part of my routine
responsibilities for surfaceand air picture management.
What I observed and what ourcrew recorded was not consistent
with conventional aircraft ordrones as they appear on our
(26:10):
system.
A self-luminous, tic-tac-shapedobject emerged from the ocean
before linking up with threeother similar objects.
The four then disappearedsimultaneously with a high
synchronized, near instantaneousacceleration.
I observed no sonic boom and noconventional propulsion
(26:34):
signatures, no exhaust plume, nocontrol surface articulation on
the SAFIRE image system Shortlyafter the synchronized
departure radar tracks dropped.
These observations weremulti-sensor and recorded inside
of ICC-1, with time locationoverlay visible in our source
(26:57):
frames that have been madepublic by journalists.
From my experience operating inthis region over many years,
and consistent with our publiccharacterized encounters,
unidentified objects reoccur inUnited States operation areas
off Southern California.
That fact alone does not tellus what they are.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
I mean, he had a first person encounter, yeah,
and I think, like I mentioned atthe top of this episode, he
wasn't criticized, he was kindof guided on what to do and
everything led him to comingforward in this congressional
hearing and he had the supportof the Navy, which is really
nice, and that hasn't reallyhappened for most of the people,
that's true.
(27:40):
I mean, most of the peopleended up like crush, which they
mentioned, and he was there.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
He was there yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
He got stripped of everything, basically, but he
was relieved of his duty fromthe military and private medical
records were released, which ishorrible.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Yeah, it sucks.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
But what I liked about Wiggins' testimony was he
was very authentic, very real,and he is in a position of high
power in the military and Ithink there's some credibility
that comes along with that,especially with the military
doing routine mental checks andpsychological checks and
physicals Like to be able tomove up, you have to be some of
(28:18):
the best of the best.
Yeah, he's still a young guyand he's mentally sound and he
has a high position and he saidthis is what happened, which is
really cool.
The next one I really thoughtwas great was Jeffrey
Nekotelli's testimony from theAir Force.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
He was the first testimony.
He started off the wholeshebang.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Yeah, it was him first and then.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Oh, so you're ranking your guys.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Kind of.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
Yeah, mine Knapp, borland, wiggins, nusatelli,
spielberger, as far asinformation goes.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
My top two is George Knapp and then number three is
no.
As far as information goes, mytop two is George Knapp and then
number three is no.
So George Knapp all the way, Icould have listened to him talk
the entire time.
Yeah, George Knapp, Wiggins,Nucatelli, Borland and then
Spielberger.
So Jeffrey Nucatelli, histestimony.
Nucatelli's testimony was aboutseeing massive objects pulsing
(29:11):
and moving strangely nearVandenberg's Space Force Base.
Speaker 5 (29:15):
Between 2003 and 2005 , five UAP incidents occurred at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, hometo the National Missile Defense
Project, a top nationalsecurity priority.
At the time, we were conductinglaunches deemed by the National
Reconnaissance Office as themost important in 25 years.
These were historic launches.
(29:37):
These facilities were vital andthey were repeatedly visited by
UAP.
Each incident was witnessed bymultiple personnel, documented,
investigated and reported up thechain of command.
We sent information up, but wegot no guidance down on how to
handle these events.
(29:57):
I personally witnessed one ofthese events and investigated
others as they occurred.
Six other service members haveprovided me with the information
that I will share with youtoday.
The incursions began on October14, 2003, when Boeing
contractors reported a massive,glowing red square silently
(30:20):
hovering over two missiledefense sites.
After several minutes itdrifted further east onto the
base and vanished over the hills.
This event, now known as theVandenberg Red Square, was
referenced by RepresentativeLuna at the first hearing on
this topic.
Official Air Force records ofthis event are in possession by
(30:41):
Aero and the FBI.
Later that night, while I was onduty, security guards at a
critical launch site reported abright, fast-moving object over
the ocean.
I responded to the incident.
Chaos ensued over the radio.
As the object approachedrapidly, I heard my friends
screaming it's coming right atus, it's coming right for us,
(31:04):
and now it's right here.
Moments later, I heard them saythat it had shot off and was
gone.
Moments later, I heard them saythat it had shot off and was
gone.
When I arrived on scene, Italked to five shaken witnesses
who described a massivetriangular craft larger than a
football field that hoveredsilently for about 45 seconds
over their entry control pointbefore shooting away at
(31:25):
impossible speed.
About a week later, anotherpatrol reported a light over the
ocean behaving erratically,believing it might be an
unannounced aircraft.
They declared an emergency andan armed response force
responded.
Before the forces could arrive,the object descended and either
(31:52):
landed or hovered on our flightline and then took off, again
at impossible speed.
The witnesses to this eventwere threatened and intimidated.
Afterward they were told tokeep quiet and think about what
they were reporting.
After that, things did get quietuntil about 2005 when another
patrol reported a massivetriangular craft, larger than a
(32:14):
C-130, silently floating overthe installation.
He watched it for a few minutes.
It traveled west anddisappeared into the night, and
then I had my own encounteragain in 2005.
I was off duty, sitting in mybackyard with two other police
officers when we noticed whatfirst appeared to be a satellite
(32:35):
in orbit, but it wasn't actinglike a satellite.
The light was strange.
It was pulsing and then itstarted to maneuver.
It dropped in elevation, attimes it would vanish from view
and reappear in a differentlocation in the sky, and
eventually it reappeared 200feet over my house.
It was a 30 foot diametersphere of light.
(32:56):
My friends and I watched it fora moment and then it gently
accelerated and traveled up anddisappeared into the stars
typical air force.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
Air Force Okay.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
It's pretty wild, you know, and they were told to
hush.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yeah, I mean, I can understand why, because this is
a guy who was in a position ofpower and then he sees this
thing and they're like, don'tsay that, it makes you sound
insane.
Like that, I feel like, is theapproach that a lot of these
people get, but they reallybelieve it and it hurts their
feelings and they're trying toshare something that they
experience, whether or not it'strue or not, but it was an
(33:36):
experience they had, and they'regetting shut down.
So we saw that with Borland,like acting, you know, out of
spite maybe, and having hurtfeelings that nobody was taking
his experience seriously.
And it's the same, I think,with this guy, nesateli, taking
his experience seriously andit's the same, I think, with
this guy, nassit Tully.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
That's the exciting part about these hearings is,
and especially focusing onwhistleblowers.
This one particularly, thatstigma was there and it kind of
still is, but it is going awayand they're going to be putting
in, or they're trying to put in,protection against
whistleblowers so that they cancome forward without any of this
retaliation againstwhistleblowers so that they can
come forward without any of thisretaliation.
(34:13):
These guys are talking about theepitome of what is wrong with
the military, why you can't talkabout any of this.
Yeah, so his was fascinating.
He described it very well.
And then there's the lasthighlight.
For me is the one that you'veprobably seen going around If I
go on social media or look upthis congressional hearing.
This is the main highlight wasthe Hellfire Missile video.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
Happened last year, 2024.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Yep, which isn't long ago.
No, in this video you see, it'sa night vision video and it's
like a top down.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
This was captured by a drone.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Yeah, it was a MQ-9 drone.
It shot the Hellfire missileand then another drone top down
was recording the whole thing.
Yep, and this glowing orb offthe coast of Yemen.
You can hear the operator'svoice giving the command to fire
.
The Hellfire missile streakstowards the orb, but instead of
the explosion that you'd expectfrom our Something named
(35:08):
Hellfire.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Which sounds bad.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Yeah, exactly as Lou Elizondo called it, the premier
military tech in a News Nationinterview.
He's like yeah, there'ssomething that can make our
premier weapon not work.
That's scary.
It bounced off and it lookedlike maybe there was a little
bit of debris that came off, butthe debris kind of kept
traveling with, but that couldhave been from the missile.
That could have been from themissile.
(35:31):
That could have been from themissile doesn't necessarily mean
there was from that.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
So I think it's like, okay, we try to pick a fight
with this thing.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
It knows it's been in a fight, but like it definitely
won yeah, and then the videokind of changes from night
vision to it looked like just aregular video and it continued
just showing this craft after itstopped wobbling it reacted to
being hit it like moved aroundand then kind of wiggled a bit
right and then shot off again.
Speaker 3 (35:59):
Yeah, it only barely slowed it down, like it knew
something had happened.
This craft, this phenomena,knew something had happened to
it.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
It was just like yeah , okay, like a bug hitting a
windshield, yeah, like a reallybig bug it's like if you were
running a race and someone cameand pushed you pretty hard but
you didn't fall over, you kindof stumbled and then you went
back up running or just likemaybe somebody you're racing
against bumped into you and itknocked you a little bit off
(36:28):
your trajectory and you're justlike, oh, that's annoying, yeah,
why would you do that?
Speaker 3 (36:31):
that's a little bit off your trajectory and you're
just like, oh, that's annoying,yeah, why would you do that?
Speaker 1 (36:33):
That's a good way to put it yeah.
Later in the hearing I think itwas Luna she asked does that
video scare you?
And each person said yeah,except George Knapp.
Speaker 4 (36:42):
Okay, While this is still rolling, Mr Nusatelli,
real quick yes or no answers.
Are you aware of anything inthe government United States
government arsenal that cansplit a Hellfire missile like
this?
No, and do whatever blob thingit did and then keep going
Nothing.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Nothing.
Speaker 4 (36:57):
All right, how about you, chief Wiggins?
Speaker 6 (37:00):
Nothing to my knowledge, ma'am.
Speaker 4 (37:01):
Okay, and how about you, mr Borland?
Speaker 7 (37:03):
I prefer to answer that in a skiff.
Speaker 4 (37:06):
Okay.
Does this video scare you guys?
Yes or no?
Speaker 5 (37:12):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
Wiggins.
Speaker 5 (37:14):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Nat.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
I had a different reaction.
I was really happy that it gotout.
Speaker 4 (37:20):
Thanks for providing that Curiosity calls the cat.
All right, mr Moreland.
Yes, for OK All right, that isthe end of my questioning.
Ok, all right, that is the endof my questioning.
Speaker 3 (37:31):
Well, I mean again, he is approaching this from a
journalistic standpoint, andthis is information.
Speaker 1 (37:37):
Yeah, he wants all info.
Speaker 3 (37:38):
Yeah, love it.
Moskowitz came in and saidsomething I thought was eye
opening.
He said that he doesn't reallyknow what is true.
He doesn't know on the subject,but I do know when we're being
lied to, and we're definitelybeing lied to.
There's no doubt about that,and I was just like to hear a
representative acknowledge that.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
I think I thought was pretty wild.
Yeah, I think at the top of thewhole congressional thing,
George Knapp was asked couldthis all be psyops?
Could this all be fake?
Speaker 8 (38:06):
Do you think that any of this is a psyop by the US
government?
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Entirely possible.
I mean, our government andother governments have admitted
that they've tried to use UFOsto cover secret projects, but I
think they also do some reverseengineering of those claims.
So years after people startseeing UFOs over Area 51, for
example they come up with astory oh yeah, that was we
(38:31):
planted that story.
So I read in a major newspaperjust a couple of weeks ago they
planted this story.
An Air Force colonel went outinto the desert, went to a bar,
at Rachel, and gave them somefake UFO photos, and that's how
the whole story about Area 51started, which is preposterous.
Speaker 1 (38:48):
It very well could be , but it just seems as though it
is real, with how much is outthere, how much we have recorded
.
You could go into thesecompanies saying that it's their
tech.
But was it their tech 70 yearsago too?
That doesn't make sense.
If it is their tech, theydidn't get it from earth because
we didn't have this tech in the40s.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
We don't have that tech now.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
No, we don't have it now.
The best missile in the worlddoesn't work against this Spooky
.
Yeah, but those are my three.
Did you have any standout?
Speaker 3 (39:20):
My takeaway again I can't say this enough is I am
impressed by George Knapp everytime.
I see him speak and I keepforgetting how curious he is and
how he's trying to bring stuffto light.
I found it very interestingthat a lot of reps are in the
dark, yeah, and they are just asinterested in this topic as we
(39:41):
are, you know, and that makessense.
I mean, they're human beingsliving in this world and there's
information that's beingwithheld.
I did like how a lot of thepeople on that panel were
pushing back and saying it's notnecessarily the government
that's doing this, that's hidingthis stuff.
The government is obviouslyinterested in releasing this.
It's a lot of the military.
And then you look at Borland'sexperience, like not being able
(40:03):
to get promoted and Grush beingdoxed, and that was all done,
I'm sure, by military higher ups.
Oh yeah, and they're the onesthat are documenting and they
have this information andthey're not releasing it.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
And you have to be very specific about what you're
asking the military to do.
Kind of like Lockheed Martin,they're hiding it or lying to us
because they're being told notto release it and Lockheed is
like a military contractor.
Speaker 1 (40:30):
Yeah, and you can't get that information unless you
have the code word or the keyphrase and you wouldn't know
unless you knew, and you don'tknow how to ask for the
information, because you don'thave that Exactly A lot of these
Congress people don't even knowwhere to go or what questions
to ask to get the rightclearance to be able to hear any
of this.
Speaker 4 (40:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, I think this whole thing.
I think it was great these guysweren't just out there telling
their stories, they were riskingit all for the sake of
transparency.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
So what were your takeaways?
Speaker 1 (41:01):
Yeah, so my takeaway is that they're there advocating
for transparency all of them.
Like you said, we see the costof whistleblowing and what that
can do, just through Grush andBorland, george Knapp talking
about the push for transparency.
That's what all it is, just theconversation opening it up.
It's amazing that it ishappening.
It is happening, but it's notenough.
(41:23):
I don't think, overall, thereis definitive proof about all of
this, because we haven't beento the planet, we haven't gotten
the stuff.
I don't like it's.
It's so silly, but there's somethings that you don't need the
scientific proof.
Speaker 3 (41:40):
You know, like it's there well, you don't need to go
to whatever the planet is tounderstand why things work the
way they do.
I thought that was just like awhat we have to go to this
planet.
Well, what planet though it was?
It was just a wild jump to make.
Like, the way we have toreverse engineer this technology
is by actually going to theplanet.
That's the only way to do it,it's silly.
(42:01):
Just to hear somebody talkabout that in a congressional
hearing was wild.
Speaker 1 (42:05):
Yeah, I think the fact that Congress is listening
and, like we've mentioned in thepast, these are professionals.
For better or worse, we've seenthe worst side of the
professionals not doing a goodjob, but they also do know how
to do their job and they areprofessionals at loopholes and
trying to figure out how to getinto stuff and they're working
on it and I think we will getthere.
(42:26):
I don't know when, but they areworking on it.
I mean, they're mentioningabout subpoenas.
I don't know when, but they areworking on it.
I mean they're mentioning aboutsubpoenas this subcommittee
since it's not a full committee,they can't actually issue the
subpoena themselves, but theywere already kind of talking
about how to get that done withwhat they have.
But it's a huge step forward,specifically for public trust,
which is what we're trying to dofirst and foremost is earn the
(42:49):
trust back of the public.
Yeah, and then just UAPtransparency.
I think it was phenomenal.
Let us know what you guys think, share your thoughts with us
and all the people around you.
Annoy the shit out of them.
Get this knowledge out there.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Sure, get it going.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
Thank you for listening.
Like we said, this is a specialepisode.
Speaker 3 (43:07):
To today.
Enjoy it yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
Back special episode to today.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
Enjoy it.
Yeah, back to back, josh andtravis.
Yeah, oh boy, all right, well,we will chat at you next episode
.
Okay, see you on the flippityflop bye.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com