UFO Hearing LIVE: Congress Confronts Pentagon Secrets | Sept 9, 2025 - Total Disclosure Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This hearing of the Task Force on Declassification of Federal
Secrets will come to an order Welcome everyone without objection.
The Chair may declare a recess at any time. Additionally,
without any objection, the following members are waved onto the
Task Force for the purpose of questioning witnesses at today's hearing,
Representative Biggs of Arizona, Representative Baggage of Alaska, Representative Ogles

(00:30):
of Tennessee, Representative Titus of Nevada, and Representative Moscoits of Florida.
There are no objections. I recognize myself for the purpose
of making an opening statement, Good morning, and welcome to
the hearing regarding UAP disclosures. For too long, the issue
of unidentified anomalous phenomena, commonly known as UAPs, has been

(00:50):
shrouded in secrecy, stigma, and in some case, outright dismissal.
Today I want to state clearly that this is not
science fiction or creating speculation. This is a about national security,
government accountability, and the American people's right to the truth.
I've spoken now to a number of whistleblowers from the military,
to include the infamous Egglin Air Force Base incident that
occurred when myself and former Representative Matt Gates, as well

(01:13):
as Representative Burchett followed up on a lead from multiple
active duty Air Force pilot whistleblowers that allege that the
United States Air Force was covering up UAP activity at
a Gland Air Force base. We have heard from a
number of whistleblowers, specifically military pilots, that the reason for
not coming forward publicly is out of fear that speaking
out would cost them their flight status and potentially their careers.

(01:34):
This is unacceptable. We cannot protect our airspaces if our
best trained observers are silenced. We cannot advance science if
we refuse to ask questions, and we cannot maintain trust
in government if we keep the American people in the dark. Now,
Congress has tried to fix this problem. Congress tried to
create formal channels through the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office

(01:55):
also known as ARROW, and the Intelligence Community Inspector General,
First service members and officials to make disclosures, but the
reality the reports come in are often to brush aside,
slow walked, or met with skepticism rather than serious investigation. Recently,
the former ERA director known as Sean Kopatrick attacked our
witnesses and members on this committee. It should be noted

(02:17):
that he's a documented liar and brings into question what
his purpose that AERRA really was if it was not
to follow up on investigations and disclose his findings to
members of Congress. A former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence, Chris Mellin, described a report published by ERA
that found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic sponsored research,
or official review panel has confirmed any siding of UAP

(02:40):
represented extraterrestrial technology as the most air ridden and unsatisfactory
government report I can recall reading during after decades of
government service. Mellan further noted that this was a first
air report submitted to Congress without the Director of National
Intelligence's sign off and seemingly exclus input from any scholars

(03:02):
or experts who have studied or written exclusively about this topic,
extensively about this topic, as would normally be in any
other case in this field. Melon determined that this report
failed to fulfill the congressional mandate under which it was required,
omitted entire agencies with known investigations or activities related to UAPs,
and omitted any discussion of efforts to hide classified or

(03:23):
unclassified information about UAP. Such efforts were unaddressed by the report,
despite the existence of agency records and investigations concurring with them,
including those at US Customs and Border Protection. If we
set up offices and oversight bodies only to let them
become graveyards for testimony, or worse yet, ruises for pretending

(03:45):
to investigate when in actuality there was no follow up,
then we are not doing our jobs. In recent months,
Congress has also been presented with evidence that points to
technologies that, to our knowledge, are beyond our current capabilities.
It is our duty as elected representatives to follow the
wherever they lead, and to ensure that those facts are
not buried under classification stamps or bureaucratic excuses. Let me

(04:06):
be clear whether UAPs represent adders, serial technology, natural phenomena,
or something beyond current human understanding. Congress has a responsibility
to investigate. If these objects are foreign in origin, then
they pose a direct threat to our national security, and
if they represent something unknown, they demand rigorous scientific inquiry,
not ridicule, not secrecy, and not silence. The stakes are

(04:27):
very high. Addresserah nations are not waiting for US to
catch up. They are studying these phenomena as well aggressively,
as multiple nations have also announced their own parliamentary investigations
into this very topic. If we are to continue to
hide information from ourselves, we risk strategic surprise. If we
continue to ignore our pilots and service members, as well

(04:48):
as countless government whistleblowers, we risk losing their trust. And
if we continue to shield the truth from the public,
we risk eroding the very foundation of democratic accountability. This
is why this hearing matter. This is not about fueling speculation.
This is about demanding the basic transparency from the Department
of Defense and the intelligence community and other military contractors.

(05:09):
It is about asking the questions every American has the
right to ask. What do we know, what don't we know?
And why a free society are we being told so little.
A major barrier to this Committee's inquiry into UAPs has
been the lack of cooperation and transparency from the Department
of Defense and the intelligence community. In preparation for previous

(05:30):
UAP hearings, the Committee repeatedly asked the Department of Defense
to allow members to view videos and files related to
UAP incidences. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense notified the committee
staff that due to the department's special Access program rules,
only members of the House Armed Service Committee as well
as the Defense Subcommittee on House Appropriations also known as HACKDE,

(05:50):
were allowed to be read in onto such programs. For
a non committee member to be allowed to view these
documents in videos, individual members must be approved by the
chairman and ranking member of both HASK and hack D.
Independent stap oversite has presented a consistent problem for Congress
as well as program budgets are classified. Additionally, oversight reporting

(06:10):
to Congress is classified and only provided to the authorizing
and appropriations committees of jurisdiction. The American people are not fragile.
They do not need to be shielded like children from reality.
What they cannot tolerate and what they will not forgive
is a government that withholds the truth and punishes those
who dare to speak up. I want to close with this.
Future generations will look back at this moment and ask

(06:33):
what we did when presented with the unknown. Did we
look away, embarrassed or afraid, or did we pursue the
truth with courage? I intend to be on the side
of truth, transparency, and accountability, and I hope my colleagues
on this task force will be able to do the same.
To quote a few elected officials, Senator Schumer has stated
multiple credible sources allege a constitutional crisis over UFOs. Senator

(06:56):
Rounds has stated that these are brilliant individuals and they
are not making this up. And our current Secretary of State,
Marco Rubio, has stated very high clearances and high positions
within our government in regards to these whistleblowers. Senator McConnell
also described these whistleblers as staying incredible, and the witnesses
today are not alone. In fact, they're far from it.

(07:16):
In fact, thirty four senior military, government and intelligent officials
have broken their silence. This includes Senator or now Secretary
of State, Marc Rubio, Senator round Senator gillibrand General Jim Clapper,
the former director of the government government's UAP task Force,
the former head of aviation security for the White House
National Security Council, the former Secretary of Defense, and many more. Again,

(07:41):
to quote Senator Secretary of State Rubio in an upcoming
documentary known as the Age of Disclosure, even presidents have
been operating on a need to know basis that begins
to spin out of control. And to quote Senator Gillibrand,
who also went public in this documentary, it's not acceptable
to have secret parts of this government that no one
ever sees. It's time for the funndamental truths of UAP

(08:01):
to be real tor nations leaders and the public. It's
time for the US government to exercise transparency. And with
that I yield to Ranking Member Crockett for the opening statement.

Speaker 2 (08:10):
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. At a time of
increasing distrust in government, it is important for Congress to
take action to restore the government's credibility. Bringing transparency to
an issue of great public interests is a step toward
doing just that. So I think Sharewoman Luna for calling
this bipartisan hearing to discuss unidentified anomalist phenomena or UAP,

(08:35):
which is today's term for what was commonly known as
UFO's unidentified flying objects. And while some people think of
flying saucers when they hear these terms, it is vital
that we focus on the real world's impact of UAPs
on critical infrastructure, civilian safety, and national security. There is

(08:57):
good reason to believe that most UAPs have origins far
closer to home. Currently, NASA has not found any evidence
that any UAPs have an extraterrestrial origin. Our adversaries are
working to develop new capabilities to gain military advantages, and
those efforts are likely explanation for the mysteries that we

(09:21):
have observed. Nevertheless, the federal government has a responsibility to
the American people to investigate and provide transparent disclosures about
every incident.

Speaker 3 (09:32):
The federal government is equally obligated.

Speaker 2 (09:34):
To protect those who report what they've seen, especially to
commanding officers and supervisors, and Congress should do everything in
its power to protect whistleblowers and conduct oversight of agencies
that are failing to provide that protection. Democracy depends on transparency,
and transparency often relies on the courage of individuals willing

(09:57):
to risk their careers, reputations, and in some cases, their
personal safety to.

Speaker 1 (10:02):
Tell the truth.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.
We should welcome their accounts and acknowledge the bravery they
have shown to come before us. We must ensure that
all whistleblowers feel that they can come to Congress to
tell their stories without fear of retaliation or of professional consequences.
We need transparency, not just to make better policy, but

(10:26):
also to ensure that information flows between all those who
need it. There are too many tragic examples in our
history where information lapses and a lack of cross agency
coordination led to disaster. Just this year, failure to communicate
between FAA and the Department of Defense led to tragedy

(10:47):
over the Potomac. The Biden Haris administration sought to eliminate
some of these lapses when it established the All Domain
Anomaly Resolution Office at the Department of Defense. AERO can
convene sources from all branches of military, the FAA, and
NASA to combine forces to create a comprehensive picture of

(11:09):
what is happening in our skies. Some UAP reports have
perfectly normal explanations satellites, consumer drones, weather balloons, even pranks,
but we need to track down each and every single UAP.
The United States has millions of eyes in the sky,
both electronic and human, but only the combination of civilian, commercial,

(11:34):
and military sources can begin to create a complete picture.
So we need to ensure that people can come forward
and report what they have seen to the relevant authorities,
and they have to have the right to do so
without fear of retaliation. This country has a history of
dedicated public servants standing up for what is right, even

(11:55):
in the face of potential consequences. From the Pentagon Papers
to Watergate to torture programs, whistle blowers have not only
informed the public, but also empowered Congress to fulfill its
constitutional duty of oversight. Past Congresses have written laws to
grant legal protection for whistle blowers, and it is up

(12:16):
to us to work responsibly with all sources to hold
the executive branch accountable. We are here today to listen
to the stories of those who have witnessed events of
interest to the American people and to support the policies
that cultivate an environment that welcomes and protects whistle blowers.
I hope this hearing will be an example of the

(12:39):
respect and protection whistleblowers deserve and the importance of conducting
oversight of the federal government.

Speaker 1 (12:46):
I yeel back. I am pleased to welcome the panel
of witnesses for today's hearing. I'd first like to welcome
mister Jeffrey Nussatelli is the United State's Air Force veteran
and a career federal employee with more than twenty years
of experience in national security, law enforcement, and public administration. Next,

(13:06):
we have mister alex Alexandra Wiggins. Mister Wiggins is currently
serving as a Senior Chief Operation Specialist in the United
States Navy. Mister Wiggins is testifying in his personal capacity
today and not on behalf of the United States Navy. Next,
I would like to recognize a gentlewoman from Nevada, Representative Titus.

Speaker 4 (13:26):
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Ranking Members, allowing me
to sit with you on this panel today. I'm honored
to be able to introduce a witness here who is
from my district, George Knapp, who has been the definitive
expert and reporter on this topic that you're exploring today
UAPs or UFOs. George is a longtime friend out say

(13:51):
that up front of a very respected journalist and a
recognized expert in this field nationally and internationally. Just a
little something about George. He came to Las Vegas in
nineteen seventy nine and joined KLS television station as a
general assignment reporter in nineteen eighty one. Since nineteen ninety five,

(14:14):
he's been the chief investigative reporter for that channel. He
also hosts a national radio show you can listen to
on Coast to Coast AM which covers many of the
paranormal topics that y'all are discussing. Over the years, George
has been, as I said, recognized for his work. He's
been honored with the Peabody Award, the DuPont Award, the

(14:36):
Edward Murrow Award, in twenty seven different regional Emmys for
his investigative reporting. Indeed, he has told Nevada's story with
the clarity, with objectivity, and with integrity. So I know
that his testimony today is going to be of great

(14:58):
interest and vague to the commanding So thank.

Speaker 5 (15:01):
You very much.

Speaker 1 (15:03):
Next we have mister Dylan Borland. Mister Borland is the
United States Air Force veteran has a long career in
federal service. And finally, I'd like to introduce mister Joe Spielberger,
a senior policy council at the Project of Government Oversight.
Pursuant to Committee Rule nine G, the witnesses will please
stand and raise the right hand. Do you solemnly swear

(15:30):
or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give
is a truth, the whole truth, and the nothing but
the truth, So help you God. Let the record show
that the witnesses answered and affirmative. Thank you. You may
take your seat. We appreciate you being here today and
I look forward to hearing your testimony. Let me remind
the witnesses that we have read your written statements and

(15:52):
it will appear in full in the hearing record. Please
limit your oral statements to five minutes, but I understand
you have a lot to get through, so if it
goes a little over, don't worry about it. As a reminder,
please press the button on the microphone in front of
you so that it is on and the members can
hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in
front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the
light will turn yellow, and when the red light comes on,

(16:13):
your five minutes have expired and we will ask you
to please wrap it up. I now recognize mister Nustelli
for his opening statement.

Speaker 6 (16:22):
Good morning. Thank you Chairwoman Luna, ranking Member Crockett, and
members of the Task Force for giving us the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Jeffrey Neusatelli. I'm a
former military police officer with sixteen years of active duty
service in the US Air Force. I'm here today because

(16:42):
the American people have both the right and the responsibility
to know the truth about unidentified aerial phenomenon. That truth
remains hidden, classified, and silenced by fear, retaliation, stigma, and confusion.
Today we are here to help break that silence. Between
two thousand and three and two thousand and five, five

(17:05):
UAP incidents occurred at Vanderberg Air Force Base, home to
the National Missile Defense Project, a top national security priority
at the time, we were conducting launches deemed by the
National Reconnaissance Office as the most important in twenty five years.
These were historic launches. These facilities were vital, and they

(17:26):
were repeatedly visited by UAP. Each incident was witnessed by
multiple personnel, documented, investigated, and reported up the chain of command.
We sent information up, but we got no guidance down
on how to handle these events. I personally witnessed one

(17:47):
of these events and investigated others as they occurred. Six
other service members have provided me with the information that
I will share with you today. The incursions began on
October fourteenth, two thousand and three, when Boeing contractors reported
a massive glowing red square silently hovering over two missile

(18:07):
defense sites. After several minutes, it drifted further east onto
the base and vanished over the hills. This event, now
known as the Vanderberg Red Square, was referenced by Representative
Luna at the first hearing on this topic. Official Air
Force records of this event are in possession by ARROW
and the FBI. Later that night, while I was on duty,

(18:33):
security guards at a critical launch site reported a bright,
fast moving object over the ocean. I responded to the incident.
Chaos ensued over the radio as the object approached rapidly.
I heard my friends screaming, it is coming right at us,
It's coming right for us, and now it's right here.
Moments later I heard them say that it had shot

(18:55):
off and was gone. When I arrived on scene, I
talked to five shaken witnesses who described a massive triangular
craft larger than a football field, that hovered silently for
about forty five seconds over their entery control point before
shooting away at impossible speed. About a week later, another

(19:16):
patrol reported a light over the ocean behaving erradically. Believing
it might be an unannounced aircraft, they declared an emergency
and an armed response force responded. Before the forces could arrive,
the object descended and either landed or hovered on our
flight line, and then took off again at impossible speed.

(19:40):
The witnesses to this event were threatened and intimidated. Afterward,
they were told to keep quiet and think about what
they were reporting. After that, things did get quiet until
about two thousand and five, when another patrol reported a
massive triangular craft larger than a C one thirty silently

(20:03):
floating over the installation. He watched it for a few minutes.
It traveled west and disappeared into the night. And then
I had my own encounter again. In two thousand and five.
I was off duty, sitting in my backyard with two
other police officers when we noticed what first appeared to
be a satellite in orbit, but it wasn't acting like

(20:24):
a satellite. The light was strange. It was pulsing, and
then it started to maneuver. It dropped in elevation. At
times it would vanish from view and reappear in a
different location in the sky, and eventually it reappeared two
hundred feet over my house. It was a thirty foot
diameter sphere of light. My friends and I watched it

(20:45):
for a moment, and then it gently accelerated and traveled
up and disappeared into the stars. These events profoundly changed
my life and the lives of my friends. We stand
at a pivotal moment in history. The question is no
longer whether these events are real, but whether we have
the courage to face them. True leadership requires vision, a

(21:09):
willingness to confront the unknown with transparency and resolve. So
I ask the Congress to help we the people, enact
this vision. There are three goals. Fund independent research and
treat UAP study with the same seriousness as we would
any other scientific field. Two end secrecy and overclassification. Transparency

(21:32):
is the foundation of truth. Without it, witnesses like us
are dismissed. Three Protect the witnesses. Many stay silent out
of fear for their careers, reputations, and the safety of
their families. Protect them, and you will embolden others to
join this cause. These phenomenon challenge are deepest assumptions about reality, consciousness,

(21:58):
and our place in the universe. Exploring them can unlock
transformative breakthroughs in technology, biology, and human understanding. Let this
be the moment when America chooses courage over fear, transparency
over secrecy, and progress over stagnation. Let's show the world
that our nation leads not only through strength, but through

(22:21):
fearless pursuit of the truth.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
Thank you, Thank you, mister Newtelli. I now recognize Chief
Wiggins for his opening statement. Please press your button. Thank you.

Speaker 7 (22:44):
Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, ranking Member Procket, and members of
the task Force and the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Alexandro Wiggins. I'm
an active duty US Navy Operation Specialist, Chief, pityoficer, father
of three, and dedicated American, testifying today in my personal capacity.

(23:07):
The views I share are my own and I do
not represent the official positions of the Department of the
Navy or any subordinate organization. On the evening of February fifteenth,
twenty twenty three, at approximately nineteen fifteen PST, in the
Whiskey two nine to one warning area off the coast

(23:28):
of southern California, I was serving on board USS Jackson.
During that period, I moved between the Interior Communications Center
ICC one and the Bridge Wing, correlating the censor pitcher
with visual observations. Part of my routine responsibilities for surface
and air picture management. What I observed in what our

(23:52):
crew recorded was not consistent with conventional aircraft or drones
as they appear on our system. A self luminous tic
tax shaped object emerged from the ocean before linking up
with three other similar objects. The four then disappeared simultaneously

(24:13):
with a high synchronized near instantaneous acceleration. I observed no
sonic boom and no conventional propulsion signatures, no exhaust plume,
no control surface articulation on the Sapphire image system shortly
after the synchronized departure radar tracks dropped. These observations were

(24:37):
multisensor and recorded inside of ICC one with time location
overlay visible in our source frames that have been made
public by journalists. From my experience operating in this region
over many years, and consistent with our public characterized encounters,

(24:58):
unidentified objects reoccur in United States operation areas off southern California.
That fact alone does not tell us what they are,
but it does argue the systematic stigma free reporting and
for the preservation of sensor data so analysts can evaluate

(25:19):
safe and intelligence implications with rigor. I want to underscore
three points for the Task Force and the Committee Aviation
and Maritime Safety. When crews and watchstanders observe objects that
maneuver or accelerate in ways that does not match known profiles,

(25:41):
and do not then do so near our ships and aircraft,
that is first and foremost a safety issue. Standardized checklist
and training should ensure we capture the best possible sensor
data in real time, including IR settings, slant range estimates,
and bearing and range altitude snapshots, and immediate change of

(26:05):
chain of custody for any recordings. Reporting without stigma protection
without retribution, Sailors need to know that reporting UAP encounters
will not harm their careers. Congress can help by reinforcing
witness protection and by directing the relevant office to maintain

(26:27):
confidential destigmatized channels for service members who step forward with
data declassification and transparency where possible. The Task Force Declassification
mission is directly relevant here where operational security permits, releasing metadata,
preserved sensor excerpts or at least technical summaries would improve

(26:52):
public trust and accelerate outside scientific scrutiny that includes, when feasible,
the time GEO reference, IR frames and radar parameters needed
for independent analysis. To be clear, I am not here
to make claims beyond my lane. I'm here to provide
a first hand account of what I saw, what our

(27:15):
systems recorded, and why it matters for safety, for intelligence,
and public confidence. My request to you is practical, help
us capture, protect fairly, evaluate the evidence, and provide a
safe pathway for those in uniform to report it. In closing,

(27:37):
I want to thank the Committee and the Task Force
for holding this hearing and for the plit, and for
placing this discussion in a form where evidence can be
examined carefully and openly. I appreciate your attention and stand
ready to answer your questions.

Speaker 1 (27:51):
Thank you, Thank you.

Speaker 8 (27:53):
Chief.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
I now recognize mister Napper's opening statement.

Speaker 9 (28:04):
Good morning, chair Woman Luna, ranking member Miss Crockett, and
members of the Task Force and Dinatitis. I just knew
we were going to get you involved in this topic
at one point. Great to see you here. I'm George Knapp,
chief investigator reporter at KLASTV in Las Vegas. I began
my pursuit of this weird mystery way back in nineteen
eighty seven, and for thirty eight years I've always approached

(28:26):
this as a news story. It's not a matter of
faith or belief to me. It's a story, and it's
an important one. I'm proud to be here alongside these
witnesses today, men who have seen strange things and step
forward to tell the world about it. Whistleblowers and witnesses
who step up are routinely insulted, belittled, or worse. They

(28:49):
risk their reputations, their careers, their clearances, their livelihoods, and
sometimes much worse than that, even their freedom. I know
that one of the goals of the task force here
is to figure out ways to protect whistleblowers and witnesses,
and it's a tall order because so many of the
things that happened to witnesses like these are extra legal.

(29:09):
They're carried out by persons unknown, as mister Dave Grush,
sitting up at the top of the room knows all
too well, including events in recent days that have happened
to him. I want to share a couple of things
that I've learned along the way on this long journey,
and I submitted most of that in written form because
I estimate that my statement here today would take about
four and a half hours. So I'm going to try

(29:31):
to jump over and touch on the more important salient points.
I submitted the detailed written statement for the record, and
we'll go into a lot of that here. But you know,
the public has been told over and over since the
late forties, there's nothing to worry about here. These mysterious
craft seen by millions of people in the skies, in
the oceans over the land are not real. They're not

(29:54):
a threat. The witnesses are wrong, they're crackpots. Don't believe it.
That changed for me. What me hooked is the paper
trail documents that were squeezed out of the US government
after the FOIA Freedom of Information Act became the law
of the land, and those documents paint a much different
picture than what the public, the press, and Congress have

(30:14):
been told over many years. The documents from military and
intelligence personnel behind closed doors admit that quote, these things
are real, they're not fictitious. They can fly in formation,
they're evasive, and they outperform any aircraft known to exist,
including hours. The public, of course, as I said, has
been told something much different. Back in nineteen eighty nine,

(30:35):
I reported about a guy named Bob Lazar who claimed
that he worked at a facility dubbed S four out
in the Nevada Desert, very near to Area fifty one.
He said he was part of a reverse engineering program.
He said, there are alien craft that will be taken
apart to figure out how they operated out there. And
that's what was a pretty tall order. I had clearly
taken a dive into the deep end of the pool there.

(30:56):
But in the years since then, I've interviewed dozens of
other people, and I've detailed what their testimony has been
in the written statement. They include Senator Harry Reid, Senator
Howard Cannon, also of Nevada, a guy named Al O'Donnell
who was the first general manager of EG and G
in Nevada, which managed to eat Nevada Test Site which
blew up hundreds of nuclear weapons. There's a guy named

(31:17):
doctor James Lakatski who was a career scientist with a
defense intelligence agency, who was the guy who initiated a
program called ASAP Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, which is,
as far as we know, the largest acknowledged UFO program
ever funded by the US government, which put together an
amazing pile of information that members of this committee and

(31:41):
the world most of which they have never seen. The
DEA still hasn't released ninety five percent of what was
prepared by that program at a cost of millions and
millions of dollars. The one name I do want to
bring up in this section session, though, is Robert Bigelow.
So looking into the idea of crash retrievals and reverse engineering.

(32:02):
While AWSAPP that program was active, the diia's contractor, Robert
Bigelow of Las Vegas, made a bold attempt to acquire
physical proof of UFO crashes. It's been widely reported and
suspected that Lockheed Martin is one of the contractors, the
defense contractors that has held this stuff, stored it away
in secrecy, and tried to figure out how it works.

(32:26):
I have confirmed on the record that Robert Bigelow and
a trusted colleague from AFSAP met with and negotiated with
senior executives at Lockheed Martin and hammered out a deal
wherein Bigelow's company BASS would receive a quantity of unusual
material that had been stashed away and protected at a
facility in California. That material was not made here. I

(32:49):
want to move on now to the Russia files, because
that was going to be sort of the central impetus
of what I was going to talk to you about today.
Back in the early nineties, I got into Russia met
with a number of their defensive fishals, Ministry Defense, and
others who confirmed for me that Russia had been doing
the same thing that the United States had been doing,
that is, secretly studying UFOs while publicly saying something completely different.

(33:13):
The documents and interviews that I obtained and have now
shared with this task force show that the USSR launched
what is almost certainly the largest UFO UAP investigation in
the world. The first phase of that was an order
was sent out to the entire USSR military empire that
every unit you see anything strange in the sky, a

(33:34):
craft or something unusual, you had to gather all the evidence,
collect testimony from the witnesses, look for physical evidence, and
all of that information went into one program at the
Ministry Defense. Thousands and thousands of these reports came in.
A lot of them were first routed to the KGB,
but then back to another program that came after this

(33:56):
collection effort called Thread three. And Thread three was an
analysis program we have provided to the committee the documents
of what they were trying to do, and essentially they
were trying to build their own UFOs. They were using
the information from their observations and studies to try to
figure out that technology. The guy who was in charge
of that program, Colonel Boros Sokolaw, told me that their

(34:17):
goal was to basically develop technology that would be superior
to anything we had based on what they learned from UFOs.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
Mister Nap, just in the name of time, my understanding,
did you have anything you wanted to submit for Congress
to see in this committee?

Speaker 9 (34:32):
I have submitted those documents.

Speaker 1 (34:34):
There like to play any videos? Do you have a
video that you would like to play?

Speaker 9 (34:38):
I don't think it's for me to play. Yeah, Alexander's video, Okay,
you can play it. He could narrate it, Okay.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
In the name of showing that video to everyone on
the task, cose we'd like to play that video at
this time.

Speaker 10 (35:00):
H m hm.

Speaker 11 (35:05):
M Jazz surprised.

Speaker 12 (35:28):
That that ship took off earlier.

Speaker 1 (35:36):
If we can get rid of the audio real quick,
mister Wiggans and mister Napple'll get back to what that
video was in a moment. But we just want to
make sure that it was entered into the record as
well as all the documents. Those will be able to
be publicly found for everyone in the country to view
if we could. Mister Napple will continue on the line
of questioning, but I'm gonna move on to mister Borland's
opening state lines.

Speaker 10 (35:59):
Good morning, member of the task force in the Committee,
I would like to express my gratitude for being invited
to testify to the current task force created under the
People's Chamber in the American public. As an American citizen, veteran,
and intelligence community professional, it is an honor and a
privilege to serve under oath before you on behalf of
our country. I speak for myself in no former agency

(36:20):
or company I have been previously affiliated with. My name
is Dylan Borland, a former one N one geospatial intelligence
specialist for the United States Air Force and an active
duty and listic capacity from twenty ten to twenty thirteen.
I've also been employed with BAE Systems and Intrepid Solutions
as a senior analyst expert in analyzing video, radar and

(36:41):
advance electro optical imagery for official identification of aerial order
of battle, as well as Naval and Ground Order of Battle.
I'm a federal whistleblower, having testified to both the ICIG
and EROW with direct firsthand knowledge of and experience with
craft and technologies that are not ours and are reportedly
operated without congressional oversight. Because of my direct knowledge of

(37:04):
the reality of certain legacy UAP programs, my professional career
was deliberately obstructed, and I have endured sustained reprisals from
government agencies for over a decade. From twenty eleven to
twenty thirteen, I was stationed at Langley Air Force based Virginia,
conducting twenty four hour operations via Mandon non mandarial vehicles
for Special Operations Forces in the Global War on Terror.

(37:28):
During the summer of twenty twelve, my team was on
standby for weather and I returned to my barracks on base,
and at approximately zero one thirty I saw an approximately
one hundred foot equilateral triangle take off from near the
NASA hangar on the base. The craft interfere with my telephone,
did not have any sound, and the material it was
made of appeared fluid or dynamic. I was under this

(37:51):
triangular craft for a few minutes and then it rapidly
ascended to commercial jet level in seconds, displaying zero connected
disturbing sound or wind displacement. Some years after that experience,
I was further exposed to classified information from the UAP
Legacy Crash Retrieval Program through a sensitive position I held
within a special access program. During this time, intelligence officers

(38:12):
approached me and fear for their own careers, citing misconduct
within these programs and similar retaliation that I was already
enduring at this time. These issues include medical malpractice committed
by veterans affairs staff, denial of work I performed while
listening in the United States Air Force Forge to manipulated
employment documents, workplace harassment including colleagues being directed to not

(38:34):
speak with me, manipulation of my security clearance by certain agencies, blocking, delaying,
and ultimately removing my ability to be employed within the IC.
The retaliation I faced, and the retaliation against individuals I
know who worked in these programs is what convinced me
in March twenty twenty three to become a whistleblower. I
came forward out of concern for people's lives and to

(38:56):
ensure I did everything I could to let our elected
representatives know the truth about what is really happening in
the Executive Branch. At the end of March twenty twenty three,
I agreed to meet with ARROW following the suggestion of
other federal officials, believing it was what our nation required
of me. I had reservations with ARROW due to assessments
they were reporting publicly at the time as a misrepresentation

(39:18):
of the truth. Because of these concerns, I did not
share sources and methods information in order to protect current
and formal federal personal personnel who had firsthand exposure to
technologies of unknown origin. I did not want anyone to
face further retaliation beyond what they had already endured. An Unfortunately,
a staff member ended up getting in some trouble because

(39:40):
of that. After David Grush testified under OATH in the
summer of twenty twenty three and provided historic disclosure, I
was then asked to go to the ICIG and did
so in August twenty twenty three. It was very clear
early on during my intake interview, which was video recorded
under OATH, that the objective was to solely assess how
much I know, and not move forward with an investigation

(40:01):
with new information. I provided them. The aftermath of that
IG complane still troubles me to this day. Since my
ICIG can plane, I've been prevented from assuming prior employment
and can confirm I still blacklisted from certain agencies within
the intelligence community. In addition, multiple agencies attempted phishing attacks
to assess what I had divulged to the Inspector General,

(40:23):
including being asked to disclose details of my ICIG complaint
during a CI polygraph or a position unrelated to UFO
UAP matters as recently as November twenty twenty four. As
I sit before you today, I and many other whistleblowers
have no job prospects, no foreseeable professional future in a
nation every single one of us came forward to defend.

(40:44):
Numerous individuals have come forward in various ways to reveal
the truth of the UAP reality as patriots and defenders
of our nation, Yet many feel discarded, isolated, hopeless, separated
from the country they serve. Efforts to rectify this situation
for all whistleblowers have been difficult and troubling, And to
my fellow whistleblowers and officials who know this information, I

(41:06):
offer you my apology, something that I have never gotten,
and I'm giving it to you. I swore an oath
to the Constitution of the United States and note that
demand's truth and transparency for our democratic republic to function.
Each day these truths remain hidden from our citizens, humanity
drifts further from the principles our nation was founded to uphold.

(41:28):
Each day victims of crimes committed by agencies and companies.
Maintaining this secrecy or deny justice, is another day our
constitution is shredded. In twenty twenty three, patriots provided this
committee in the Executive Branch with undeniable proof of the
UAP reality, and I commend your continued commitment. The future
of humanity is one which we either travel to the

(41:49):
stars or aggress to the Stone age with this technology.
My career has been to deliver critical information to decision makers.
Your role, as elected by your representatives is to act
on it. The time to act is now.

Speaker 1 (42:04):
Thank you, mister Borland. Thank you for your service to

(42:26):
our country, and we appreciate you and we are sorry
about how you've been treated and we will make sure
that we try to rectify that situation. Thank you, mister Spielberger.
Please your opening.

Speaker 13 (42:36):
Remarks Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Crockett, and task Force members,
thank you for the opportunity to testify here today about
the importance of strengthening whistleblower protections, especially in the context
of national security. I am a senior policy counsel at
the Project Down Government Oversight, a non partisan, independent watchdog

(42:57):
organization that investigates and expose is waste, corruption, abuse of power,
and when the government fails to serve the public or
silences those who report wrongdoing. Whistleblowers are the first line
of defense to root out waste, fraud, abuse of power,
and corruption in our government. Congress relies on whistleblowers so
that it can fully exercise its oversight and legislative authorities.

(43:21):
It's understandable that former presidents of both parties have often
taken a hostile approach toward whistleblowers. Their disclosures can embarrass
the president and their political party, or even lead to.

Speaker 14 (43:32):
A national scandal.

Speaker 13 (43:34):
But whistleblowers continue to play a vital role during both
democratic and Republican administrations. They help Congress and the public
identify and understand what government corruption looks like. Their disclosures
fuel investigations and allow us to address wrongdoing and hold
those responsible to account. That's why historically there's been a

(43:55):
strong bipartisan consensus in Congress to support and protect whistles.
Doing so protects the country and ensures our government is
more responsive and accountable to the people. National security whistle
blowing in particular is a tradition going back to the
founding of our country, and over time, national security whistleblowers

(44:16):
and their disclosures have impacted some of the most fundamental
issues and questions about how we wish to be governed
and how our government can better serve its people. From
the role the US plays around the world, to holding
powerful actors accountable, government ethics and transparency, human rights and
civil liberties, executive branch authority, First Amendment, freedoms of speech

(44:38):
and dissent, freedom of the press, and the public's interest
and right to know. Despite this invaluable public service, blowing
the whistle comes at great personal risk. Whistleblowers risk losing
their jobs, careers, livelihoods, and reputations. They can face retaliatory investigations, lawsuits,
and even serious criminal charges. And they can endure deep mental, emotional,

(45:03):
and psychological harm. All of that risk to speak the
truth to ensure that agencies fulfill their core missions and
that they serve the best interests of the people. Those
who retaliate against whistleblowers don't just violate their legal rights,
they inflict real harm on our government and betray the
public's trust. Targeting whistleblowers instead of the corruption they expose

(45:26):
wastes agency resources and further allows that corruption.

Speaker 14 (45:30):
To continue unaddressed.

Speaker 13 (45:32):
It can instill a chilling effect across an agency, fostering
a climate of fear and distrust, quieting dissent and try speech,
and deterring potential whistleblowers from coming forward in the future.
Whistleblowers are often some of the most dedicated and principled
public servants we have because of their willingness to put

(45:53):
themselves on the line to do what's right, and Congress
has historically supported them, again on a bipartisan basis, But unfortunately,
whistleblowing has increasingly become more politicized, with support for whistleblowers
often hinging on which party is in power and which
party is politically inconvenienced by the misconduct being exposed. But

(46:15):
to be clear, targeting whistleblowers individually risks undermining whistleblowing period.
Pogo advises members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle to focus on the evidence, not the individual.

Speaker 14 (46:29):
We will always need whistleblowers to achieve.

Speaker 13 (46:31):
The government that best serves its people, because when people
of conscience, integrity, and good character refuse to speak up
out of fear, complacency, or self preservation and leave corruption
to fester behind closed doors, that is probably the most
dangerous risk of all. If we are serious about increasing
government transparency and restoring the public's trust, we need public

(46:55):
servants committed to the truth. Whistleblowers need safe and effective
channels to make lawful disclosures. They need stronger protections against retaliation,
and when they do face retaliation, they need a fair
shot to be made.

Speaker 14 (47:08):
Whole.

Speaker 13 (47:09):
Congress has made strides to pass whistleblower legislation, and these
laws need to be updated and expanded so that whistleblowers
truly receive the protections they need, retaliators are held accountable,
and we can achieve the type of government that people deserve.
We strongly urge Congress to continue its historic tradition of
championing the rights and protections of all whistleblowers. Thank you,

(47:33):
again for the opportunity to testify here this morning. Pogo
is committed to working with you and the Oversight Committee
to address these critical issues. I look forward to any questions.

Speaker 1 (47:42):
Thank you, sir very much. Additionally, without objection, the Additionally,
without objection, the following members are waved onto the task
Force for the purpose of questioning witnesses at today's hearing,
Representative Perry of Pennsylvania and Representative Gothman of Wisconsin. Sorry

(48:04):
own a Representative bigs from Arizon already got you, but yeah,
we're good with out objections. So ordered, I now recognize
myself for five minutes of questioning. Also as my friend
mister Mosquwitz might have to go, would you like to
go now? Okay, all right, mister Borland. In your testimony,

(48:24):
you describe witnessing large Trangler craft while station at Langley
Air Force Base in twenty twelve. Can you explain what
you observed in terms of size, behavior and why you're
confident it was not conventional technology?

Speaker 10 (48:36):
Great question, ma'am. So on barracks on the base. I
lived in the barracks. There was a little smoke hit outside.
I was there on the telephone, and what came across
to the flight line, and I see a white light
pop up and stop about one hundred feet in the air.
I thought it was a weather balloon. I've seen tests
from there before a weeknight. You know, normal thing, not surprising.

(48:59):
I actually finished my cigarette and I began walking up
towards the flight line. There is a track, and because
I was on three months of night work, I began
I would walk the track of night when we were
weather down. And as I began walking towards the light,
towards the flight line and the track, the light then
flies across the base, across the flight line, and as

(49:19):
it flies to me, a triangle manifests around the light.
I can't tell you if it's active camouflage. I can't
tell you if it appeared around the light, but I
can tell you that it was a white light and
then it was a triangle. It stopped about one hundred
feet in front of me and approximately one hundred feet
above me. My telephone got extremely hot, completely froze dead.

(49:43):
I remember how thick it was. It was between one
to two story stick equilateral triangle. I could never see
the top of it, and the edges were ninety ninety
degrees there were four lights in total, one light on
each corner and a larger light in the center two
to three times the size of the corner lights. But

(50:03):
what was really odd was the outside. The best way
to describe it is like looking at a James Webb
telescope picture where you have the colors and then the
black background. So the craft itself was this black metallic
flight paint, but on top of the craft was this
gold lava plasma, some tape of fluid going over and

(50:26):
around the craft. I'm under this for about two to
three minutes, and then the center light flashes two to
three times no sound, immediately shoots up to commercial jet
level minimum in my opinion, and I immediately feel static
electricity all over my body, and then I smell the
smell of after a thunderstorm or lightning storm, that really

(50:48):
strong summer thunderstorm smell gets up to flight level. I'm
trying to get my phone reset and I can only
see the center light at this point. If I didn't
actually see it take off, I would I thought it
was a star. And then it hovers up there and
it begins to slowly movedu east out over the Atlantic Ocean.
I finally got my phone reset. The entire thing was

(51:10):
about from the time I saw the light pop up
near the hangar until it took off out over the
ocean was about fifteen minutes.

Speaker 1 (51:18):
And following up to that question, after you disclose this
information to the intelligence community, inspector general your subject to
phishing attempts and job blacklisting. How widespread do you think
this is across the intelligence community for those who raise
concerns regarding UP programs.

Speaker 10 (51:33):
It's a difficult question to answer. I think prior to
David Grush and people beginning this process of bringing people
into awareness of the reality of these programs and certain
things people have witnessed, probably extremely widespread. I think today
there's still an issue, but because people are able to

(51:54):
come before you and people are speaking out, I think
it has been somewhat less I would hope though, that
people would because if this goes back into closed doors,
this is going to get really ugly.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
What type of behavior have you witnessed from former AERO
director Sean Kylpatrick as well as his staff and relate
to this information you provided to them. Did they ever
try to classify this information as non human technology?

Speaker 10 (52:20):
Good question. The problem with this is that I know
what I experienced firsthand. I know other things. I think
the staff at ERA that I met with in March
of twenty twenty three, I think they were good people
doing the job they were told to do. I did
not meet with Kirkpatrick. He was either not president or
did not want to meet me that day. However, they

(52:42):
did classify information about the reality of this subject, and
it was very concerning because in my era MFR they
had actually referenced a former staff member that was the
one who told me to go there, and they probably
shouldn't have done that.

Speaker 1 (53:03):
And real quick before my time is up, and we
might go to a second runt of question, just so
you're all aware, how important, given everything that you've seen
in experience is the UAP Disclosure Act of twenty twenty
five and restoring both public accountability and trust I.

Speaker 10 (53:17):
Think very important. I would hope though that the seven
year window could be shrunk my opinion, but very important.
The truth needs to be known.

Speaker 1 (53:27):
Thank you very much. I now recognize Jared Mosquet of Florida.

Speaker 15 (53:33):
Thank you, Madame chairwoman. Thank you for allowing me to
wave on to the committee. I remember, you know, the
last committee when we had a bunch of former military
personnel folks that either served on bases, were pilots, or
were in different programs experiencing knowledge, it made me recognize

(53:56):
that the narrative has changed. Right, it's politically convenient for
the government if you all weren't military folks and suits.
It would be much better if you pulled up and
win the bags and we're wearing hats and so the
picture of this, because that's important for the American people

(54:16):
on how you tell a story, what the message looks like,
and who the messenger is. So this is now the
second or third committee where we have former military folks
with impeccable records, with information and knowledge, and it's definitely
clear on a bipartisan basis that we have to protect
our whistleblowers.

Speaker 12 (54:35):
It's no doubt.

Speaker 15 (54:37):
And in a day in which it's really hard to
tell what's true or not from a political standpoint, and
so I don't really know what is true. I don't
know on this subject, but I do know when we're
being lied to, and we are definitely being lied to.
There's just no doubt about that. Mister Wiggins. I want

(54:58):
to talk to you. I find your background and testimony compelling.

Speaker 12 (55:03):
When you first saw.

Speaker 15 (55:06):
What you were looking at? What you were looking at,
what were your first thoughts.

Speaker 7 (55:13):
My first thoughts were, I think everything that I was
told and taught as a kid and a growing, growing
adult no longer uh, you know, was applicable. If I'm
able to see something that I thought defies gravity in
such a way, then what else could be possible?

Speaker 14 (55:30):
That was my first thoughts.

Speaker 15 (55:31):
So did you did you think what you were looking
at was a weapons program that you were unaware of,
or did you think what you were looking at was
obviously some extraterrest serial piece of technology.

Speaker 7 (55:44):
I didn't. Neither one of those crossed my mind. It
was just, how about now, what do you think it is?

Speaker 14 (55:50):
Now?

Speaker 7 (55:52):
I'm not the expert I think it. I want to
be as skeptical as everyone else and just hope to
know than from.

Speaker 15 (56:00):
Anyone in the US government tell you what you were
looking at to try to dissuade you from what you
thought it was.

Speaker 9 (56:06):
No.

Speaker 15 (56:06):
So, no one was like, oh, you know there was
some anomaly with the technology.

Speaker 10 (56:10):
No one from the government did that.

Speaker 9 (56:12):
No one.

Speaker 15 (56:14):
How do you think you were treated when you reported
this information or have talked about you know, the tic
TAC video is well.

Speaker 9 (56:21):
Out there, it's well reported.

Speaker 14 (56:22):
How were you treated.

Speaker 7 (56:25):
I've I've had no pushback at all. I have haven't
had anyone reach out to me or try to, you know,
dissuade me in either direction militarily speaking. So I was
treated fair, and I appreciate the Navy itself with assisting
me with coming here to being able to testify.

Speaker 12 (56:44):
That's good.

Speaker 15 (56:44):
So what do you think the American people should take
away from watching your video?

Speaker 1 (56:48):
Right?

Speaker 15 (56:49):
Because when we watch it, obviously, right, we've never seen
anything like that. It defies what we know to be
technologically possible. What are we supposed to think someone's lying
about something, someone's hiding something? Right, that's not normal what
you looked at.

Speaker 7 (57:05):
I think what the American people should think when seeing
that video, along with others before me, is that there
is something out there and we should know as the
people what it.

Speaker 15 (57:17):
Is, right, and so let's eliminate possibilities. So they didn't
come to you and say there was a technological error
with what you were looking at, so we put that aside.

Speaker 10 (57:24):
Right, they didn't say it was broken.

Speaker 15 (57:26):
So we look at that and we see something, So
it's either a weapons program being reverse engineered by our
governments or other governments, or it's nobody's government and it's
not from here, those are it? You agree with that assessment,
I agree one of the other mister Borland, when you
first experienced what you were looking at and you what.

Speaker 14 (57:51):
Did you do next?

Speaker 15 (57:52):
Like, what was your next step after it had passed
and you were done?

Speaker 10 (57:58):
I actually kind of laughed myself and said, Okay, so
this exists as well. Worked in enough programs, been exposed
to enough that I was like, okay, so this is
a real thing. I went back, watched the track, talked
with a couple of my friends about it. I did
talk with some of my co workers. One in particular,
which I thought was a joke and it definitely wasn't,

(58:19):
was like, you probably should never say this anybody. Uh,
And then what happened to me happened?

Speaker 15 (58:25):
So what about you, mister? How do you pronounce your lasson?
And sorry, I know I'm running out of time, Madam, chairman, chairwoman.
So obviously your incident happened well before we could record
things on cell phones and things of that nature. Right,

(58:47):
how do you what did you do when you first
experience because what you saw right. You saw it happen
like right out of your base. Correct, So tell me
what you did after you saw that? What was like
your next and I want to hear how what your
experience was.

Speaker 6 (59:02):
My next move. I went into my house after it left.
I made sure no one had been abducted, and I
picked up the landline. I called the Security Forces command center.
I reported it. I requested that they give me a
call back and make notifications up the chain of command.
I got a call back in about fifteen minutes. They

(59:24):
reported that the weather station reported no balloons or aircraft,
nothing on radar, no aircraft inbound or outbound. So I
got that notification, and then within the following day or two,
me and the other witnesses wrote statements we prepared to report,
and then we filed all that information.

Speaker 15 (59:43):
Madam sure, and thank you for your indulgence in my questioning,
and thank you for continuing to lead on this subject.
What do you and your friends think about it today?
You all have talked about it, I mean, so what
do you think about your experience as a collective group.

Speaker 10 (59:59):
That'll be my last question.

Speaker 6 (01:00:00):
I mean, we we've been talking about this for twenty years.
We don't know what we saw. What we saw changed
our lives and the way we think about everything. It
was incredibly profound. The object I saw, I don't even
know if it was an object.

Speaker 9 (01:00:18):
It was a it was a light.

Speaker 6 (01:00:19):
There was an orb It didn't look like a craft,
but it did look solid.

Speaker 10 (01:00:24):
And that's what we talk about.

Speaker 6 (01:00:26):
We noticed the object, and this was a pattern across
all the encounters. Someone would see a light, they would
pay attention to the light that and then the object
response it performs for you, and then they come down
and they investigate you. So it's almost like they're curious.
So that's the thing we primarily talk about. You know,

(01:00:49):
why did it come after we noticed it? Maybe it
noticed us after we noticed it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
Wellized Representative Macee for five minutes.

Speaker 8 (01:01:03):
Thank you, Madam Charon.

Speaker 16 (01:01:04):
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
here today. Uh, mister Borland, I like to start with
you and ask a few questions.

Speaker 8 (01:01:12):
Were there any other witnesses when you.

Speaker 16 (01:01:14):
Saw the equalateral triangle? Were there other witnesses that saw
the same thing?

Speaker 10 (01:01:17):
Not to my knowledge, ma'am, at that point, the only
people that would be awake is thus those of us
that were doing operations for the g WATT and then
security forces, so not to my knowledge.

Speaker 16 (01:01:27):
And do you think that, in your opinion that the
equal Adul triangle was the US government's technology.

Speaker 10 (01:01:36):
I did once upon a time. But knowing what I
know now, I'll have to answer that question. And a
skiff probably I.

Speaker 16 (01:01:43):
Was good one of my ask questions you teased us.
So knowing what you know now means what.

Speaker 10 (01:01:48):
I know enough to know that. If you want to
answer to that question, go to Era. They had the answer.

Speaker 8 (01:01:54):
Do you think it was a foreign government?

Speaker 10 (01:01:56):
I do not know.

Speaker 8 (01:01:59):
And Aero is to be disclosing.

Speaker 16 (01:02:01):
The last time I was going to skip with arrow,
they said they were going to be doing disclosures.

Speaker 8 (01:02:06):
Had they been doing much of that?

Speaker 10 (01:02:09):
I don't have an answer to you. For you, I
don't know. I know what Aero reports publicly, and I
know what I've been through.

Speaker 16 (01:02:15):
Yeah, and some of this stuff can be I think debunked.

Speaker 10 (01:02:20):
Right.

Speaker 16 (01:02:20):
There are sometimes there are weather balloons that look kind
of a little funky, or drones or whatever deping on
the angle direction speed, et cetera.

Speaker 8 (01:02:29):
Are you scared for your safety?

Speaker 10 (01:02:33):
That's a complicated question. So being here today, if I
say the wrong word. Technically, I can be charged with espionage.
Espionage is a death penalty. Whistle blowers have faced it.
John Karaoku, for example, I am not scared for my
physical safety in the sense of an agency or company
coming to kill me. But I have no job. My

(01:02:55):
career has been tarnished. You know, I'm unemployed, living of
unemployment for the next three four weeks until that's gone.
So it's a complicated question.

Speaker 16 (01:03:06):
Have there been stories leaked about your life to try
to discredit you in the public eye.

Speaker 10 (01:03:11):
As of now, I don't know that. To mister, I
am aware, Yes, ma'am.

Speaker 16 (01:03:16):
They leaked his medical private medical information, horrific things.

Speaker 10 (01:03:20):
It is.

Speaker 16 (01:03:22):
Okay you said in your testimony earlier with the chairwoman,
you know other things.

Speaker 8 (01:03:28):
I guess it has to be mentioned in a skiff.

Speaker 10 (01:03:31):
It would other things. It would pending. I'm even legally
allowed to speak on and the people in the room
are even legally allowed to hear it.

Speaker 16 (01:03:38):
And is that would we need to know like the
the compartmentalized word, like what the code word is, or
the name of the program, the special access program, or
even hear it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:47):
You have to know the word, right, I.

Speaker 10 (01:03:49):
Would see the name of it, right, I would suggest
that to be asked to d and I dabbered and
work with her for that because I can't give you
the answer on what is the requires.

Speaker 8 (01:03:59):
This is what the US government does, right. They compartmentalize
the information.

Speaker 16 (01:04:01):
At least certain people know the name of the program,
and if you don't know it, you can't get the information.

Speaker 8 (01:04:06):
If you don't have the name, you don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
What asked for.

Speaker 16 (01:04:08):
Even when we're reviewing the budget, we go into a skiff.
We look at DoD budget and the budget of like
black box programs, and we don't know what we're looking
at because we don't know what these programs are. Is
it a way for the government to hide from Congress
what's really going on, where the money's going.

Speaker 10 (01:04:23):
In my opinion, absolutely yes.

Speaker 8 (01:04:26):
You mentioned too in your testimony earlier that quote.

Speaker 16 (01:04:29):
You went to speak with the government and they said
they said somebody's name, a colleague name, and you said
they shouldn't have mentioned that staff versus name.

Speaker 8 (01:04:37):
What does that mean?

Speaker 10 (01:04:38):
A Senate staffer who is the one who helped me
get to Errow recommended me I go there. Gave me
the email and the phone number because I could not
find that information at all at the time. In fact,
I believe you guys have talked about how Aero didn't
even have a website for quite a period of time.

Speaker 16 (01:04:52):
We were told they were going to do disclosures, both
what they've debunked, because some of it can be debunked,
and then what they haven't been able to debunk, and
to my knowledge, you know, hasn't been a thing. I
only have one minute left, so mister Nap, we were
definitely going to watch every documentary you guys have done.
You and Jeremy have done a terrific job. It's I
usually have more questions than I have answers. I think
we all do, and you guys are doing a trific

(01:05:12):
job to bring information to the public. Do you think
that any of this is a syop by the US government?

Speaker 9 (01:05:19):
Entirely possible. I mean, our government and other governments have
admitted that they've tried to use UFOs to cover secret projects,
but I think they also do some reverse engineering of
those claims. So years after people start seeing UFOs over
Area fifty one, for example, they come up with the story,
oh yeah, that was we planted that story. So I

(01:05:41):
read in a major newspaper just a couple of weeks ago,
they planted this story and Air Force colonel went out
into the desert, went to a bar at Rachel and
gave them some fake UFO photos and that's how the
whole story about Area fifty one started, which is preposterous.

Speaker 16 (01:05:56):
Yeah, and I didn't even get to the crash retrieval
program stuff yet, Miss chairwoman.

Speaker 8 (01:06:01):
There's just so much. Okay, thank you so much for
your time today. Wish we had more time. Thank you,
madam sure.

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
I now recognize missus Crockett for five minutes.

Speaker 2 (01:06:17):
Thank you so much, Madam chair and thank you so
much to each of the witnesses that have come before
us today. The federal government has had a long standing
over classification issue in general. We all know that from
the assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X to the Cointail
pro and torture programs to now UAPs, the federal government

(01:06:41):
has kept the American public in the dark about issues
of immense public interest. The federal government has routinely made
excuses for failing to provide transparency to the public, the
most common of which is national security concerns. Mister Spielberger,
can you provide an example of when national security was
inappropriately used as a pretext for classification.

Speaker 13 (01:07:06):
Congresswoman, Probably one of the most infamous examples of that
is the nine to eleven Commission that found that overclassification
was a key factor in the failure to adequately prevent
the attacks of that day.

Speaker 2 (01:07:22):
In addition to that, what lessons from these oversight failures
should guide Congress in approaching UAP oversight?

Speaker 13 (01:07:32):
Generally speaking, we would advise this Congress to ensure that
agencies adopt general policy in favor of disclosure instead of
a knee jerk needing to overclassify information and documents. We
should ensure that when information is classified or deemed sensitive,

(01:07:55):
it's only for legitimate national security and privacy concerns. And
we would recommend adding additional factors to the considerations of
cost value, and certainly to the extent that it's critical
for the public interest and the public's right to know,
especially when we are talking about these very serious national

(01:08:19):
security concerns and implications.

Speaker 2 (01:08:21):
Can you speak to how whistleblowers have historically helped Congress
uncover the truth in other areas and how that might
apply here.

Speaker 13 (01:08:33):
Absolutely so, Again, Congress has always relied on whistleblowers coming
forward and making disclosures in a number of different issues
across different agencies, anything from national security to airline safety,
railway safety, environmental concerns, workplace health and safety, a lot

(01:08:56):
of issues coming out of the COVID pandemic, for example.
Whistleblowers have come forward with important disclosures on just about
any critical issue affecting our government and affecting the American people,
all of which have grave implications for the rights and
protections that we have and how we live our lives

(01:09:18):
in communities across the country.

Speaker 2 (01:09:21):
How important is it for whistleblowers to have strong protections
when it comes to UAP related disclosures or disclosures of
other topics of excessive government secrecy.

Speaker 14 (01:09:33):
It's absolutely vital.

Speaker 13 (01:09:34):
This has been one of the disappointing failures of doing
this work of advocating for stronger whistleblower protections. We recognize
the invaluable public service that brave whistleblowers play in coming
forward again taking all of these risks that we've heard about,

(01:09:55):
just to speak the truth, to get important information out
in the public consciousness. But they can only do so
when we have safe and secure channels for reporting when
there is trust in the independence of agency watchdogs like
Inspectors General, like the Office of Special Counsel, like the

(01:10:16):
Merit Systems Protection Board, that play critical roles in investigating
whistleblower disclosures and enforcing the protections of whistleblowers. All of
that is essential to allow whistleblowers to keep coming forward
and playing these incredibly important public roles.

Speaker 1 (01:10:36):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
Let me just say this, people look at Congress, especially now,
and they see a lack of unity. They don't see
the ability for us to come together really on much
of anything. I will say that I do applaud the
chairwoman and the work of this committee because for once
I feel like we are focusing on governing, which should

(01:10:59):
be about transparency. The reality is that we cause more
harm than good when we allow a lack of transparency
to fester. It allows for all types of conspiracy theories
instead of us actually making the investments that we need
to make to get the information and actually provide it
to the American people. The reason that I wanted to

(01:11:22):
focus on making sure that we answer some questions, specifically
around the protections of those that are willing to come forward,
is because the only way that we can make this
government actually work for all of us is if no
matter where you are in this federal government, you feel
as if you are safe when you come forward with
information of any issue. And so I do want to

(01:11:47):
thank you for all of your stories. The reality is
that we only get five minutes, and the vast majority
of everything that you have to say cannot be contextualized
within five minutes. But I know that my colleagues are
going to get to kind of pulling some more of
that out. But again, I really just want to thank
you for your courage in this moment, and thank you

(01:12:08):
for your service to our country.

Speaker 1 (01:12:17):
I now recognize mister Burchett from Tennessee for five minutes.

Speaker 17 (01:12:21):
Thank you, Chair Lady, and thank you Ranking Member Crockett.
I see a lot of friends out there, and I
see a couple of enemies, so I'll remember that.

Speaker 14 (01:12:34):
But it's a pleasure being here.

Speaker 17 (01:12:35):
I want to remind people too, this thing is an
ongoing deal. We're not going to get this overnight. We've
been fighting this battle, some of y'all for thirty years
and maybe longer. I hope we just keep focused on
what we're trying to get to as total disclosure. We
get a little wrapped up in a lot of things,
but the government has something and they need to turn

(01:12:59):
it over to us. We pay their dad gum salary.
You pay our salary, and you ought to get more
out of us than you do. And that's what disgusts
me about this whole thing. I think they're just trying
to run the clock out on us. Really, they'll poke
us a little, they'll make jokes to us and try
to pull us off off the target. But I think
we know where we're at, and that's why they're firing

(01:13:21):
at us, because we are over the target. My first
question is, mister Knapp, I recently introduced the UAP whistle
Blower Protection Act to help provide whistle blower protection to
federal personnel for just closing the use of federal taxpayer
funds to investigate UFOs.

Speaker 14 (01:13:39):
I still don't want to.

Speaker 17 (01:13:40):
Say, UAPs, how can Congress further increase whistle blower protections.

Speaker 9 (01:13:49):
I think you've got to unleash the dogs and go
track down the money and where it goes. Because a
lot of this stuff has been moved out of government,
as you know, Burchet, It's been given to private contracts
who stashed it away. They've had it for so long
that there's nobody left inside government or very few who
know where it is.

Speaker 14 (01:14:07):
And they do that to keep us from FOYA. Correct.

Speaker 9 (01:14:09):
Yeah, it's going to keep it from FOYA. And I
think that the contractors had this stuff for a very
a very long time, set their own standards about who
is allowed to know what, and it's a very small
group that ever cracks that. I think Representative Luna has
been looking at the use of classifications to hide things.
I'm not sure that even this committee getting security clearances

(01:14:34):
that should allow you to see this stuff would allow
you to follow where it really goes.

Speaker 17 (01:14:38):
I worry about the people that are looking at it
don't even know what they're looking at. I mean, it's
gone through so many I mean since Roswell, for instance.
I mean, you think there's nobody even allow that was
around any of that stuff.

Speaker 9 (01:14:50):
So I don't think they've made much progress. From the
people that I've talked to, I don't think they've made
much progress. And learning that technology might have made some
but you wonder, you know the implication tiktac oh, Yeah,
that's ours with Fleu over Washington, d c and fifty two.
Is that ours too? What are you going to break
that out? You guys authorized tens of billions, hundreds of
billions of dollars on weapons systems that can't do half

(01:15:12):
of what we've seen you if UFOs do so, when
did they break this out? If it's really a classified
project could change the world. I don't think they've made
much progress, and I think they've been lying to us
and you and the rest of the world and they're
still doing it.

Speaker 14 (01:15:27):
Yes, sir, I agree with you.

Speaker 17 (01:15:29):
How did you manage to obtain the classified Russian uIP
documents and how did you get them back in the
United States?

Speaker 9 (01:15:36):
Well, I met this Russian physicist who was in the
United States.

Speaker 17 (01:15:40):
Now I want to clarify that I can't even take
a thing of honey home on my airplane when I
fly back to Tennessee. So I did something pretty dumb,
and I'm bitter about it, but go ahead.

Speaker 9 (01:15:51):
I did something kind of dumb. I met with these
officials who you know during that time period, glasgnows Perastroika,
the Russians were trying to open up to the world,
and I saw it as window of opportunity and it
was and We were able to talk these folks into
providing us information that otherwise we would never have seen.
Some of that was classified. Found out that they only

(01:16:11):
stamped the top pages of these documents that were classified.
So I just removed them. I removed those pages and
I carried them out, And if they'd caught me, I'd
be in a gulag.

Speaker 14 (01:16:20):
Still.

Speaker 17 (01:16:20):
Yeah, we'd be saying what happened to George nat what
happened to the Russians that came forward to you in
nineteen ninety three, And were there any repercussions for them?

Speaker 9 (01:16:31):
Well, there were the first thing that happened when I
talked about this. After getting back and going through the
files and things and sifting through it, the Russian physicists
who had helped us being introduced all these people wrote
back and said there was a huge eruption that there
was the real right, far autocratic forces that wanted a

(01:16:54):
return of the USSR had really go after these guys.
They described them as traders. Nikola Kapranoff, the physicist friend
of mine, said, look, if this has happened five years earlier,
we would be in prison. If it had happened ten
years earlier, we would have been shot. Luckily, at that
point Putin was not in power, But none of those
people that we talked to on that trip in nineteen

(01:17:15):
ninety three would ever talk to me again. I went
back in nineteen ninety six, and it was like I
had the plague. I spoke to different people, but they
were scared, and eventually the story was spun where the
Ministry Defense officials who gave us this information were described
as ufologists who said there was nothing really significant to
these files. They didn't really find anything a big deal.

(01:17:38):
And I can tell you you'll see those files that
I shared with you. They did find stuff. There was
an incident in October nineteen eighty two over an ICBM
base where UFOs popped up. Was observed. Over this base
where the missiles are pointed at US, the United States.
These UFOs perform incredible maneuvers. They split apart, they fused
back together. They'd appear and disappear, and right at the

(01:18:00):
end of this four hour period, the launch control codes
for the icvms lit up. Something entered the correct codes.
The missiles were fired up and ready to launch, and
they could not shut it down. The Russian officers were panicking.
The UFOs go, they disappeared, the launch control system goes
back to normal. Colonel Sokolov and his team came in,

(01:18:20):
took the thing apart. Could not figure out what it was.
It wasn't a power surge or EMPs or some of
the ballooney excuses that our country has given for similar
events involving our nuclear missiles. They thought it was a
message from wherever the UFOs were from. And that's a
chilling thing. I mean that was we were a couple
of seconds away from World War three starting and the
UFOs were responsible for it.

Speaker 17 (01:18:41):
All right, I'm out of time, but real quick, who
are the contractors that had this material corporation?

Speaker 9 (01:18:47):
Well, one of them is Lockheed, And I'll tell you.
I mean, you know, I'm not saying Lockheed's the bad guys.
They're doing what they were asked to do. They have
lied about this because that they're what they're supposed to do.
But Lockheed would be one. There's a list I can
give you, Congressman, some of the biglines, the usual suspects.

Speaker 17 (01:19:02):
Okay, thank you you're back, chair lady. Sorry for going over, George, I.

Speaker 1 (01:19:10):
Now recognized miss Bobert for five minutes.

Speaker 18 (01:19:13):
Thank you, Madam Chair Chief Wiggins, based on your training
and operational experience, could the behavior that you witnessed a
trans medium object vanishing without a sound be explained by
any known technology that we possess or other governments possessed.

Speaker 12 (01:19:31):
It cannot.

Speaker 18 (01:19:33):
And has any government agency debriefed you or any of
your shipmates regarding the e O I, R and radar
confirmed u AP encounter aboard USS Jackson.

Speaker 19 (01:19:46):
No one.

Speaker 18 (01:19:48):
What was that encounter like when you brought that up?
If you want to briefly summarize that, when when you
brought that to their attention and then you were not
provided any follow up? Who was told and what how
did you feel when there was no contact back to you.

Speaker 7 (01:20:07):
As as far as the actual incident happening or at
the reporting level, Uh, it was within the event happening.
My duties are to report to the tactical action officer
on watch while we're standing watched. So, uh, tactical action
officer was there. I made my report. I've not had

(01:20:27):
any discussion outside of that day. There's been no communication
to me or requests from me, uh to you know,
within side of the military. But speaking of that actual
incident itself, once the report was made to the tactical
Action officer. Uh, that's when I made the decision to

(01:20:51):
ask the individual watchstandard that was controlling Sapphire to be
able to slew into the location. And that's what you
say seeing the video itself is when the watchstanderd is
slewing in and kind of showing us what we're looking at.
But outside of that, that's as far as the reporting

(01:21:12):
went that I know of.

Speaker 1 (01:21:14):
Thank you, Chief. Just for the sake of time, mister A.

Speaker 18 (01:21:17):
Nussatelli, has Row, the Air Force or the FBI ever
followed up with you personally about the Red Square event.

Speaker 6 (01:21:24):
I did have follow up by Arrow. Nothing with the
Air Force. The Arrow Office updated me. I think at
least two times. They let me know that they were
unable to locate any records, that the records have been
destroyed by the Air Force. The Air Force is destroying
all their police records every three years on a schedule.

Speaker 18 (01:21:47):
So you were informed that these documents were destroyed.

Speaker 6 (01:21:50):
Well, I have a Freedom of Information Act from the
Air Force to states clearly that they destroy all police
records on a three year schedule.

Speaker 18 (01:21:58):
Okay, they were sitting on documentation destroyed it refused to
question any of the lead investigators anything leading into this investigation.

Speaker 6 (01:22:13):
Yeah, basically they destroyed all the police records, so you
couldn't even like call the Air Force and asked them
if there was a vehicle accident in that timeframe. So
that's a big problem. We're losing data in real time,
so we'll never be able to go back in tryin.

Speaker 18 (01:22:29):
Our federal government has a history of destroying records. Thank you,
Thank you very much, mister news to tell you, doctor Borlan,
as a geospatial intelligence officer, have you seen classified data
indicating UAPs operate in restricted US airspace and has that
information been withheld from Congress?

Speaker 10 (01:22:50):
I have not in US airspace that is intelligence oversight,
so I did not have domestic authorities.

Speaker 18 (01:22:57):
After filing your inspector General complet over retaliation inside the
Pentagon's UAP office, did you receive any kind of protection
or just more retaliation.

Speaker 10 (01:23:08):
Within the IG or the or aero man either arrow
They went after the staff member and classified everything, shut
that down the IG. To this day, I don't even
know if my complaint's active. I know my attorney that
represented me was very, very very concerned, and the best
of my understanding, I was determined credible, not urgent.

Speaker 18 (01:23:31):
And do you think that that experience would suggest that
the internal UAP investigations may may be compromised.

Speaker 14 (01:23:42):
Possibly.

Speaker 10 (01:23:43):
I mean, it's so hard because this goes back to
people doing the job they're told to do, and very
few people are going to want to give up their careers,
twenty thirty year pension, give up get rid of their
kids' healthcare, get rid of their house. It's it's possible.

Speaker 18 (01:23:58):
Yes, yes, thank you very much, Chuck Orland, mister Spielberger.
Do national security whistleblowers currently have any external appeals processes
to challenge retaliation or are they just stuck relying on
the same agencies that they're accusing.

Speaker 13 (01:24:16):
Congress Woman, this is one of the biggest concerns that
we at POGO have basically around the independence of investigations
and accountability for retaliation. Basically, yes, national security whistleblowers have
to rely on internal administrative processes that go through agency
inspector generals. There are some differentiations, but the bottom line

(01:24:41):
is that they are forced to rely on protection from
the same agencies and people who they are alleging retaliated
against them.

Speaker 18 (01:24:50):
Yes, well, I thank you all for your bravery. We
are out of time here. Thank you so much for
coming forward, and we will do everything that we can
to ensure that you are all protected. Thank you for
trying to truth and transparency to the American people.

Speaker 1 (01:25:02):
Adam Cherry Yield I now recognize mister Burlason for about
five minutes.

Speaker 20 (01:25:07):
Thank you everyone. It takes such great courage to come forward,
and we acknowledge that, and I hope that you see
that we are taking that seriously and so very thankful
for what you're doing today. I'm also very thankful for
previous witnesses that have come forward. I see Matthew Brown
in the audience. He courageously step forward and was as
a as a witness. I encourage everybody to look and

(01:25:30):
seek his his testimony. I want to thank the people
that came in our first hearing, Ryan Graves, David Grush,
David Fraver, and in our second hearing, Admiral Galadet, lou
Elizondo and mister Gold and the many others that have
come forward. We hear you, and it's time that we

(01:25:50):
you know, enough is enough, It's time that we take action. Look,
I'm not I'm not jumped to the conclusion that I
believe that there are you know, aliens coming from another planet.
But I'm open to that, and I think that it's
my our responsibility, especially when we're seeing that we have
a government that is blocking, actively blocking information from us.

(01:26:10):
Just last night, I tried to get an amendment onto
the National Events Authorization Act that fit in the germanenus
of that bill to have UAP disclosure. And conveniently it
was named non Germaine, mostly deemed by staff, not even
an elected official. This is the kind of stuff that
we repeatedly see. Last year, we were blocked by someone

(01:26:34):
in House administration from being able to receive a full
briefing from Arrow. So not an elected official, but someone
in staff blocked us. And I've had it. Enough is enough?
I want to queue up a video that I've been given,
and as before it starts, I'm going to describe. This

(01:26:55):
was taken October thirtieth of twenty twenty four. This video
is of an MQ nine drone tracking an orb or
this object off the coast of Yemen. You'll see that
another m Q nine launched a hellfire missile that you
cannot see that drone and so you'll and I'm not

(01:27:16):
going to explain it to you. You'll see exactly what
it does. This is when it zoomed out so you

(01:27:54):
can still see it traveling.

Speaker 13 (01:27:59):
M hm.

Speaker 20 (01:28:03):
So, mister Knapp, do you have any have you heard about,
you know, events like this occurring and what what what
information might you have?

Speaker 9 (01:28:15):
I have heard about events like this. I have heard
about this event. Jeremy Corbela and I talked about it
in one of our episodes a while back. We did
not have the video, though. There are servers where there's
a whole bank of these kind of videos that Congress
has not been allowed to see that public hasn't been
allowed to see. Occasionally, some of that stuff gets out
in the wild and it comes our way. It should

(01:28:37):
be going to you. You know, the public should be
seeing this stuff. And why you're not allowed to I
don't know. But that's a hell fire missile smacking into
that UFO and just bounced right off and it kept going.

Speaker 20 (01:28:49):
It kept going, and it looks like the debris was
taken with it.

Speaker 9 (01:28:52):
Yeah, what what the hell is that? What?

Speaker 20 (01:28:54):
So again, I'm not going to speculate what it is,
but the question is, what, you know, why are we
being blocked from this information consistently. I want to ask
this just a question, how in the world this is
the document I want to enter this in for the record,
if it hasn't already been entered, Madam Chair the documentary
provided on thread three. This is a huge file. How

(01:29:18):
in the world did you smuggle this out of Russia
carefully in your socks?

Speaker 9 (01:29:24):
And I don't think I want to be really specific
about it because I might have to go back there
and get some more sometime, although now I'd be crazy
to do that. Well, I again, I took the top
pages off that were stamped with the security signature and
I carried them out on my person, But the rest
of them I just threw in my suitcase and threw
some cavia in there as a distraction as well, and

(01:29:46):
hope for the best. Otherwise I'd be a citizen of
Siberia right now.

Speaker 20 (01:29:51):
And you had you reported James Lakatski came to you
with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately
gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?

Speaker 9 (01:30:05):
Doctor Lekatski is an honorable man who served most of
his career with THEDA, a very trusted high level rocket
scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the ASAP program. As
I said earlier and in full disclosure, I've co written
two books with him. He dropped this on myself and
our other co author, out of the Blue, and it

(01:30:26):
took fourteen months for us to get dopts her approval
for him to release two sentences on that. He said,
this craft we had managed to get inside of it.
It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, It had
no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it
flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like
it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's

(01:30:50):
by the book guy, and until he gets clearance to
say more about that, I don't think we're going to
hear much more. But it's not ours. It wasn't ours.
We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it
and how it was built and how it operated. We've
got at least one and I don't know I think
that's enough confirmation that we've.

Speaker 20 (01:31:06):
We do haves and material Leslie, mister Berlin, in the
in the classified realm, have you been exposed to undeniable
confirmation of NHI technology? And then my second question is
is Base systems involved in any way with reverse engineering
exploitation of non human intelligence craft.

Speaker 10 (01:31:29):
Yeah, we're gonna have to call We're gonna have to
have a conversation this skiff for that, whether I'm legally
even allowed to answer that, and whether you're even allowed
to hear it, sir.

Speaker 20 (01:31:37):
Okay again, you can you can sense our frustration, and
so I just want to thank you for coming forward.
We will continue to fight because look, this is about
making sure that this government belongs to the people, in
restoring the republic the way it was intended to be,
Madame Cher. I also have further witnesses of courageous individuals. It

(01:31:58):
was given to me by doctor Stephen Greer, including Michael
Herrera and his testimony. We have Roderick Cassel and his testimony,
Randy Anderson his testimony, Steven Digna and others, three others
all saying similar things to what the witnesses today has said,

(01:32:18):
and I would like to enter that into the record
as well.

Speaker 1 (01:32:20):
No objection, Thank you. I now recognize Representative Lee for
five minutes.

Speaker 3 (01:32:26):
Thank you, Madam Fear. I think we need to make
sure that we don't get distracted by sensational stories only
of unidentified anomalists phenomena, and lose track of what the
core of this hearing is about. This is all a
perfect example of why whistleblowers are so important and why
it's so important that we step up and protect them.

(01:32:49):
With Trump, RFK, Junior EPA administrator Lee Zelda, and others
committed to dismantling government and firing professionals who do dare
to speak out against the threats this administration's disastrous policies create.
We have to focus on protecting all whistleblowers, not only
the ones who are reporting on UAP. I'd like to
thank the whistleblowers who have agreed to come before the

(01:33:11):
committee today and speak their truth. This administration's claims to
care about waste, fraud and abuse, and so often it
is the whistleblowers who care and who are the tip
of a sword fighting against the real waste, fraud and abuse.
One study found that whistleblowers expose fraud at more than
twice the rate of third party auditors. So, mister Spielberger,

(01:33:34):
what are some of the best examples of whistleblowers exposing
fraud and abuse in the federal government?

Speaker 13 (01:33:41):
Thank you, Congresswoman again, whistleblowers have played such a vital
role across so many different issues. One prominent example goes
back to the twenty fourteen via Weightless scandal. HOGO actually
played a very instrumental role coordinating with Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans of America at that time. We receive tips and

(01:34:03):
whistleblower disclosures from over eight hundred different individuals talking about
the v A subjecting veterans to extensive wait times in
order to get the basic standard of care that they deserve.
It's certainly prolonged serious illnesses, even contributing to hasten deaths,

(01:34:30):
and we were able to.

Speaker 14 (01:34:33):
Help shed more light on.

Speaker 13 (01:34:37):
That issue, which I think just emphasizes the importance. Even
outside of the national security context. We are often still
talking about serious issues and even life and death concerns.

Speaker 3 (01:34:51):
And unfortunately, whistleblowers can whistle blowing can lead to serious
repercussions and retaliation, especially in this vidictive and lawless administration.

Speaker 14 (01:35:01):
Mister Spielberger.

Speaker 3 (01:35:02):
In the past, what kinds of retaliation have they faced
and what are we seeing today under the Trump administration.

Speaker 13 (01:35:09):
So we've certainly heard about a number of different examples
of retaliation. One that I'd like to highlight that mister
Borland referenced previously is retaliation through abuse of the security
clearance process that can have grave implications not just for
a whistleblower, but also their ability to seek legal counsel
and defend themselves against retaliation. And when we look at

(01:35:33):
the past several months of this administration, unfortunately we've seen
a really systematic approach toward dismantling the non partisan civil service.
We've seen the mass firings. We've seen undermining of independent
agency watchdogs, mass firings of Inspectors General, undermining the Office
of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board. Again, these

(01:35:56):
entities that are meant to be independent and play a
critical role in investigating whistleblower disclosures and ensuring that their
rights are protected.

Speaker 5 (01:36:08):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:36:08):
In nineteen eighty nine, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act
and then broadened it again in twenty twelve to ensure
that federal workers could feel free to come forward to
their elected officials. And it's a good thing we did,
because whistleblowers have played a more important role than ever
since Trump has taken office. It was thanks to a
whistleblower that we learned that dose willisurely put every single
americans personal security information at risk by bypassing safeguards and

(01:36:32):
copying all this data to an unsecure server. I ask
you anatamous consent to enter into the record of New
York Times article title quote those put critical social security
data at risk.

Speaker 8 (01:36:41):
Whistleblawer says, good to go.

Speaker 21 (01:36:44):
Thanks.

Speaker 3 (01:36:44):
We've had whistleblowers at the National Labor Relations Work reveal
that DOZE minions may have shipped case files outside of
the agency, possibly to help then co President Elon must
continue to exploit his workers, And last week, whistleblowers at
the National Institute of Health came forward to say that
RFK Junior's vaccine and miss information campaign have pervaded even
the highest levels of the agency. Typically, whistleblowers have an

(01:37:05):
Inspector General they can rely on to investigate their claims
and register issues with agency leadership. But President Trump has
fired or demoted over twenty inspectors general. If I may
ask one more question, mister Spielberger, can you explain how
eroding the independence and capabilities of inspectors general further in
danger these whistleblowers.

Speaker 13 (01:37:23):
Absolutely so again whistleblowers already face incredibly great challenges in
coming forward under normal circumstances, and when we erode these
entities that are expected and required to enforce whistleblower protections
fairly investigate their disclosures, it calls into question the integrity

(01:37:43):
of their investigations and findings, whether they'll take whistleblowers seriously
when they come forward, and whether we can trust that
they will use their authority to enforce the protections of
whistleblowers who do come forward, essentially, whether they will continue
in their role as an independent watchdog or basically become

(01:38:04):
a lap dog for a current or future president.

Speaker 3 (01:38:08):
Thank you, and I will note I was like, no
longer liberty, no more liberties, I go back.

Speaker 1 (01:38:13):
Thank you, I now recognize mister Crane for five minutes.

Speaker 5 (01:38:18):
Thank you, miss chairwoman for holding this hearing. Thank you
to the witnesses for appearing in the effort of transparency.

Speaker 19 (01:38:27):
Here.

Speaker 5 (01:38:27):
I got to admit to the witnesses that you know,
growing up, I really never believed in UFOs or any
of this stuff. I always sound thought it was a
little kooky and whatnot. But uh, you know, after hearing,
you know, your testimony from honorable service members watching videos
like my colleague mister Burlason just presented. You know, I

(01:38:47):
gotta admit I've become a believer. Not that I know
where these things come from or you know what they
really are up to, But I'd like to start with
asking the witnesses. Mister new should tell you were in
the Air Force, right, yes? Did you believe in UFOs
prior to your encounter?

Speaker 9 (01:39:07):
I've always been interested.

Speaker 5 (01:39:09):
Okay, Chief Wiggins, you're in the currently in the Navy,
is that correct?

Speaker 9 (01:39:13):
Correct?

Speaker 5 (01:39:14):
Did you believe in UFOs before your encounter?

Speaker 21 (01:39:17):
I did.

Speaker 7 (01:39:18):
I'm from Las Vegas and I've watched towards NAP that
whole life.

Speaker 5 (01:39:21):
Okay, what about you, mister Borland.

Speaker 10 (01:39:24):
I have always been open to where facts go.

Speaker 5 (01:39:28):
So were you guys scared or hesitant to come forward
and tell your story because of fear and believing that
you might be reprimanded or ostracized from society because of
your stories?

Speaker 12 (01:39:44):
Yes? Absolutely.

Speaker 6 (01:39:46):
I probably would not have come forward if I didn't
have documentation to prove some of my story. And I
also wouldn't have come forward without the people that paved
the way for us. You know, the first Congressional hearing chief.

Speaker 10 (01:40:00):
What about you?

Speaker 7 (01:40:02):
Once I got the okay from the Navy from top down,
that gave me a level of relief. Prior to that,
I didn't have any thought left or right of that.
But I think the Navy to give me the go
ahead and that gave me the relief that I would
not have any level of reprisal or anything happened to me.

Speaker 10 (01:40:21):
Mister Borland, how about you? Absolutely? I mean, after I
went through everything, it was pretty clear that I caused
a major issue in the executive branch. So I did
what I was supposed to do, and that's why I
haven't spoken publicly publicly. That's why I'm happy to be here.
This is how I wanted this to be done.

Speaker 5 (01:40:40):
In regards to me, mister Borland, why do you think
that you faced reprimand and discipline for your effort to
come forward and be transparent about what you saw?

Speaker 10 (01:40:53):
About what I saw is the reason why I got
into what I know and has been disclosed to and
the IG. And I think that information while it was
it was labeled an extremely sensitive national security issue. Thank you,
mister Napp.

Speaker 5 (01:41:09):
I've watched many of your videos on Joe Rogan in
other places One of the big questions I think for
many of us is why do you believe that the
federal government refuses to be transparent.

Speaker 10 (01:41:20):
About this issue.

Speaker 9 (01:41:23):
I think there's probably multiple reasons. At the start, when
these things first started invading our skies in large numbers,
we were scared. It was right after World War Two,
and we didn't know what they were, and they didn't
want to panic the public, and that was probably a
good call. Over time, I think they the length sort
of became institutionalized. You know, flights over Washington, d C.

(01:41:44):
In nineteen fifty two, they're seen, they're captured on radar.
Jets are chased after these objects, and then we get
an explanation it was a temperature inversion. And those kind
of lies have been told for a long time. What
was told to me by an investigator from Congress, a
guy named Richard Demo, who was sent after this story
by Robert Bird and Harry Reid. He came out to Nevada,

(01:42:06):
tried to get into Area fifty one, did get in there,
looked around, talk to people, trying to get to the
bottom of it. He believed that this program reverse engineering,
et cetera, was inside, had been moved inside these corporations,
and he said when this comes out, people are going
to go to prison, and he meant people who were
basically misusing legitimate national security funds tens of billions of

(01:42:26):
dollars in order to keep this cover up going. I
also believe there's a legitimate reason for the cover up
in that there is undeniable connection of national security involved
in this technology. If we are racing for it to
master that technology against the Russians and the Chinese, which
is what I have been told by Senator Reid and
many others, then it is a race that's critical to

(01:42:48):
our survival. There could be a form of disclosure. I think, yes,
it's real, it's from somewhere else, without revealing all the
details that would allow someone else to have an advantage
in the race for this technolog Thank you.

Speaker 5 (01:43:01):
Finally, I'd like to enter into the testimony a letter
I sent to the DoD regarding the case of Major
David Charles Grush, a UAP whistleblower who's been extremely helpful
to this committee. Unfortunately, due to his participation in the
disclosure of UAP, he suffered reprisal like the removal of

(01:43:22):
his clearance, denial of promotion and loss of medical retirement.
I wrote the DoD on July twenty fourth, twenty twenty five,
on behalf of major grush, and I'm still waiting for
a reply. I appreciate any help the Committee can offer
to get a response.

Speaker 10 (01:43:37):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:43:37):
I yield back with that objection. We'll be following up
with the DoD after this hearing. Thank you, Representative Crane.
I'd like next like to recognize Representative Gil for five minutes.

Speaker 22 (01:43:49):
Thank you cherwom Luna for holding this hearing, and I'd
like to yield a minuteto my time.

Speaker 1 (01:43:54):
To you perfect. My first question is to mister Napp,
how do we know that the files that you obtained
from the former Soviet government are not BS and just
given to you as a disinformation campaign against US government.

Speaker 9 (01:44:06):
That's a good question. So I shared some of them
with the Senate Intelligence Committee when I first got back,
because that was requested by the Russians who shared some
of that information with me. Secondly, I gave all of
that material to the DA through BASS the afs APP program.
Sorry for the acronyms.

Speaker 1 (01:44:22):
Can you name names real quick?

Speaker 9 (01:44:23):
Sorry? At BASS?

Speaker 1 (01:44:25):
Or also did you give them two directly?

Speaker 9 (01:44:26):
I gave them to Robert Bigelow and to Jim Lecatski,
and they hired a whole team to go through them
and retranslate them and analyze it. Then they created a
structure of how the UFO programs in the USSR and
Russia were put together. They said they were real. Find
the other person who said they're real is David.

Speaker 1 (01:44:45):
Grush noted, thank you, Representative Gil.

Speaker 22 (01:44:50):
And thank You'd like to yield the remainder of my
time to Eric Burlison.

Speaker 20 (01:44:57):
Thank you, represented Gil, Mister Wiggins, Chief Wiggins. In your view,
what mechanisms such as internal protocols, witness debriefings, or cross
agency documentation should be better established in order to ensure
that such a credible sighting like the one that you
have given are preserved and made available to oversight bodies

(01:45:20):
like this.

Speaker 10 (01:45:23):
Thank you sir.

Speaker 7 (01:45:25):
As a active duty Navy member, our mission is to
carry out the ship's mission or the commands mission, and
we on a general basis don't have knowledge of what
to do when we see things like this.

Speaker 21 (01:45:41):
We just don't.

Speaker 7 (01:45:42):
We're there to do our mission and do what's told
of us, right, So I think what would be important
is giving active duty members a clear way of being
able to report things like this to where it gets
to this point and ensuring that we have a standard

(01:46:05):
level of understanding that there wouldn't be any level of
reprisal or anything happening. Because you know, I've been in
the Navy for almost twenty four years. But what about
the sailors that I've been in for two years that
experience things like this. They're not going to have the
knowledge or they'll probably be a little bit more fearful
to speak up, being at that their career is just starting.

Speaker 10 (01:46:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 20 (01:46:27):
I just I want to commend you. You're the first
witness to come forward that is currently serving and it's recognized,
and so I thank you, and your testimony is unbelievable.
Let me ask this question, are you familiar with the
Witness Protection Act that to represented Burchett has filed.

Speaker 7 (01:46:45):
I'm not too familiar, sir.

Speaker 20 (01:46:46):
Anyone on the committee familiar with it. It's fantastic. It's
the language that we need. It's language that will protect
with you know, whistleblowers from from any kind of reprisal.
And yet it's again and again blocked by by you know,
this body in some way. Many times it's being blocked

(01:47:08):
not by elected officials but by staff behind the scenes.
And the other bill, the UAP Disclosure Act, which was
filed last year Senator Schumer, who I cannot believe that
there's a topic that he and I agree on, but
he and I agree on this topic. He is sponsored
in the Senate. He put it on the National Defense

(01:47:28):
Authorization Act last year. Remarkably, I can't get it on
the It was stripped out by the House last year,
and I can't get it onto the bill leaving the
House this year. Mister Napp, how.

Speaker 9 (01:47:41):
Far would that would do?

Speaker 20 (01:47:43):
That bill go to actually getting the answers that we need.

Speaker 12 (01:47:48):
Pretty far?

Speaker 9 (01:47:49):
I think that are still going to have roadblocks. You know,
the keepers of the secrets, the private companies that have
been doing this job for intelligence agencies for a long time,
are not going to cough it up. You'd have to
force it out of them. And whether you can get
them to admit that they have it or not, I
mean they're supposed to lie about it. They've been lying
about it, you know. I more power to you. I
hope it works. I hope it passes this time, but

(01:48:12):
it's a it's a daunting challenge to get them to
open up after lying about it for more than seventy
five years.

Speaker 20 (01:48:18):
Yeah. And then finally, mister Borland, when you engage with
Arrow in twenty twenty three, you noted that their public
statements did not match the reality that you and others
had witnessed and your assessment, what were the key limitations
of Arrow?

Speaker 10 (01:48:36):
You know, I would put it to you this way.
The statement Arrow has made is scientific evidence of extraterrestrials.
Scientific evidence requires a scientific control extraterrestrials an entity on
another planet. The only way to scientifically prove extra terrestrial
is we have to go to that planet, acquire technology,
bring it back, and compare it to what we have here.

Speaker 20 (01:48:57):
So you're saying they won't let anything out because or
they won't. They won't come forward unless they confirm that
it Unless say, go to the planet and confirm where
its origin.

Speaker 10 (01:49:07):
Is, that that would be scientific evidence. Yes, and by
that statement, Aro found those scientific evidence of better terrestrials
is basically I don't want to call it a SI off,
but a misrepresentation because we do have things. But making
that statement is not technically a lie. It's a misrepresentation
of the full truth.

Speaker 20 (01:49:27):
Thank you.

Speaker 18 (01:49:28):
Madam Chair, may I just since we're on that topic
real quick, how do we get to these other planets?
How do we pass the Van Allen radiation belt safely?

Speaker 10 (01:49:40):
Good question for you. I cannot answer that for you.

Speaker 1 (01:49:45):
I would now like to recognize mister Perry for five minutes.

Speaker 12 (01:49:50):
Thanks, Madam Chair. I think I'll start with maybe mister Borland.
So you have a clearance, right, you're in uniform. You
have a clearance. When did you leave at service?

Speaker 14 (01:50:01):
A year?

Speaker 10 (01:50:01):
I left in twenty thirteen, February thirteen.

Speaker 12 (01:50:04):
Who was a president if you recall.

Speaker 10 (01:50:06):
Twenty thirteen would have been President Obamaser was.

Speaker 12 (01:50:08):
A president Trump?

Speaker 9 (01:50:09):
Right?

Speaker 12 (01:50:09):
No, sir, okay, So you have a clearance, right, you're
serving the uniform. You have a clearance. Your story, You know,
I think many of us are kind of picturing the
scene you walk out in the flight line having to smoke.
This event occurs. Do you have the perception, at least
I do, based on your story that this involves the

(01:50:30):
US government? Whatever you saw involves the US government.

Speaker 10 (01:50:34):
That is one hundred percent my opinion then and.

Speaker 12 (01:50:37):
Now and was there an after action? Was do you
do a daily debrief of the activities of the day.
Was any of that recorded? Was there a conversation with
the command? Was there any documentation that you know of
at the time?

Speaker 10 (01:50:53):
Not to my knowledge. I mean, like I said, I
talked about it in on the off floor, and a
couple of people had pulled me aside, some older and
list it and we're like, you probably want to keep
that to yourself.

Speaker 12 (01:51:03):
So did you get the did you get the impression
that they knew what you were talking about, just didn't
want you to harm your career or seem crazy, or
that they didn't really witness Do you know anybody else
that witnessed what you saw?

Speaker 10 (01:51:17):
Again? Not that night? Like I said, the only people
that would have been out there would have been security
forces and then those of us that were.

Speaker 12 (01:51:22):
Doing security forces in uniform or contract probably both. Did
you talk to them? Did anybody talk to them in
an after action?

Speaker 10 (01:51:30):
Not to my knowledge.

Speaker 12 (01:51:31):
Is there any interest in the command to determine and
verify what you saw? Not to my knowledge or it's unfortunate,
Chief Wiggins. Thank you for your service, gentlemen, Thank thanks
for all of you for your courage that be here.
Your story's a little bit different, sounds like it, well

(01:51:52):
for both of you guys, and also, mister Nussatelli, if
this were sanctioned by the US government even though you
have a clearance, but it's classified above the clearance level,
do you see any reason why they would allow you
access being present, viewing it, hearing it, you know, being

(01:52:15):
around it? Like, what is this an accident? Like does
the US government make these kind of acts? They make accidents,
mistakes like this way, Oh, we're doing this, we're doing
this test of this new system and we forgot these
guys were standing here. Does that sound like something that
the US government would do. No, sir.

Speaker 6 (01:52:37):
Some of the launches we were doing were like five
billion dollar projects that had taken like ten years to
develop the technology, and these objects were coming right up
to the launch pad. So any kind of mistake, I mean,
we could it could cause a catastrophe, right, So it's
very confusing why these objects would be operating in in

(01:52:58):
around our bases or during trade any exercise it US.

Speaker 12 (01:53:01):
Would lend you to believe that the US government had no,
had nothing to do with whatever it is you saw. Correct,
they wouldn't want it there because it would potentially interrupt
the proceedings at the time. Was there an after action.
Was there a discussion by your command where that? Was
there an investigation? It's pretty significant activities that you were

(01:53:22):
involved in. Was there an investigation that you know of?

Speaker 6 (01:53:25):
We conducted investigations in real time, right, we document all
the evidence, But as far as anything from higher up,
I don't know if there was an investigation. No information
came down on what we should.

Speaker 12 (01:53:36):
Were you ever interviewed at someone else's request.

Speaker 6 (01:53:40):
About that incident?

Speaker 12 (01:53:41):
About the incident?

Speaker 6 (01:53:42):
I don't believe so.

Speaker 12 (01:53:43):
Do you think that's you find that odd? If something happens.
You're around multi million, maybe billion dollar operations and launches
of national security interests very sensitive, there's an anomaly in
the operation.

Speaker 6 (01:54:00):
The only person witness that saw UAP at Vanderberg at
a time frame it was interviewed was the one that
witnessed the thing.

Speaker 12 (01:54:08):
Land Well, why wouldn't Well, I don't know why I'm
asking you, but it seems to me that we would
want to interview everybody associated, even not associated, to find
out if they were associated. Chief Wiggins, how about you?
Did anybody? Was there an investigation? Was there an after action?
Was there documentation on the incident that you were privy to?

Speaker 7 (01:54:28):
No, sir, not that I know of, and in my
previous experience as an operation specialist, all operations that I've
been a part of have been deliberate.

Speaker 12 (01:54:38):
So yeah, there there and deliberate operations. After the operations,
you conducted an after action review, or that's what the
Army calls it. I don't know what. I imagine the
Navy has something similar to determine your weaknesses your successes.
Do you do that in regard to this incident.

Speaker 7 (01:54:55):
No, sir, the Navy calls it after action reports, and
not to my knowledge, was there after action report of
this incident.

Speaker 12 (01:55:04):
It's unfortunate.

Speaker 1 (01:55:05):
Thank you, Chair, I yield, I now recognize mister Biggs
for five minutes.

Speaker 23 (01:55:10):
Thank you, Mauna Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for
being here today. I'll tell you today's testimony should alarm
every American, no matter their views on UPS. This isn't
simply about UPS. It's about government integrity, responsible use of
taxpayer funds, and Congress's constitutional duty to oversee the executive
branch for evidence of critical information hidden in special access

(01:55:32):
programs off limits to virtually every elected representative and certainly
to the public. Incredible witnesses report retaliation for speaking out.
These are clear attempts to silence those who are exposing
the truth.

Speaker 12 (01:55:47):
We must protect the whistleblowers.

Speaker 23 (01:55:48):
In the decades of government disinformation have eviscerated public trust.
So this isn't a partisan matter.

Speaker 12 (01:55:55):
It's a constitutional matter.

Speaker 23 (01:55:57):
And when you talk about the VA's Miss Bielbigger and
all the problems that they had, the hub of that
was Phoenix, and they went after the whistleblowers there, and
that was under the Obama administration. So it doesn't matter
which administration which party. Both parties have got to come clean,
particularly on this. So the government thinks you can hide

(01:56:19):
the truth and punish those who speak out, Congress has
to keep pushing until the facts, whatever they are wherever they.

Speaker 10 (01:56:25):
Leave, come to light.

Speaker 12 (01:56:26):
I'm going to go to you, mister Nap.

Speaker 14 (01:56:27):
First.

Speaker 23 (01:56:28):
You've interviewed numerous UAP whistleblowers over the years. The question
is how do you verify their claims before deciding they're
credible enough to report.

Speaker 9 (01:56:36):
On It's the combination of factors. First, to check their credentials.
Did they really serve where they said they did? And
did they work where they said they did? Are there
any other witnesses? Is their visual proof, film footage, things
of that sort. You ask the people around them that
know them, that used to work with them, if they're
credible people. That's one way, you know. I think about ARROW,

(01:56:56):
the organization that this body created to deal with witnesses
and whistleblowers. I hope I'm not taking too much of
your time here, but they invited people to come forward,
service members who knew saw things and had experiences, and
I can tell you that the people that I have
talked to who went through that are deeply disappointed. There
was a guy named Bob Jacobs who was a lieutenant

(01:57:18):
attached to Vandenberg in nineteen sixty four. His unit would
record missile tests. They recorded all of them. On one
of this particular tests, a UFO comes out of nowhere.
Zapp's what looks like a laser beam at what would
have been a nuclear dummy, a nuclear weapon and disabled it.
And he is called into the commander's office. Two guys

(01:57:39):
in suits clipped that film footage out that chose the UFO,
and he's ordered to never talk about it. He comes
forward to ARROW. He heeds the call, thinking he's doing
his duty as an American to tell that story. And
they completely dismissed him. They made up a story that
they had tracked down the original footage and there was
nothing like that in it. Well, there was no regional footage.

(01:58:00):
It had been taken away the day the footage was recorded.
He is deeply disappointed. People like Bob Sallas, who had
worked at a nuclear ICBM base, who saw UFOs flying
over the base and these missile silos were taken down.
He went to Arrow too and was completely disregarded. It
almost looks like Arrow operated as a counterintelligence operation to
get people to come in tell their stories, and then

(01:58:21):
discredit all of them. I can't imagine that any whistleblower
or witness will ever go to Arrow again because of
what happened under the first director, who's now long gone
but still seems to act as the spokesperson for that organization.

Speaker 23 (01:58:35):
And I would say, I would say, Madam Chair, maybe
at some point we need to really dig deep into Arrow,
and I would encourage.

Speaker 1 (01:58:42):
You, so I'd be happy to send maybe a subpoenats
mister Kilpatrick.

Speaker 12 (01:58:49):
Mister.

Speaker 23 (01:58:51):
Miss Nukutelly, Misteratelly, you've testified that official Air Force records
of the Red Square incident are now held by arrow
and the FBI has Congress or you been denied access
to those records? And and on what grounds would they
would we be denied access you or US?

Speaker 10 (01:59:11):
No, the records are unclassified, so okay.

Speaker 23 (01:59:17):
In the two thousand and three to two thousand and
five incidents you described, where any physical effects, electromagic interference,
radio anomalies, or security system disruptions documented in base logs
or any reports official reports not to my knowledge, mister Wiggins,
as the full resolution unended footage of your incident been

(01:59:39):
provided to Congress.

Speaker 12 (01:59:42):
Yes, okay, where you or your.

Speaker 23 (01:59:46):
Crew ever instructed formally or informally not to document or
discuss the event ever?

Speaker 14 (01:59:51):
No?

Speaker 7 (01:59:52):
Good.

Speaker 23 (01:59:53):
Mister Borland, you've talked about manipulation of your security clearance records.
Can you identify which agencies are offices were responsible and
whether they provided any written justification?

Speaker 10 (02:00:03):
I can do that in a skiff ser one percent.
Because of being a part of a multi agency special
access program, I cannot give those publicly, So.

Speaker 23 (02:00:12):
I had to encourage US Maunachair to have that skiff,
that skiff meeting if we can. And then mister Borland
again for you justify that you withheld certain sources and
methods from aero due to mistrust, can you give us
some specifics that legit believe they were misrepresenting the truth.

Speaker 10 (02:00:30):
Well, as I said already what I said about scientific method,
scientific control, extraterrestrials. I mean, I know what I've seen,
I know what I know, and I know it's true.
So any agency that's going to go public and try
and manipulate the public perception of this subject in such
a way that is negative when I know the truth

(02:00:52):
about it, is why I had extreme reservations with it,
and also what I've been through in other whistle blowers
and then know about this subject I've been through.

Speaker 23 (02:01:02):
So, Madame Chair, thank you for letting me wave on.
I think the key thing you talked about was manipulation
of message, manipulation of narrative.

Speaker 12 (02:01:11):
That is really the problem with its entire.

Speaker 23 (02:01:17):
The system that we've seen since you've started these wonderful hearings,
Madam Chair, and I thank.

Speaker 12 (02:01:22):
You so much.

Speaker 1 (02:01:23):
Thank you Governor, I mean Representative Biggs. Miss the chair
would now like to represent or recognize mister I guess
you for five.

Speaker 19 (02:01:31):
Minutes, Thank you, Madam Chair. First question, mister Borland. Earlier
today you mentioned that under in a skiff, you would
be able to discuss whether a member of Congress is
actually legally able to access certain information? Under what authority
would a member of Congress be restricted from accessing information
on this topic?

Speaker 21 (02:01:51):
Even within a skiff.

Speaker 10 (02:01:53):
I would suggest reaching out to Director Dabbird and speaking
with her about that. I'm hopeful that this is back
to the executive branch and who even has authority. Unfortunately,
I can't give you a one percent solid answer because
I don't even have that knowledge.

Speaker 19 (02:02:08):
Next question, UH to George Knapp, what is the estimated
annual budget your view for the for the program for
investigating or reverse engineering UAP related technology, including official, misappropriated
or black budget funds.

Speaker 9 (02:02:23):
I wouldn't have a clue. I don't know any person
that's ever seen it.

Speaker 21 (02:02:26):
Does anyone on this panel wish to address that question? Okay?

Speaker 19 (02:02:31):
Moving on, are any of you willing to name specific
gatekeepers within the root cell of the UAP SAP Federation?

Speaker 9 (02:02:46):
You mean specific people and contractors that have dealt with.

Speaker 21 (02:02:49):
US secret specific individuals.

Speaker 9 (02:02:54):
Well, one of them was named doctor James Ryder at
at Lockheed. But you know, again to emphasize, I don't
fault these contractors for doing what they were asked to
do by our government. They're supposed to lie if people
ask about it. And the intelligence agencies who gave this
stuff to them CIA, I think primarily told them to

(02:03:17):
keep it quiet, and they've done that. And I suspect
that they'd like an off ramp, that they'd like some
help with figuring out this technology at some point.

Speaker 21 (02:03:25):
And this is again available to anyone.

Speaker 19 (02:03:27):
Is there a security classification guide for UAP or NHI.

Speaker 6 (02:03:37):
I remember in the two thousand and three or twenty
twenty three hearing it was stated that all UAP related
material is classified secret or above.

Speaker 9 (02:03:51):
I have a name for you, go ahead, Glenn Gaffney CIA.

Speaker 21 (02:03:56):
Glenn Gaffney CIA.

Speaker 19 (02:03:59):
Another question for you, mister Knapp, what is in your view,
having investigated this issue for so many years, what is
the long game with respect to disclosure of this information
to the public.

Speaker 21 (02:04:11):
Because with the advent of.

Speaker 19 (02:04:15):
Essentially a video camera and a high megapixel phone in
everybody's pocket, at some point this information is going to
be impossible to withhold from the public.

Speaker 21 (02:04:25):
What do you think is the long game here?

Speaker 9 (02:04:28):
Well, the secret's out. I mean, how many videos have
there been already you know, videos that are leaked from
within the military and intelligence agencies and contractors and censor platforms.
It's out there, but they have the high ground. The
people that don't want us to take it seriously, dismiss it,
discredit the witnesses, come up with a cover story. I mean,
it's been out there a long time. The public senses

(02:04:48):
that it's real, and the people in the authority dismiss them.
It's a game that's been going on a long time,
and I don't think they're ever going to release it.
I think that there's an aude among the people that
have been involved in this for a long time that
the public doesn't deserve to know, and that the public
probably can't handle it, but they can.

Speaker 19 (02:05:08):
Final question, again, this one's open to anyone who'd like
to answer it. Describe your understanding of the org chart
or lines of control within the executive branch with respect
to these topics, and if you'd like to address that
in a skiff, feel free to say so.

Speaker 10 (02:05:28):
That could work as long as I'm legally allowed to
and you're legally allowed to receive it.

Speaker 9 (02:05:36):
I think these programs are in the executive branch, a
National Security Council and over on that side. That seems
to be what some of our witnesses have told us
over the years. So you can, you know, Congress can
file all kinds of requests. The foyas can be filed
with the Department of Defense, Department of War now and
they can honestly say, well, we don't have it, because

(02:05:58):
they don't have it.

Speaker 21 (02:06:02):
Thank you.

Speaker 19 (02:06:02):
Is there anything in my remaining thirty seconds that you'd
like to share on any of these questions that I've
asked you today?

Speaker 9 (02:06:14):
I applaud the committee for trying to tackle this monster
of an issue. I really appreciate that it's actually it
might be the only bipartisan issue in Washington where everybody
can agree. I've I've watched multiple hearings now everyone is
asking the same kind of questions, whether right or left,
and honestly went the answers, and you know, Chairman Luna,
Chairwoman Luna, I appreciate your dedication to this, Tim Burchett

(02:06:37):
and the other members for sticking with it, because you know,
it's come up in Congress before, and they had hearings
and then they dropped it for fifty years. So it's
going to take a time, a lot of time. To
get to the bottom of this, and I applaud your
your commitment to getting to the truth.

Speaker 1 (02:06:53):
Thank you, mister nat Pursuit to committee in rural nine, I'm.

Speaker 20 (02:06:55):
Sure, can I have a part ask a parliamentary question
of you?

Speaker 13 (02:06:59):
Yes?

Speaker 7 (02:06:59):
Sure?

Speaker 20 (02:07:00):
Does this subcommittee have the authority to do subpoenas task force?

Speaker 1 (02:07:05):
So the task force to answer that question has to
do it through full committee, okay. So and also in
regards to immunity, which to mister Borland's point, we are
going to be doing a motion to ask for immunity
for you and a few other people to come into
a skiff and tell us what you know without being
subject to the Espionage Act, et cetera.

Speaker 9 (02:07:26):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (02:07:27):
So that's just kind of an update, but as a
task force, because we're not a full subcommittee and there
are certain authorities that haven't been granted to us, probably
because they don't want us to have it, but there
are ways to work around it. So we're kind of
figuring that out. Pursued to Committee Rule nine, see, the
majority and minority will have an additional thirty minutes each
to ask questions of the witnesses without objection. So ordered

(02:07:50):
with that being said, if you guys want to jump
in the key. I know Representative Crane, Burleson and likely
burchet have a few more questions. I'll just start out
with two and then i'll pass the bucked Burlsen Burchette,
do you have anything, I'll birch it and then Crane.
Just real quick, mister Napp and short answers, please, because
of time, how much of these alleged Russian crash retrieval

(02:08:11):
documents have already been physically out there? So I mean
percentage wise of the documents that you submitted to Congress,
what was public already and what was not newly?

Speaker 9 (02:08:19):
Maybe one percent?

Speaker 1 (02:08:20):
Okay, so the rest of it should be predominantly new information. Also,
can you just elaborate real quick? I know you had
I think mentioned a Thread three program, but also alleged
in those documents. I got through maybe half of them
last time. There's a lot and I don't speak Russian.
Contrary to what my people might allege. What does the
Thread three? Was there any specific programs that existed within

(02:08:41):
the Soviet government or groups to specifically investigate this by name?
Real quick?

Speaker 9 (02:08:46):
It's a number. There's a number in those documents I
gave you there was a larger program that actually had
three sub programs. That was Thread three was the name
I got, And then the DIA guys who looked at
it figured out there was a much larger organization.

Speaker 1 (02:09:00):
Existed in those documents. Yes, okay, thank you, real quick.
I'd like to ask the committee to replay that video
that Burlison had played earlier. I want to ask every
witness here, specifically ones that have sensor training or have
been able to recognize some of this movements real quick.
So if you guys can please roll that real quick, okay,

(02:09:44):
while this is still rolling, mister news to Telly real quick,
yes or no? Answers, Are you aware of anything in
the government United States government arsenal that can split a
health fire and missile like this and do whatever blob
thing it didn't? Then keep going nothing nothing, all right?
How about you, Chief we Wiggins? Nothing to my knowledge, man, okay,
And how about you, mister Borland.

Speaker 10 (02:10:05):
I prefer to answer that in the skiff.

Speaker 1 (02:10:08):
Okay, does this video scare you guys? Yes or no?
Yes Wiggins, yes, Nat.

Speaker 9 (02:10:19):
I had a different reaction. I was really happy that
it got out.

Speaker 1 (02:10:22):
Thanks for providing curiosity that all right, mister Morland. Yes,
for okay, all right, that that is the end of
my questioning. I like to now recognize mister.

Speaker 22 (02:10:34):
Crane, thank you.

Speaker 10 (02:10:39):
Chief.

Speaker 5 (02:10:39):
I was on a ship for a little bit. I
was a gunner's mate on the US of Skattiesburg for
a couple of years. My question to you is when
you saw had your encounter and you saw it on
the screen, you were in the CIC.

Speaker 12 (02:10:53):
Is that correct? That's correct.

Speaker 7 (02:10:55):
On an LCS ship, the CIC is on the bridge,
so it's ICC one.

Speaker 12 (02:11:01):
But yes, the same did did.

Speaker 5 (02:11:03):
A bunch of the other folks and the CIC come
and check out what you were looking at?

Speaker 21 (02:11:08):
Yes, we all did.

Speaker 7 (02:11:11):
The Tactical Action Officer, myself, the r c O and
two others that was that were on watch. We were
all in the same space, so we were all looking
at the sapphire screen all at the same time.

Speaker 5 (02:11:23):
Because in the other in the other couple instances with
the witnesses, you guys just saw it by yourself. Is
that correct, mister Borland, you saw by yourself for me, Yes, sir,
mister Nissateli, you saw this by yourself.

Speaker 12 (02:11:36):
No, there were multiple witnesses in every case.

Speaker 5 (02:11:38):
ADVANTA okay, so Chief, did that spread like wildfire throughout
the ship in the next day or two what you
guys had seen.

Speaker 7 (02:11:47):
No, sir, it didn't spread throughout the ship, but it
spread throughout ICC one conversation. As you do your turnover,
we talk about it. But it didn't go further than
just the watch standards that stood watch on the bridge
and an icc one. So it did move around there
throughout a few days.

Speaker 5 (02:12:05):
I'm kind of surprised. Stuff usually spreads around the ship
pretty fast. Why do you think the rest of your
fellow sailors on the boat didn't hear about it?

Speaker 7 (02:12:15):
Potentially uninterested? Possibly, you know, with engineers or combat systems
like yourself, don't make their way up to the bridge
enough to get withinside of the circle of talk about
the incident.

Speaker 5 (02:12:28):
Was it hard for you to get permission from the
Navy to bring that video?

Speaker 7 (02:12:33):
I myself didn't bring the video.

Speaker 21 (02:12:35):
I just saw the video.

Speaker 7 (02:12:36):
When I saw the video, I got in touch with
Admiral Galadat. That's how I wind up knowing about the
video itself. When I first talked to the admiral and
you can hear my voice at the back end of
the video and that's I was like, Hey, that's my
voice that I wanted to talk about it.

Speaker 5 (02:12:53):
How long did that encounter take place?

Speaker 7 (02:12:55):
Chief, So, the encounter itself, from the time I recognized
on my radar to the time after the video ends
was probably about five to seven minutes.

Speaker 5 (02:13:10):
What speed was the object moving at?

Speaker 7 (02:13:14):
When I first witnessed off the port bridge wing the
object moving out of the water, What I thought was
originally just a light on the water, something on the
horizon and surfacing and going into the air. I then
knew it was an air contact. But as an air
controller myself, I started thinking and going through kind of

(02:13:37):
like my checklist in my mind.

Speaker 14 (02:13:38):
Could it be a helo? But it's not blinking lights?

Speaker 7 (02:13:41):
So I then realized, this is something I've never seen before.
So the speed itself, just going from the horizon to
about maybe three four thousand feet in the air was
very slow, slowly rising, and then it sped up. I'm
not an expert at you know, knowing specific speeds of

(02:14:03):
aircraft just by visual eye, but I would say probably
one two mock instantly into the rest of the formation.
I didn't notice visually with my own eyes the other
three objects until I went back to my radar and
also utilized sapphire to see that in fact, there were
four total, and then again when they all left after

(02:14:25):
a certain amount of time. It was nearly instantaneous.

Speaker 5 (02:14:29):
So you spotted it visually first, Chief, and then went
back to your radar. Did you guys find it on?
Spotted on radar? First?

Speaker 12 (02:14:35):
Radar first, because that was my watch station was, and.

Speaker 5 (02:14:38):
Then you went out to the port bridge wing?

Speaker 10 (02:14:40):
Is that correct? Correct?

Speaker 21 (02:14:41):
To verify what I saw in Mari?

Speaker 5 (02:14:43):
What range was it at, Chief? When you were able
to see it visibly.

Speaker 7 (02:14:47):
I would say about seven nautical miles seven to eight
nautical miles of a light from the ship?

Speaker 12 (02:14:56):
Wow?

Speaker 5 (02:14:57):
Thank you, I yelled back.

Speaker 1 (02:15:00):
I recognized mister Burrows.

Speaker 20 (02:15:03):
Taking out in share mister Chief Wiggins. You said that
it was it emerged from the ocean. Is that right?

Speaker 12 (02:15:10):
Yes, sir?

Speaker 20 (02:15:11):
And before it did, it was glowing. It was a
glowing object under the water.

Speaker 7 (02:15:16):
That part I couldn't tell because it was nighttime at
nineteen fifteen approximately, and it was also at a distance,
so it's very hard to tell the difference between something
on the horizon and something surfacing from the water. My
personal thoughts after seeing what I saw is that it
did in fact come from the water, but I don't

(02:15:39):
have visual evidence showing exactly you know that it did
in fact come from the water, but I had again,
I had to go through my process of elimination and
try to figure out was this a ship on the
horizon just showing its lights at night? But to see
its surface then it made me question, Okay, where did

(02:16:00):
this come from? If it's flying and it's not a
drone or anything like that, where was its origin? Where
did it start?

Speaker 20 (02:16:09):
Mister Napp. In your testimony and in this document, you
detail an event that happened in Russia where their nuclear
missiles were activated and we were close to a World
War three at that time, which is startling to hear.
It's also good to know that, as we have investigated

(02:16:29):
the JFK files as well, that we're learning that there
was a document that was sent between Russia. There was
an agreement between Russia and the United States that if
they were to see some unidentified objects over sensitive sites,
that they would report it to each other. Are you
familiar with that document?

Speaker 9 (02:16:51):
Yes, I'm also familiar with the rhetoric public rhetoric between
President Reagan and Gorbachev at the time too, that they
traded statements about wouldn't it be something if we were
threatened by something from way outside, how we might work together.
I know for sure that they had conversations about it,
and I know we did reach an agreement to try

(02:17:13):
to lessen the possibility that US detecting a UFO or
group of UFOs would not be mistaken for a bunch
of Russian missiles. There were exchanges of that sort that
went back and forth.

Speaker 20 (02:17:23):
Yeah, and I can imagine this is to me the
validity of this document is underscored by the fact that
Russia would not want this to be known. They absolutely
would not want to know, the public to know, or
the United States to know that there was a vulnerability
in their missile systems.

Speaker 9 (02:17:38):
Would you agree, absolutely? And you know, and we had
many similar incidents at our nuclear weapons facilities here that
have all been sort of swept under the rug. But
it's pretty scary when you take down ten missile silos
during tense times and you don't have a better explanation
for it than it was a special test of security
mechanisms or using e MPs, which is a preposterous explanation.

Speaker 1 (02:18:03):
Real quick, we're going to cut to mister Ogle's he
just got back, so we're in a special kind of
lightning round, So five minutes and then we'll go back
to line of question.

Speaker 24 (02:18:11):
Thank you, madam chair. You know, at this point, I
think it's clear from from the hearing that there's advanced
technologies that are taking place in our airspace. You know,
the question is, and I opposed it in one of
the previous hearings, is it ours?

Speaker 21 (02:18:28):
Is it theirs?

Speaker 10 (02:18:29):
Or is it otherworldly?

Speaker 24 (02:18:31):
There may not be a silver bullet at the moment,
but when you look back through the hearing and the
evidence that's been presented, if you're going to point the
American people to one piece of evidence to start their
journey on this topic, what.

Speaker 12 (02:18:46):
Would you suggest, sir?

Speaker 10 (02:18:51):
One piece of evidence?

Speaker 6 (02:18:55):
I would I would start with this hearing in the cheering.

Speaker 10 (02:19:02):
There is no evidence, but.

Speaker 24 (02:19:04):
Is there a specific exactly? But is there a specific
evidence or footage or document that you think lends extreme
credibility to what we're talking discussing today?

Speaker 6 (02:19:13):
I would say this new video we're seeing today is
exceptional evidence that we're dealing with something but the.

Speaker 24 (02:19:19):
Kinetic Yes, mister Wiggins, Sir, I'd have to say that.

Speaker 7 (02:19:25):
If just the average person here in America looked at
absolutely everything that has come across television, the Internet, et cetera,
you can't tell yourself that one hundred percent of what's
being recorded as fake or false. You have to at
some point understand that there's something else out there.

Speaker 24 (02:19:44):
Well, I mean, and you bring an entering point. You know,
in the law enforcement community, anytime you're conducting investigation, you're
always looking at the totality of the circumstances. You're looking
at all the evidence evidence and how they piece together.
And so that would be my you know, advice to
the American people that this is a journey that is
just beginning from a congressional perspective, but you have decades

(02:20:07):
of data, some of it not real, much of it is.
But thanks to Chairwoman Luna, we're now presenting this to
the American people, and I think this latest video from
mister Burlason is something that should get everyone pause when
you think when you see the three orbs that drop,
was that in a defensive posture or was that in
an offensive posture? And what capabilities did those orbs have

(02:20:29):
that we quite frankly may not have mister Napp.

Speaker 9 (02:20:35):
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, what
hooked me on the story was the paper trail, these
documents that shouldn't exist. We've been told for decades over
and over, there's nothing to it. It's not a threat.
You can go about your business. And then when FOYA
becomes the law of the land, thousands of pages to
the contrary leak out. There's a memo by General Nathan

(02:20:55):
Twining in nineteen forty seven when the country was being
overflown by dozens of UFOs, hundreds of UFOs, in which
he said, look, this is not a visionary or fictitious,
it's real. These things are craft, they're not ours. They
outperform anything we've got. I mean, if you followed the
paper trail of documents that they wrote before the military

(02:21:16):
got wise and realized that FOYER really exists and changed
their tune and not put things in writing, it spells
it out pretty clearly. I'll go refer back to Russia.
One incident I did not mention that represent Burlson is
there are Colonel Sokolov in that Ministry Defense program said
there were forty incidents where Russian warplanes were sent to

(02:21:37):
intercept UFOs, and they were ordered to fire on them,
and for the most part, the UFOs would zip away.
Three of the pilots, though, did fire at these things.
Those three planes stalled out, crashed. Two of those pilots died,
and after that the Russians changed the standing order. If
you see a UFO, leave them alone. No country in
the world wants to say and admit that these objects

(02:21:57):
are flying around in our airspace and there's nothing we
can do about it. I mean, who wants to say that.
The US certainly doesn't. The Russians didn't either, and I've
got to be almost out of time. But mister Berlin,
then you.

Speaker 12 (02:22:07):
Sir, really quickly.

Speaker 10 (02:22:09):
Yeah, to be honest with you, I think Bob Blazar,
and not for the reasons that most would talk about,
mainly because Bob Blazar was immediately discredited. They said he
never worked where he worked, they said he never did
what he did. But yet Bob Blazar showed up with
a bunch of friends in a video camera and was
filming these test flights in the middle of the desert,
so clearly he knew something.

Speaker 9 (02:22:31):
Madam Chairman, if I'm out of time, I You'll bet
thank you very.

Speaker 1 (02:22:33):
Much representative ogles. I'd like to go back now on
our lightning run of questioning to represented Burchett and then Burlsen.
Burchette always number one.

Speaker 14 (02:22:45):
As well. I should be number one in your heart,
number four thirty five on the chart.

Speaker 17 (02:22:51):
That's me, uh, Dylan, knowing you testified to arrow. Are
they objuscating when they claim to have discovered no evidence
of extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology?

Speaker 14 (02:23:05):
And are they lyned in the American public?

Speaker 10 (02:23:08):
As I said before, it's a manipulation of the public perception.
The statement scientific evidence of extraterrestrials is a true statement.
It is not the truth about what is happening and
what we have.

Speaker 17 (02:23:23):
DiDia like a comment on that further, mister Natt, It
was edgy.

Speaker 9 (02:23:28):
It's splitting hairs. No proof that they're extraterrestrials. What would
that proof look like a piece of kryptonite? What would
it be? I mean, we could be talking about different
forms of non human intelligence. I think the dominant paradigm
is that they come from outer space, somewhere else, and
they have some way that they can cross those vast
distances that we can't even imagine doing, but not necessarily.

(02:23:49):
That's not necessarily the answer, So asking for proof of
extraterrestrials might not be the answer at all. It's splitting hairs.
You know, we don't know where they're from. I don't
know anyone who knows the answer for sure. They call
them aliens just as a placekeeper kind of a word.
But no one in all these programs who study this
stuff for years, people with much bigger brains than mine,
knows the answer for sure.

Speaker 17 (02:24:10):
I've talked to navy folks that some of the deep
sea areas they think there might be something there that
they're here, and I don't know when they got here.
Another point that needs to be made is every time,
you know, we say we're going to back engineer or
whatever you want to call it, these craft, I always say,
like it'd be like if you took a ride motorcycles.

Speaker 14 (02:24:30):
But if you took like an Indian or a Harley.

Speaker 17 (02:24:32):
To the people that came over here on the Mayflower,
you know, they'd see a bright, shiny object. They might
polish it, you know, they might, they might get it started.
I doubt they could. They couldn't. They couldn't work on it,
They couldn't put fuel they wouldn't be able to have
the capability of putting fuel in it. I just think
that that's you know, we're just we're scratching at something

(02:24:53):
that we don't have any knowledge of, and that's why it's.

Speaker 14 (02:24:57):
Just taking so dad come long. But they do know.

Speaker 17 (02:25:00):
First one that cracks that code, it's it's over. I mean,
it's it's it's energy, it's power, it's everything. And I
worry too that in the wrong hands that they do
that they keep it from the rest of us because
they're so invested in whatever energy sources we have here.
If they're billionaire, buddies are going to profit and they

(02:25:21):
can't and they can't retool because they know once it's
out on the internet, it's over. And so I think
there's a lot of things going after and I think
that's why the move to discredit folks is so rapid too.

Speaker 14 (02:25:34):
I think, you know, they're just they point to them
and they put the dogs on them, and it disgusts me.

Speaker 9 (02:25:40):
There's a price to be paid for that too. The
Russians and Chinese are trying to figure this out as well,
but they don't have the same kind of stigma. They
tell their best scientists and engineers get in there and
work on it, and they've been doing it for a
very long time. I'd have a head start on us here.
We don't have our best scientists and engineers working on
it because they've been told it's nonsense. The stigma is
very real for people like that.

Speaker 14 (02:26:01):
I agree, you'll back ch your lady.

Speaker 1 (02:26:03):
Thank you, and now like to recognize Representative Burlison.

Speaker 20 (02:26:08):
Mister Nucatelli. When you heard the testimony of mister Napp
talking about that these missiles were shut down or turned
on in Russia, does that remind you or can you
hear these stories? It's got to remind you of the
event that happened on your base.

Speaker 12 (02:26:31):
Absolutely.

Speaker 6 (02:26:31):
There are many many accounts of incursions of this tiger
lock taking place. I believe in the sixties we had
a similar incursion in New England and the same thing happened.
There were these objects coming over the base at low
altitude two hundred feet over the base security police and
they were scrambling fighters and then the objects would just

(02:26:53):
fly off and that went on for weeks. So the
historical record has laid out that there's a pattern that
are our installations are visited.

Speaker 21 (02:27:01):
By these craft.

Speaker 6 (02:27:03):
You know, they come in and do whatever they're doing,
and then they leave and we don't know how to respond.
We don't know how to protect the installation. So that's
why we're here.

Speaker 20 (02:27:14):
When you first heard and we're having to report on
these incidents that were being witnessed by other individuals. Did
you find did you believe them? Did you yourself believe
it would be true until you saw it.

Speaker 6 (02:27:26):
These are people I've worked with for years, deployed with.
You know, I was in some of the weddings. These
are people that I work with every day of my life.
Usually when the events were occurring, we were all together,
you know, there'd be forty sixty one hundred people on
duty during these encounters.

Speaker 20 (02:27:43):
Really, yeah, all seeing it at the same time.

Speaker 6 (02:27:46):
Yes, these were these encounters were playing out while we
were on duty, and we were responding and investigating in
real time as they occur.

Speaker 20 (02:27:56):
And as you said, the importance of your operation was
highly important, because they said it is the most important
in twenty five years, the research that you were conducting.

Speaker 6 (02:28:07):
For that particular launch, we had five hundred Air Force
Police officers guarding the launch, five hundred people.

Speaker 21 (02:28:15):
It was that critical.

Speaker 6 (02:28:16):
Wow, but I had this thing showed up, we wouldn't
have been able to do anything to event.

Speaker 1 (02:28:21):
It's showing up real quickly. Can you just redescribe size
and whether or not you heard anything? It was pubic wise, the.

Speaker 6 (02:28:28):
Two square objects were at least as large as a
football field. The second encounter, they think it was much
larger than a football field. We're talking like build flying buildings.
The object I saw was about thirty feet in diameter.

Speaker 1 (02:28:43):
And to confirm you were not the only person that
saw this, correct? I think I was also told that
there was also reports of this in a police blotterer
in the area.

Speaker 6 (02:28:51):
Can you confirm that, yes, that's the documentation that I
maintained from the original event and turned into air.

Speaker 1 (02:29:02):
Do you have any more?

Speaker 20 (02:29:03):
No, and I'm sure. I just want to reiterate to
the American people that if you're frustrated, so were we.
We're extremely frustrated. We've been, you know, the two three years.
I can only imagine how frustrated mister Nap is or
or Danny Sheehan is and the amount of time that
you guys have poured into this to try to get answers.
I mean, my song is back there he's been pouring

(02:29:25):
to try to get answers into this were I hope
that you all see that we're committed to this and
we're gonna be scrappy about it. We may not have
the direct authority, but I can assure you Representative Luna
is about as scrappy as it gets. I wouldn't want
to scrap with her. But that being said, I think
that if if the American people want to see answers,

(02:29:48):
we need to action. We've had the hearings, it's time
to take action. It's time that we pass Tim Burchett's
u A Whistleblower Act, It's time that we passed the
UAP Disclosure Act. And I think that we've had a
lot of talk about this, it's time for action.

Speaker 1 (02:30:06):
Thank you, Brolson. I would now like to yield thirty
minutes to Representative Crockett. I'll reserve. Thank you. In closing.
I want to thank our witnesses once again for their

(02:30:27):
testimony today. I now yield to Ranking Member Crockett for
closing remarks. I'll pass.

Speaker 10 (02:30:35):
No.

Speaker 2 (02:30:36):
I just want to say thank you so much to
each and every one of you for being here today,
for saying committed to this and for your courage. I
truly believe that courage is contagious, and right now we
need more courage than ever, whether it's UAPs or whether
we're dealing with any other form of government where people
are afraid to come out and speak their truth.

Speaker 1 (02:30:59):
The American people.

Speaker 2 (02:31:00):
Are relying on amazing public servants like you to speak
up on their behalf, to be the watchdog and to
make sure that we are as safe as possible. And
so thank you so much again for conducting a by
partisan hearing on such an important matter.

Speaker 1 (02:31:19):
Thank you. I now like to recognize myself for some
closing remarks. This is obviously something that doesn't just affect
everyone in this room. I can tell you that specifically
for where I represent in Panel's County, Tampa Bay, and
Florida as a whole. There's many sidings, many questions people
reporting this, but I'm not the only one. I was
also told by Representative Biggs as well as you know,

(02:31:40):
our great representative from Alaska that these are not isolated instances,
and so it does bring give us reasoning to provide
investigative inquiry into these topics, but also to I would
also like mister Spielberger if you could actually review and
see if your organization would endorse the Whistleblower Protection Act
that Representative Birchet has. I can tell you that I

(02:32:01):
will be signing onto a letter as well as I'm
sure many other members of this task course, and we
hope that the ranking chairwoman or my colleague here, Representative Crockett,
as well as our Democrats that we're here today consider
also signing onto that as we do feel that it
is time to ensure that our whistleblowers are given adequate
protections and that people like mister Borland are not facing

(02:32:22):
retribution in the way that they have been. With that
being said, with all that and without objection, all members
have five legislative days within to submit materials and additional
written questions for with the witnesses, and which will be
also affwarded to those witnesses if there are no further business.
Without objection, I like to now recognize Representative Burchette for

(02:32:42):
a closing room.

Speaker 17 (02:32:43):
I would just like to thank the ranking Member and
the chair Lady for their courage.

Speaker 14 (02:32:47):
This is a tough issue.

Speaker 17 (02:32:48):
We all catch hail for it, and it's uh, but
it's but it's gratifying that we're here in a bipartisan
nature and the way this meeting was conducted, and I
want to thank y'all for your courage.

Speaker 14 (02:32:59):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (02:33:07):
M without objection, the Task Force stands durned. M.

Speaker 5 (02:34:20):
Yeah.

All Episodes

UFO Hearing LIVE: Congress Confronts Pentagon Secrets | Sept 9, 2025

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}UFO Hearing LIVE: Congress Confronts Pentagon Secrets | Sept 9, 2025