UAP HEARINGS Whisteblowers Speak out on UFO Secrets! Part 2

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ports not to my knowledge, mister Wiggins, as the full
resolution UNITDED footage of your incident been provided to Congress.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yes, okay, where you or your.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Crew ever instructed formally or informally not to document or
discuss the event ever? No good, mister Borland. You've talked
about manipulation of your security clearance records. Can you identify
which agencies or offices were responsible and whether they provided
any written justification.

Speaker 3 (00:33):
I can do that in a skiff, sir. Because of
being a part of a multi agency special access program,
I cannot give those publicly, So.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
I had to encourage us maunam chair to have that skiff,
that skiff meeting if we can. And then, uh, mister
Borland again for you justify that you withheld certain sources
and methods from Errow due to mistrust. Can you give
us some specifics that legit believe they were misrepresenting the truth.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
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

(01:22):
about it, is why I had extreme reservations with it,
and also what I've been through and other whistleblowers and
people and then know about this subject I've been through.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
So, Madame Chair, thank you for letting me wave on.
I think the key thing there you talked about was
manipulation of message, manipulation of narrative. That is really the
problem with its entire the system that we've seen since
you've you've started these wonderful hearings, Madam Chair, and I thank.

Speaker 2 (01:52):
You so much.

Speaker 4 (01:53):
Thank you, Governor, I mean Representative Biggs. Miss the Chair
would now like to represent or recognize mister beg it for.

Speaker 5 (02:00):
Five minutes, Thank you, Madam Chair. First question, mister Borland.
Earlier today, you mentioned that 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 even within a skiff.

Speaker 3 (02:22):
I would suggest reaching out to Director Gabbard and speaking
with her about that. I'm hopeful that this goes back
to the executive branch and who even has authority. Unfortunately,
I can't give you a one hundred percent solid answer
because I don't even have that knowledge.

Speaker 5 (02:38):
Next question to George Knapp, what is the estimated annual
budget your view for the program for investigating or reverse
engineering UAP related technology, including official, misappropriated or black budget funds.

Speaker 6 (02:53):
I wouldn't have a clue. I don't know any person
that's ever seen it.

Speaker 5 (02:56):
Does anyone on this panel wish to address that question?

Speaker 2 (03:00):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (03:00):
Moving on, are any of you willing to name specific
gatekeepers within the root cell of the UAP SAP Federation?

Speaker 6 (03:15):
You mean specific people and contractors that have dealt with
US and.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Secret specific individuals.

Speaker 6 (03:24):
Well, one of them was named doctor James Ryder 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,

(03:45):
I think primarily told them to 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 2 (03:55):
And this is again available to anyone.

Speaker 5 (03:57):
Is there a security classification guide for UAP or NHI.

Speaker 7 (04:07):
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 6 (04:21):
I have a name for you. Go ahead, Glenn Gaffney CIA.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
Glenn Gaffney CIA.

Speaker 5 (04:28):
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 2 (04:41):
Because with the advent of.

Speaker 5 (04:45):
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 2 (04:55):
What do you think is the long game here?

Speaker 8 (04:58):
Well, the secret's out.

Speaker 6 (04:59):
I mean, how many video have there been already? You know,
videos that are leaked from within the military and intelligence
agencies and contractors and sensor 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 that it's real,

(05:19):
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 attitude 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 5 (05:38):
Final question, again, this one's open to anyone who'd like.

Speaker 2 (05:41):
To answer it.

Speaker 5 (05:43):
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 3 (05:58):
That could work as long as I'm leader, we allowed
to and you're legally allowed to receive it.

Speaker 6 (06:06):
I think these programs are in the executive Branch, National Security.

Speaker 8 (06:11):
Council and over on that side.

Speaker 6 (06:13):
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 they don't.

Speaker 2 (06:28):
Have it, thank you.

Speaker 5 (06:32):
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 6 (06:44):
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. We've watched multiple hearings now everyone is asking
the same kind of questions, whether right or left, and
and honestly went the answers, and you know, chair Ma Luna,
Chairwoman Luna, you're I appreciate your dedication to this, Tim

(07:07):
Burchett 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 4 (07:23):
Thank you, mister nat pursuit to Committee Rule nines that.

Speaker 9 (07:25):
I'm sure, can I have a part ask a parliamentary
question of you?

Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (07:29):
Sure?

Speaker 9 (07:30):
Does this subcommittee have the authority to do subpoenas task force?

Speaker 4 (07:35):
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 3 (07:56):
Thank you, mim.

Speaker 4 (07:57):
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

(08:20):
with that being said, if you guys want to jump
in the queue, I know Representative Crane Burleson and likely
Burchett have a few more questions. I'll just start out
with two and then I'll pass the buck to Burleson, Burchett,
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

(08:41):
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? Maybe 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 doc documents. I got through maybe half of

(09:01):
them last night. There was 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 the Soviet government or groups to specifically investigate
this by name?

Speaker 6 (09:15):
Real quick, 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 DEA guys who looked
at it figured out there was a much larger organization interisted.

Speaker 4 (09:31):
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, while

(10:14):
this is still rolling, mister news telly real quick?

Speaker 11 (10:17):
Yes or no?

Speaker 4 (10:17):
Answers, Are you aware of anything in the government United
States government arsenal that can split a health fire and
missile like this? No, and do whatever blob thing it didn't?
Then keep going nothing nothing, all right? How about you,
chief Wigan Wiggins? Nothing to my knowledge, man, okay, And
how about you, mister Borland.

Speaker 3 (10:35):
I prefer to answer that in the skiff.

Speaker 4 (10:38):
Okay, does this video scare you guys? Yes or no?

Speaker 12 (10:44):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (10:45):
Wiggins, Yes, Nat.

Speaker 8 (10:49):
I had a different reaction. I was really happy that
it got out. Thanks for providing curiosity.

Speaker 4 (10:54):
Cover that all right, mister Moorland.

Speaker 13 (10:58):
Yes for okay, all right?

Speaker 4 (11:00):
That that is the end of my questioning. I like
to now recognize mister.

Speaker 13 (11:04):
Crane, Thank you.

Speaker 12 (11:09):
Chief.

Speaker 13 (11:09):
I was on a ship for a little bit.

Speaker 14 (11:11):
I was a gunner's mate on the USS Skittisburg 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 8 (11:23):
Is that correct.

Speaker 11 (11:24):
That's correct. On an LCS ship, the CIC is on
the bridge, so it's called ICC one.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
But yes, the same did.

Speaker 14 (11:33):
Did a bunch of the other folks and the CIC
come and check out what you were looking at?

Speaker 2 (11:38):
Yes, we all did.

Speaker 11 (11:40):
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 14 (11:53):
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 and Nissateli, you saw this by yourself.

Speaker 7 (12:05):
No, there were multiple witnesses in every case at Vanderberg.

Speaker 14 (12:08):
Okay, So Chief, did that spread like wildfire throughout the
ship in the next day or two what you guys
had seen.

Speaker 11 (12:17):
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 watchstanders that stood watch on the bridge and
in ICC one. So it did move around there throughout
a few days.

Speaker 14 (12:34):
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 11 (12:44):
Potentially uninterest 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 14 (12:58):
Was it hard for you to get from mission from
the Navy to bring that video?

Speaker 11 (13:03):
I myself didn't bring the video.

Speaker 2 (13:05):
I just saw the video.

Speaker 11 (13:06):
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.
Then I wanted to talk about it.

Speaker 14 (13:23):
How long did that encounter take place?

Speaker 11 (13:25):
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 13 (13:40):
What speed was.

Speaker 11 (13:41):
The object moving at 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

(14:02):
an air controller myself, I started thinking and going through
kind of like my checklist in my mind. Could it
be a helo but it's not blinking lights. 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,

(14:24):
slowly rising, and then it sped up. I'm not an
expert at you know, knowing specific speeds of 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

(14:45):
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 a certain
amount of time, it was nearly instantaneous.

Speaker 14 (15:00):
Spotted it visually first, Chief, and then went back to
your radar, Did you guys find it on?

Speaker 13 (15:04):
Spotted on radar?

Speaker 3 (15:05):
First?

Speaker 11 (15:05):
Radar first, because that was my watch station was and
then you went.

Speaker 14 (15:09):
Out to the port bridge wing?

Speaker 15 (15:10):
Is that correct?

Speaker 2 (15:11):
Correct?

Speaker 11 (15:11):
To verify what I saw in my what.

Speaker 14 (15:13):
Range was it at, Chief, when you were able to
see it visibly?

Speaker 11 (15:17):
I would say about seven nautical miles seven to eight
nautical miles of a light from the ship?

Speaker 4 (15:26):
Wow?

Speaker 14 (15:27):
Thank you, I yelled back.

Speaker 4 (15:29):
I now recognize mister Burrowson's.

Speaker 12 (15:32):
Thank you, madam.

Speaker 9 (15:33):
Share mister Chief Wiggins, you said that it was it
emerged from the ocean.

Speaker 16 (15:39):
Is that right?

Speaker 2 (15:40):
Yes, sir?

Speaker 9 (15:41):
And before it did, it was glowing. It was a
glowing object under the water.

Speaker 11 (15:46):
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

(16:09):
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

(16:30):
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 9 (16:39):
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
the JFKA files as well, that we're learning that there

(17:04):
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.

Speaker 16 (17:17):
Are you familiar with that document?

Speaker 6 (17:21):
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

(17:43):
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 9 (17:52):
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 8 (18:08):
Would you agree, absolutely?

Speaker 6 (18:10):
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.

Speaker 8 (18:16):
But it's pretty scary when you.

Speaker 6 (18:18):
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 EMPs, which
is a preposterous explanation.

Speaker 4 (18:33):
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 questioning.

Speaker 17 (18:41):
Thank you, madam chair. You know, at this point, I
think it's clear 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.

Speaker 15 (18:57):
Is it ours? Is it theirs?

Speaker 2 (18:59):
Or is it otherworldly?

Speaker 17 (19:01):
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 would you suggest, sir?

Speaker 7 (19:21):
One piece of evidence? I would I would start with
this hearing. In the first hearing, there is no evidence, but.

Speaker 17 (19:33):
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 7 (19:43):
I would say this new video we're seeing today is
exceptional evidence that we're dealing with something.

Speaker 17 (19:48):
With the kinetic mis Wiggins, Sir, I'd have to say that.

Speaker 11 (19:55):
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 17 (20:14):
Well, I mean, and you bring an interesting 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

(20:37):
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

(20:59):
that we quite frankly may not have.

Speaker 6 (21:02):
Mister Napp, 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

(21:25):
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

(21:46):
got wise and realized that FOYA really exists and changed
their tune and not put things in writing, it spells
it out pretty clearly.

Speaker 8 (21:53):
I'll go refer back to Russia.

Speaker 6 (21:56):
One incident I did not mention to represent Burleson is there.
Colonel Sokolov in that Ministry defense program said there were
forty incidents where Russian war planes were sent to intercept
UFOs and they were ordered to fire on him. And
for the most part, the UFOs would zip away. Three
of the pilots, though, did fire.

Speaker 8 (22:14):
At these things. Those three planes.

Speaker 6 (22:16):
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 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. Then Russians didn't.

Speaker 17 (22:33):
Either, and I've got to be almost out of time.

Speaker 15 (22:35):
But mister Berlin, then.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
You sir real quickly.

Speaker 3 (22:38):
Yeah, to be honest with you, I think Bob Blazar,
and not for the reasons that most would talk about,
mainly because bab Blazar was immediately discredited. They said he
never worked where he worked, they said he never did
what he did. But yet bab 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 17 (23:01):
Madam Chairman, if I'm out of time, I youll bet.

Speaker 4 (23:03):
Thank you very much, Representative Ogles. I'd like to go
back now on our lightning run of questioning to represented
Burchett and then Burlsen. Burchett always number one.

Speaker 18 (23:15):
As well.

Speaker 3 (23:15):
I should be.

Speaker 18 (23:18):
Number one in your heart, number four thirty five on
the chart. That's me, Dylan, know one you testified to arrow.
Are they obsuscating when they claim to have discovered no
evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity or technology, and are they
lying to the American public.

Speaker 3 (23:38):
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 18 (23:53):
Needa, I like to comment on that further, mister knapp
here it was edgy.

Speaker 6 (23:58):
It's splitting hairs. No proof that they're extraterrestrials. What would
that proof look like a piece of kryptonite?

Speaker 8 (24:04):
What would it be?

Speaker 6 (24:04):
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.

Speaker 15 (24:17):
But not necessarily.

Speaker 6 (24:19):
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.

Speaker 15 (24:29):
For sure.

Speaker 6 (24:30):
They call them aliens just as a placekeeper kind of
a word. But no one in all these programs who've
studied this stuff for years. People with much bigger brains
than mine knows the answer for sure.

Speaker 18 (24:40):
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 Irid motorcycle.

(25:00):
But if you took like an Indian or a Harley.
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

(25:20):
that that's you know, we're just we're scratching it something
that we don't have any knowledge of, and that's why
it's just taking so Dad come along.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
But they do know.

Speaker 18 (25:30):
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
that they're billionaire buddies are going to profit and they

(25:51):
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.
I think you know, they're just they point to them
and they put the dogs on them, and that disgusts me.

Speaker 8 (26:09):
There's a price to be paid for that too.

Speaker 6 (26:11):
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 18 (26:30):
I agree.

Speaker 4 (26:32):
You'll back to cheer lady, thank you, and now like
to recognize Representative Burlison.

Speaker 9 (26:38):
Mister Nussatelli. 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 when you hear
these stories, it's got to remind you of the event
that happened on your base.

Speaker 11 (27:00):
Guys.

Speaker 7 (27:00):
Absolutely, there are many many accounts of incursions of this
title 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

(27:23):
fly off and that went on for weeks. So the
historical record has laid out that there's a pattern that
our installations are visited by these craft. 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 9 (27:44):
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 7 (27:56):
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 worked 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 9 (28:13):
Really, yeah, all seeing it at the same time.

Speaker 7 (28:16):
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 9 (28:26):
And as you said, the importance of your operation was
highly important, because they said it's the most important in
twenty five years, the research that you were conducting.

Speaker 7 (28:37):
For that particular launch, we had five hundred Air Force
Police officers guarding the launch. Five hundred people.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
It was that critical.

Speaker 7 (28:46):
Wow, But it had this thing showed up, we wouldn't
have been able to do anything to prevent it showing
up real quickly.

Speaker 4 (28:52):
Can you just redescribe size and whether or not you
heard anything? It was hub big wise, the.

Speaker 7 (28:58):
Two square objects were 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 diameter, and.

Speaker 4 (29:13):
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 7 (29:21):
Can you confirm that, yes, that's the documentation that I
maintained from the original event and turned into arrow in
the FBI.

Speaker 4 (29:30):
Okay, do you have any more Brosen?

Speaker 16 (29:33):
No, And I'm sure.

Speaker 9 (29:34):
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 Danny Sheehan is and
the amount of time that you guys have poured into
this to try to get answers. I mean, Masan is
back there, He's been pouring to try to get answers

(29:56):
into this. I hope that you all see that we
are committed to this and we're going to 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.

Speaker 16 (30:11):
I wouldn't want to scrap with her.

Speaker 9 (30:14):
But that being said, I think that if the American
people want to see answers, 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 pass the UAP Disclosure Act. And I
think that we've had a lot of talk about this.
It's time for action.

Speaker 4 (30:35):
Thank you, Broson. I would now like to yield thirty
minutes to Representative Crockett.

Speaker 19 (30:52):
All reserve.

Speaker 4 (30:53):
Thank you. In closing, I want to thank our witnesses
once again for their testimony today. I now yield to
Ranking Member Crockett.

Speaker 12 (30:59):
For US remarks.

Speaker 19 (31:02):
I'll pass.

Speaker 7 (31:05):
No.

Speaker 19 (31:05):
I just want to say thank you so much to
each and every one of you for being here today,
for staying 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. The

(31:29):
American people 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 13 (31:49):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (31:50):
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 and pane Else 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 are a
great representative from Alaska, that these are not isolated instances,

(32:14):
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 Birchett has. I can tell you that I
will be signing onto a letter as well as I'm
sure many other members of this task course, and we

(32:35):
hope that the ranking chairwoman, 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
retribution in the way that they have been. With that
being said, with all that and without objection, all members

(32:58):
have five legislative days within to emit 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'd like to now recognize Representative Burchett.

Speaker 20 (33:12):
For a closing room.

Speaker 18 (33:13):
I would just like to thank the ranking member and
the chair Lady for their courage. This is a tough issue.
We all catch hail for it, and it's uh, but
it's but it's gratifying that we're hearing a bipartisan nature
and the way this meeting was conducted, and I want
to thank y'all for your courage.

Speaker 2 (33:29):
Thank y'all.

Speaker 4 (33:41):
Without objection. The Task Force stands adjourned.

Speaker 20 (33:47):
So those hearings, anybody got something to say.

Speaker 13 (33:50):
I can tell you this. Actually, no, we'll have to
do it in a skiff.

Speaker 12 (33:58):
I thought this was a skiff, No, it is in
the wrong place.

Speaker 10 (34:03):
Yeah, okay, excellent. So Pavel, what were you saying you
thought George n App was the man? Is that what
it sounded like?

Speaker 15 (34:12):
Yeah, I thought I wanted to hear him talking about
the Russia documents because I always wondered what he did
right after he came back from the Soviet Union, if
he got into a skiff, if he spoke to someone.
He directly said what he did, and he also said
that what is public it's like one percent of what

(34:36):
there is about that. So that's a lot of information.
So I do want to know more about that. I
want to know about what Robert Bigelow did his role
in all of that. So I was very excited for that.
And yeah, as Martin Willis said, Dylan Borland is like
a real bona fide badass, and I'm just excited for

(35:01):
This is a much better hearing than the one from
last year, which had a lot of issues, and I
think this was a perfect This was the ideal continuation
of the twenty twenty three hearing, in my opinion, and
that video that was amazing. I mean, I wasn't expecting
that it was wild. I don't know what you guys thought.

Speaker 13 (35:23):
I do know that when George Knapp got back from Russia,
it's reported that he took a nice, long worn bath
and then made a list who was Naudy a nice
Who's going to get the data that I got back? Yeah,
that footage is still kind of my mind is still

(35:44):
kind of a really and I'm trying to as a filmmaker,
you know, you look at CGI and everything else. Clearly
this is not that, not even close. But you look
at the way that things react, properties of things, because
you have to emulate It's that was part of my
job in the film. I made the the the offshoot
material that came off that craft after being hit. First

(36:06):
of all, that craft should have gone down, It should
have been taken from the sky removed. The fact that
these that these uh sections of the craft was following
the craft kind of became individual and was following. This
is a huge clue that we've not had before. This
is the best UFO footage that any of these hearings

(36:28):
have ever had, bar none. And so you know, we're
still digesting this, but the clues that we are seeing
here we're gonna be you know, I don't think any
of us can give an answer as to what was
going on there. Maybe Chris would be the closest, but
I'm curious, Chris, what did you think when you saw that?

(36:48):
You know, because that was your job was to fire
a missile at at you know, a MiG And what
would that reaction be when you would normally fire something
and hit something.

Speaker 10 (36:59):
Not that for I mean, that's definitely not you see
a change in trajectory. That was the strangest part where
you could see you could clearly see the multiple parts.
You know, there was like the main part that had
moved had obviously moved, and then there was two other
little tiny like white dots, you know, pieces of whatever

(37:19):
it was, and then continued on the same trajectory. So
that's where I think we need to look at it closer,
because I'm sure you're gonna hear from Mick West and
them that it's parallax, that basically it's an object just
sitting there. But even then, what object would split like that?

(37:40):
I still don't even know. Even if it was stationary,
even if they could make an argument that it's parallax,
it's got the recording.

Speaker 15 (37:50):
Yeah, look at that actually.

Speaker 13 (37:57):
Looks like pieces.

Speaker 20 (38:01):
Yeah, Wow, We've definitely not seen something like this before.
So for this to be entered into the congressional records,
to be shown at the UAP hearings, I mean, if
this doesn't move the needle, I don't know what will.
I mean, of course, people always want to see like,
you know, actual craft, actual bodies, but we have to
start with stuff like this.

Speaker 13 (38:24):
Yeah, and and I'm glad that that we got this
before Jeremy Corbell stamped his logo weaponizing whatever.

Speaker 12 (38:33):
On this so.

Speaker 10 (38:37):
Well released it.

Speaker 13 (38:38):
Right, It's just it's just fine teasing.

Speaker 12 (38:43):
As all since we're shots of being fired. I was
really concerned that George Knapp. I mean, I think George
Knapp did a great job. I was at first thinking,
you know, why is George Knapp? But I think he
didn't excellent job today, So I don't have anything against him.

(39:04):
But I was worried that Bob Lazar was going to
come up because it's so controversial, and there were people
and I saw, you know, you posted chat. You know
Bob Blazar was there. Well, Bob Blazaar is never going
to be there for so many different reasons. But I
didn't think it went off the rails. But it's just
that this is, you know, things supposedly happened to him.

(39:27):
My personal thoughts about Bob Czar is, you know, maybe
I shouldn't share them, but I don't think that he
was who he says he was. I think though he
knew some inside information, perhaps he took on a persona.
I've did a lot, I've done a lot of research
on this, and I'm not just saying this blindly. So

(39:48):
I was dedicated quite a bit of my time into
researching Bob Blazar. You know why, because I wanted it
to be true. I wanted Bob Blazar to be true,
and so that's why I had an interest in why.
I have on a deep dive into his past. And
I've even talked to George Knapp about his thoughts about
Barb Bazaar. It's a pretty interesting little conversation we had

(40:09):
back and forth. But anyway, I thought the rest of
the hearing was great. I thought that testimonies were amazing,
especially Borland. I just I can't get over that testimony
as a whole. That was just blew me away. I
thought it was the best testimony ever from anyone in
any of these hearings.

Speaker 21 (40:28):
Myself, I would agree with that for sure.

Speaker 20 (40:35):
I found it interesting that Borland is the one that
brought up Barblazar. George Knapp isn't the one that did it.

Speaker 12 (40:40):
I was surprised about that first. George Knapp did first,
and this talked about it at the end.

Speaker 13 (40:48):
Yeah, I also thought it was interesting.

Speaker 21 (40:52):
Go ahead, Oh, I was gonna say.

Speaker 20 (40:54):
I thought it was interesting that Borland skirted a question
and told them to specifically asked Tulci Gabbard. I mean,
I thought that it was interesting that he brought her
up and said that we should be questioning her and
see what she knows, because clearly it's a lot more
than what everybody else does.

Speaker 13 (41:13):
Yeah, Mick West already fired the first shot earlier, and
he said, with regards to Borlan, he said, am I
the only one noticing that this one on for fifteen minutes?
And no one except for Borland saw this? Like, isn't
that suspicious? And I said, I got it from our

(41:34):
friend Charlie, who you know, was throwing down on this.
And I said, well, no one asked him if there
was anyone else there, so he didn't get a chance
to really, you know, answer that. So I am curious.
I wish they had followed up and said, who else
saw this? Because for fifteen minutes, someone else had to
have seen that craft.

Speaker 15 (41:55):
I can speak to that a little bit because this
is a story that I heard twice before Borland talked
about it, and as far as I heard, he was
not the only one at the siding watching that. But

(42:16):
I don't know if the information about that is like
more confidential if they can't share it right now, or
But that's that's what I understood. That he wasn't the
only one there, and his cell phone wasn't the only
one that got like fried in the incident. There were
other devices that also got fried in the incident. That's

(42:40):
what I i And when I heard that that, I
didn't know his name or anything. But when I heard
that that was the story, I was like, Oh, that's so,
that's the guy. So I heard it twice already from
people within those circles, you know.

Speaker 10 (42:56):
So yeah, have you guys, have you heard of Borland
before this? Did you know what he was going to
talk about?

Speaker 21 (43:06):
No?

Speaker 20 (43:06):
No, I mean not till they released their statements. I
was very taken aback by not only the fact that
he's talking about that cell phones froze, but that whole
human beings were immobilized, like frozen in place at the
same time. So it's not just tech that was paralyzed.
It was also human.

Speaker 13 (43:22):
Beings and the static electricity that he said he felt
as you know quote. I think he said it was
like a summer day after you know, electrical storm, which
was pretty specific.

Speaker 21 (43:35):
That's superest Yeah.

Speaker 12 (43:39):
Yeah, I mean people talk about we hear all the time.
We hear about, you know, cell phones draining batteries, cameras
draining batteries, all these things. There's these physical possibly electromagnetic
effects on you know, tech, cars, stall things like that.
I mean, this all kind of fits in the same,
you know, same area.

Speaker 10 (44:00):
Yeah, okay, and I have the found the video. Actually,
if we want to watch the full video here, let me.

Speaker 9 (44:16):
That another m Q nine launched a hellfire missile that
you cannot see that drone and so you'll and I'm
not going to explain it to you, you'll see exactly
what it does. This is when it zoomed out, so

(44:36):
you can still see it traveling.

Speaker 10 (44:45):
So okay, I think what they're going to say is
that it's a balloon. That'll be the main argument is
that it's uh, parallax. You can see the range down here.
When it comes up, it's around five point four nautical miles.

(45:07):
We're having issues, of course, classic live, but I'll go
back now.

Speaker 12 (45:15):
So interesting two things not traveling in a straight line.
It's in a straight line like a I'm saying it's
not traveling in a straight line like a balloon would.

Speaker 13 (45:27):
Well, yeah, balloon with the wind like a travel in
a straight line, it'll it'll move around.

Speaker 12 (45:33):
It's interesting. Wind is.

Speaker 13 (45:36):
You go where the winds are going?

Speaker 12 (45:38):
Right, the wind is usually going in a straight line.
It's not going around like this. You know, it's not
moving around you know anything you've seen like a balloon.
Anytime you see a balloon, it's going in a straight
you know, floating along with the wind. That's my opinion.
Maybe I'm totally wrong.

Speaker 13 (45:56):
I've seen them both, but usually I see it kind
of going as it as it moves around. My question
for Chris is was this footage slowed down when the
moment of contact happened because that missile was moving kind
of slow comparatively. I mean, it should have been just
this thing that came in super quick. How fast do
missiles travel?

Speaker 10 (46:16):
Traditionally they travel different speeds, but normally they go two
to three miles. They're going mack to normally your health
fire missile is probably going slower than that. So that's
ten miles a minute, say supersonic.

Speaker 12 (46:41):
So that's fast.

Speaker 13 (46:42):
So this should have just been.

Speaker 10 (46:43):
This six hundred miles an hour.

Speaker 13 (46:46):
Yeah, it should have been this blur that came in
and hit it. So it seems like it was maybe
slowed down.

Speaker 21 (46:52):
Yeah, good point, unless the target was moving just as fast.

Speaker 13 (46:57):
Well, I'm talking about once it comes into frame. Duration
of time it comes in a frame to contact was Yeah,
was protracted almost. It just seemed like it had a while,
like it almost could have maneuvered around it. I'm I
kind of want.

Speaker 21 (47:12):
It seems like it might be flown down.

Speaker 10 (47:14):
Let's showed again.

Speaker 9 (47:17):
Before it starts, I'm going to describe. This was taken
October thirtieth of twenty twenty four.

Speaker 16 (47:22):
This video is a.

Speaker 9 (47:28):
M This is when it zoomed out, so you can
still see it traveling.

Speaker 20 (47:43):
These say thing is that we clearly they don't even
understand that you're hostile.

Speaker 16 (47:47):
I think that's not so, mister nap.

Speaker 10 (47:55):
Yeah, it doesn't come in super fast, but you're looking
from far away, I think that looks like.

Speaker 13 (48:02):
It was slowed down. Also, I'm just you know, we
have to kick the tires right, all the tires.

Speaker 12 (48:08):
It looks less if you hit.

Speaker 13 (48:10):
Something and it's moving that fast, it doesn't all of
a sudden drop straight down. So the perception of it
is to right. But we're looking at an angle where
the whole thing, if it was moving down because it
had been hit and was going to eventually go to
the water, they don't let the footage continue where we
see what happens next. So it could have been slowly
moving down and you know, it'd still be moving at

(48:32):
the velocity to a degree and then slowing down. But
it Yeah, so it didn't look one hundred percent like
it just kind of continued and going on on its
home speed. It could have been something that was, you know,
dropping down in chunks, but the angle, we couldn't see
it dropping down because yeah.

Speaker 12 (48:48):
That's right, we're above. And also it's too bad they've
lost track of it and it didn't keep filming, you know,
along the way after it was hit. You know, just.

Speaker 10 (49:02):
Exist l r D lays des Yeah you can see it. Yeah,
it turns. The missile turns and hits it like final guidance.

Speaker 13 (49:17):
Yeah, yeah, I wish we had white shot.

Speaker 16 (49:23):
You can still see it traveling again. So, mister Nap,
do you have any.

Speaker 13 (49:41):
Okay, so we just saw the balloon, because that is
what they're gonna say, right, We just saw kind of curve, right,
and so it wasn't a complete straight in the In
the wide shot, it looked like it kind of curved.

Speaker 10 (49:54):
I saw the missile curve only swamp.

Speaker 13 (49:57):
Now I'm talking about the wide shot. It looked like
it was a curving a little bit like it.

Speaker 21 (50:03):
It looked like the object was hurting out slightly.

Speaker 13 (50:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (50:08):
Yeah, it's six miles away, so you're you know, you're
zoomed in. I can show it again. That was an
interesting video. You can see down here five point four
two nautical miles.

Speaker 12 (50:23):
Mm hmmm.

Speaker 21 (50:25):
That white.

Speaker 10 (50:28):
I can't say it doesn't say.

Speaker 9 (50:30):
Mister nap, do you have any have you heard about yeah?

Speaker 13 (50:38):
That dialogue? Yeah, thank you.

Speaker 10 (50:54):
So I see a curve, yeah, and then this kind
of looks like honestly looks like kind of balloon material
or something, and then multiple pieces in shape.

Speaker 13 (51:08):
It's shaped, but.

Speaker 8 (51:13):
It didn't like it.

Speaker 10 (51:15):
Mhmm.

Speaker 12 (51:17):
I've never seen why why.

Speaker 10 (51:23):
It was interesting here to me though, you still see
parts flying even after a while.

Speaker 13 (51:32):
It's just the angle, the compression, theocus, full focal length
would make it look like you can't tell how that
make makes sense?

Speaker 10 (51:51):
Multiple parts. Then they zoom out to white field of view.
Now they're tracking it manually because before they had a
lock on it. Now it's manual track. So yeah, this
is after it's a constant video. What's interesting is you
can still see parts here. There's still parts in the
same area. The problem is it could it could be

(52:16):
just parallax again, like if go fast, you know, if
that is a balloon, then I you know, I think
they have a reasonable argument.

Speaker 15 (52:28):
But why.

Speaker 10 (52:30):
Hear Yeah, I don't know why, Martin.

Speaker 21 (52:37):
And then.

Speaker 10 (52:43):
I think it's your audio Martin.

Speaker 13 (52:48):
I think if when we get out of this video,
it'll go back to normal.

Speaker 10 (52:55):
Okay, Yeah, so that it was spot balloon this you
know what I mean?

Speaker 13 (53:02):
That was This could have been a spy balloon as
well that they took out or were trying to take
out of the sky.

Speaker 12 (53:10):
Yeah, but that would be at such a low level
over the ocean. I mean, I don't know. Maybe we don't.

Speaker 13 (53:16):
Well, the thing we took it. I'm not saying it's
that because what you saw Martin and posted, which was great,
was pictures of it like completely being taken out, like
there was nothing left. This thing is still moving and
so sorry about the Hellic copyright the question.

Speaker 12 (53:38):
Huh oh, that was interesting.

Speaker 10 (53:43):
Lost them both, No, how we're going to lose them
both at the same time. Shoot, I was trying to
find the hell Fire missile here. Let me bring it up.

Speaker 15 (54:05):
What happened?

Speaker 10 (54:07):
You're here as well, right, Pavel?

Speaker 15 (54:12):
Yeah, but what happened is everybody else gone?

Speaker 10 (54:14):
It dropped him.

Speaker 15 (54:16):
There's Martin.

Speaker 12 (54:17):
Ye, yeah, I did. I don't know when.

Speaker 13 (54:23):
I wow hearing that Martin's balloone was obliterated, this wasn't.
And also that you could see that there was a
chunk taking there was a curve taken out of it,
and it was continuing to move. That doesn't sound like
you know, a blowing to me. I'm just saying that,
you know the way things are moving looking at it,

(54:47):
and indeed even.

Speaker 20 (54:51):
You know.

Speaker 10 (54:52):
Okay, so this is a a g M one fourteen.
This is the hell Fire is what they said they
shot it with. So it's a missile normally used for
anti armor, so drone strikes, but they do have it
on the predators and the reapers. Okay, laser guided because

(55:16):
he did he did say hell fire.

Speaker 21 (55:18):
Why we want to see an explosion? You know? Was
there not a war hit on that missile?

Speaker 10 (55:26):
The way the the way the explosions work is their fragmentation.
So it's gonna blow up like a like a grenade
and shoot a bunch of frag.

Speaker 12 (55:39):
Oh, click on.

Speaker 13 (55:40):
The video so we can see it hitting something.

Speaker 10 (55:42):
Let's see it. Okay, this is too long. Let me
fast forward to target. Yeah, away, yeah, so miss is

(56:03):
a way.

Speaker 12 (56:05):
That's going.

Speaker 10 (56:09):
It's ten seconds, twenty twenty seconds.

Speaker 13 (56:23):
Okay, so that's that's an explosion Rogers.

Speaker 10 (56:28):
Yeah, but when you.

Speaker 13 (56:33):
Not explode, that's what we did, what we saw.

Speaker 12 (56:40):
That's right. What are we watching, Chris? What are we
watching it? That in? Is that a flir?

Speaker 10 (56:46):
This this is a flip.

Speaker 12 (56:47):
Yeah, no, no, I mean I mean, I'm sorry, I
mean the original footage.

Speaker 10 (56:53):
Yeah, the original is a flair.

Speaker 12 (56:54):
As well, footage that they showed up the hearing.

Speaker 10 (56:59):
Yeah, this is this is a flair. Also, it's definitely flair. Yeah,
just the way that it's black and white, the way
the the pixels move. It's definitely fleir, but it's wide angle.
You're pretty high and six miles away, so that could

(57:24):
be from a fighter that could or another could be
from another like a reaper or a predator, some other
drone in the area, like is up higher in the
stack and then you have someone shooting it from down lower.

Speaker 13 (57:45):
Can we see the contact they hit a little bit
earlier in the Yeah, thanks.

Speaker 10 (58:02):
I can play slow.

Speaker 13 (58:10):
Oh great.

Speaker 12 (58:11):
I wonder if you play m hmm, if you play
a fast food show a different reaction.

Speaker 10 (58:22):
Yeah, there's no explosion or anything.

Speaker 21 (58:25):
That definitely curved like you said, Chris, and I don't
see pieces coming off the missile. I see pieces coming
off of the object.

Speaker 10 (58:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 12 (58:35):
Absolutely. The missile just keeps going, which kind of like
it's like it and kept going.

Speaker 10 (58:46):
Yeah, that is an issue. Yeah, it's like fuses. The
way fuses work is that they have to have You
don't want them to be too sensitive that they just
blow up right right when you shot whatever the weapon is.
But you want them sensitive enough that they'll fuse on
the target, like if they go through it, if they

(59:09):
go through clouds or something, you don't want them to fuse,
you know. But you do want them to fuse on
your target.

Speaker 12 (59:14):
So there's a unless unless that is a balloon and
a bounce right off of it.

Speaker 10 (59:20):
There's different type like a proximity fuse. They have little radars,
you know, it shoots out a little radar energy, but
like bullets. Well he's changing the camera angle copy that,
so it's hard to tell.

Speaker 12 (59:38):
Well, you know, Mick is right at work on this
right now. I can tell you that.

Speaker 10 (59:43):
I'm sure. I know. What he's going to say is
that it's he's going to say, it's a balloon.

Speaker 21 (59:48):
A balloon and parallax and the missile just barely scathed
the object and so it didn't explode because it never
triggered the fuse.

Speaker 10 (59:59):
Right, I think he's going to say, yep, it didn't detonate.

Speaker 12 (01:00:02):
Well, these are all good questions, Martin.

Speaker 13 (01:00:06):
Yours detonated, so they were able to detonate that spy balloon.

Speaker 12 (01:00:11):
So there wasn't actually my spy balloon. Just so every
everyone knows it wasn't my spy balloon. Come on, Mark,
I no, I just happened to be just for the
people out there that no, this I just happened to
be in myrtle beach and got out of the car
looking at real estate. Got out of the car of
the real estate agent said oh, there's a Chinese balloon.
I said, yeah, it looks just like it, and he said, no,

(01:00:33):
there it is, and we watched.

Speaker 21 (01:00:34):
A jet it's coming right at it.

Speaker 12 (01:00:37):
I saw the whole thing firsthand. I got my camera
out and watched the thing explode when I was riding anymore.
It was pretty far up.

Speaker 13 (01:00:46):
And we're supposed to believe you just happen to be there.

Speaker 12 (01:00:49):
Okay, Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 10 (01:00:51):
I was wearing black, but you were there when it happened.

Speaker 12 (01:00:57):
I was right under it, yep. Yeah. And I got
it unfilmed and I did talk to BBC. That was fun.

Speaker 10 (01:01:07):
Okay. So I think we know what Mick West will
say on this. Yeah, at least, I'm I'm pretty sure
it's gonna be paralllex like go fast. And that was
a good point, Dean, that you noticed that it doesn't
it doesn't look like it fused, and yeah, fusing is
not so easy. I think that happened actually on the

(01:01:29):
the three balloons that they shot down. If you remember
that they had to shoot two missiles at the one
over the Great Lakes and people kept asking why did
they shoot to.

Speaker 12 (01:01:41):
What happens to a missile like that, Chris is just
go right into the ocean and they try to fish
it out later if they can't.

Speaker 10 (01:01:47):
I don't think they're try and fish it out. No,
I think they just leave it.

Speaker 12 (01:01:53):
I would imagine it would have some type of tracker
on it though, you know, it seems like it would
if it didn't go if it did, like if it
was a it should all missiles should have some type
of tracker.

Speaker 13 (01:02:02):
I would imagine it's one hundred It was one hundred pounds.

Speaker 12 (01:02:05):
Very expensive, that's pretty yeah, they are.

Speaker 10 (01:02:09):
But no, there's no tracking on our missiles. When you're
doing testing on it. It's telemetry. Yeah, then they'll know
where it goes. But even then, No, there's stories of
dropping glide weapons and they go off into the middle
of nowhere. Actually we don't know where they went, where
the weapons go. Yeah, so I think that happened at

(01:02:32):
the Great Lakes. It was F sixteen's and they had
to shoot two. They shot two missiles and people kept
asking why they shoot two missiles? And I think it's
hard to fuse off little targets. Again, like if it
flies by a bird, you don't want it to feuse
on the bird. You wanted to go and hit the aircraft.

Speaker 21 (01:02:50):
So that's a great point.

Speaker 10 (01:02:51):
I think you're right Dean that it probably didn't just
didn't explode on it.

Speaker 20 (01:03:00):
Would you guys think When Luna asked all of the
witnesses up there if they thought that this video was scary, like,
she said, does this video scare you? And like every
single one of them said yes, except George Knapp, who
was kind of like.

Speaker 21 (01:03:14):
Man, but every happy that the video got released, is
what he said.

Speaker 20 (01:03:17):
Yeah. Yeah, he said that he was glad that the
video was released, but not that he was scared. So
but everybody else straight up said yes. What do you
guys think about that?

Speaker 12 (01:03:26):
Hmmm?

Speaker 15 (01:03:27):
I think Borland didn't say that. He said that he
couldn't say what he felt, or like.

Speaker 12 (01:03:34):
Something like that, right, And yeah.

Speaker 15 (01:03:36):
I thought that Nucatelli's reaction was interesting because he was like,
he laughed nervously and then he said no, like I
don't know what that is. I thought that was very telling.

Speaker 10 (01:03:52):
That was interesting. Everyone said, uh, we don't know, and
he said, I can tell you, but it'd have to
be in a skiff.

Speaker 15 (01:03:59):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whether he was scared or I think
to tell you.

Speaker 12 (01:04:03):
That, Yeah, I think it would be a shame if,
because of the past record of what they've shown at
these hearings, that if this thing can be explained easily
explained just by having the right people looking at it,
because now you're going to have all kinds of eyes
looking at this trying to figure out exactly what it is.
And I hope they went through the diligence to do

(01:04:26):
that ahead of time, instead of like the form of
videos that they've shown which were explainable.

Speaker 10 (01:04:35):
I thought a really interesting point was and I don't
remember the representative who asked, but he asked Wiggans how
far away the tic TAC object was. And I think
that's really critical because we don't have because especially like this,
this last Fleer video, we were looking at the reason

(01:04:56):
we can't prove that it's not a balloon, or I
argue probably won't be able to prove it's not a
balloon because we actually don't know how far away it
is accurately, there's no ranging to it. I didn't see
any ranging in the video unless that three miles is correct.
But I think the main argument that Mick West had

(01:05:17):
against Wiggans on that tic TAC video is that it's
some sort of distant plane or like a planet or
something in the distance. But if he has radar data
showing that it's only seven miles away, then we know
you can basically properly identify it. Like the problem with
just the flear. The flere is just one sensor, Like

(01:05:40):
a fighter doesn't use just the flear. You know, the
flear is one of several sensors, right, it's your eyeballs,
it's your radar, it's the flear, and you have a
laser that's on the flare as well, so you shoot
out a laser to actually range things. So when we're
trying to analyze all these videos and like gimbal and

(01:06:01):
the flear one and go fast, we're just looking. We're
just getting a small half the information. You know that
all you're ranging, you can't trust the targeting pot for range,
Like every fighter pilot knows that. That's why there's a
laser on it. And so we don't know the range.
But when the representative asked, when he asked Wigans, hey,

(01:06:22):
how far away was this thing? And Wigans said, we
had it on the radar. I believe it was six
or seven miles is what he said. That locks it
in now, And so you could prove what that object is.
You could prove that that object is a real UAP
if you have the real radar data and you pair
it with the Fleer, like if they did a real
investigation on it, If Erro actually looked at it, and

(01:06:45):
they got the radar data and they got the fleer
and they got Wigan's testimony, then they should be able
to prove without a doubt like that. That's anomalous. I
think that's huge.

Speaker 13 (01:06:57):
If we don't, I was going to say, if we
were to venture, no, no, if we were to venture that, okay,
this was a genuine UAP that got hit by this missile,
then it would mean that the UAP, because it would
be definitely more dense than a balloon, more dense than
a bird, that it should have gone off. So then

(01:07:20):
we would have to if we go down that road,
it would be okay. So this UAP took the impact
but was able to somehow thwart it, you know, going
off being active the bomb in it and aspect of
the missile, and then it took that hit, which just
you know, sent some sections pieces of it off, but

(01:07:43):
it continued going. So I don't know if there's anything
to be gleaned from that, as if it was able
to control the fact that the explosion didn't happen, but
it still took the impact.

Speaker 10 (01:07:56):
I think like looking at this, especially the the public
in general, like, I haven't seen that many videos of
things being hit by missiles. You know, you'd have to
get test range information to really show what would it
look like. I'm guessing that this is in the realm
of that's what something would look like if it was

(01:08:17):
hit by a missile and the missile didn't explode, you know,
I think that or the object didn't explode either, So
in that case, the object's not you know, if you
hit a drone with a missile going that fast, I
don't think it's supersonic, but I think it's still going

(01:08:37):
you know, five hundred miles an hour, say four or
five hundred miles an hour. If you hit something at
four hundred miles an hour, it blows up. Like the
newer missiles, like the AM nine X, they don't even
have warheads because they're so accurate. They just spear the object.
There's paid a lot of patriots. I don't know the
versions of them, but they go like mock five or

(01:08:59):
six or something diculous. They don't even put war they
don't even bother to put warheads on them. They go
right through buildings. Actually they have no there's stories of
them shooting and the object went below the ground and
the patriot just went right through the building. So they
have so much energy that they don't even need the warhead.

(01:09:21):
But so if it's going four or five hundred miles
an hour and it hits an object and it doesn't
blow up, then that makes me think it's like, I
don't know, I guess could be a balloon. Seems like
a balloon would just pop immediately or blow apart or something.
But I think the public, we don't have enough knowledge

(01:09:41):
to say that that is or not a UAP. And
that's why I say that the Wiggins testimony is much
more powerful to me, is that they have the radar data, right,
they save they should have saved all that radar data
from the ship. And then they have the Flear video.
Arrow did anything of its job, which I mean the hearings,

(01:10:03):
they just hammered Arrow, right. I heard them multiple times
they want a subpoena. The old director pants.

Speaker 21 (01:10:13):
Yeah, and she point blank said that he is a
confirmed liar.

Speaker 10 (01:10:18):
That was in our opening statement. That was amazing. I
think so this if it's in congressional record, if that
data is anywhere, then I think that's a huge case. Actually,
is the radar data matched with the flear matched with
the witness testimony. You can say right away that hey,
this is a nominalist because he said the objects flew

(01:10:39):
off at way past supersonic speeds. So I think the
Wigans testimony from that is the best, like, because the
other guys is just firsthand witness, right, there's no there's
no evidence or data. But like Wiggins, they showed the
video and then there should be the radar data. He
talked to Arrow, So it's like, I would I hope

(01:10:59):
that you follow that to trail.

Speaker 13 (01:11:03):
Yeah, the most disgusting thing I heard. There were a
whole bunch of weird inconsistencies and political comments that were
actually completely incorrect. Like they mentioned the Phoenix incident that
Obama was president. That to me is a more fantastical
story than anything the UAP hearing is, because Obama can
go back in time to nineteen ninety seven and can

(01:11:24):
be president. That's like epic, pre impressive.

Speaker 10 (01:11:28):
I thought that was on Borland. I thought it was
Borland or.

Speaker 13 (01:11:33):
No, no, it was it was Let's see, who was
it that said this, it was mister Biggs. Mister Bigs
said it. Anyway, It's interesting how these things are being
blocked from us, and how flagrant they are about it,

(01:11:56):
and how this whole thing seems to have been set
up to be not thing but but that, and how
it was kind of allowed to be that because all
of us knew as soon as you are letting people
do their you know, self analysis or self investigate, it's
it's going to go nowhere. So none of us are
surprised right that that we're here right now, right.

Speaker 12 (01:12:20):
Hmm.

Speaker 10 (01:12:22):
I thought Aero looks terrible though, Yeah, I think they
looked terrible in the eyes of Congress.

Speaker 12 (01:12:29):
Yeah, anyway, go ahead, Papa, What what other point did
you have?

Speaker 15 (01:12:40):
I'm just I'm just glad that it didn't go off
the rails because I didn't have a lot of hope
for a hearing where there were only witnesses from a
specific party, not from different ones. And I do want
a hearing from different parties, because I think that's important.

(01:13:01):
I know that there's a lot of inviting in the community.
I know that there's a lot of people that think
other ones are not credible. I know that many of
these Congress people have people from those different parties in
their ear constantly. And I was really worried about it

(01:13:21):
being turned into just like an unilateral type of source,
you know, and it was in a certain sense, but
the hearing did deliver in my opinion, I think that
we do have to start talking about eventually about everything
that happened before the hearing and the people that didn't

(01:13:43):
come forward, and those who attempted to come forward, those
who offered to come forward and didn't. Why did that happen?
Who blocked that? And I know that there was a
lot of conversation about the whistleblower protections, But I do
think that there are a number of people who could
have testified and the whistleblowder protection issue wasn't really an issue.

(01:14:10):
They could have testified, and they were blocked, they were rejected,
they were ignored. I want to know why that happened.
I want to know why Jay Stratton wasn't there. I
want to know why if doctor Hall put Off or
doctor Eric Davis probably offered to testify and they were
ready to do so, why didn't they? I want to

(01:14:32):
know that.

Speaker 21 (01:14:34):
It's three days ago.

Speaker 13 (01:14:36):
Yeah, yeah, And I asked him, I said, you're going
to the hearings. He said, nah, it's not going. And
then the following night he played with his band with
Travis Taylor.

Speaker 12 (01:14:45):
That phenomenal. Oh yeah, that I saw that.

Speaker 13 (01:14:50):
I don't know if he wasn't, if he was invited
or not, or just decided not to go, But I
did ask him if he was gone, and he didn't
sound like he was too enthusiastic about it or showed
much interest. That's how I read it anyway. But I
don't blame them. I would be reticent to go as well,
because look what they did with Jake Barber. I mean,

(01:15:12):
they're pulling everything out. And one of the things that
I wanted to touch on when I was speaking at this
event was the fact that if you're in the military,
like if you're a cop, these are tough jobs. These
are jobs that psychologically bend your brain because you're having

(01:15:33):
to do certain things that you're told never you know
to do. In whether it's a right decision that's for
the better, cause you're still having to do some pretty
heinous stuff that's going to jack you up. And so
when I worked on crime shows for twenty years, I
would interview these guys and there were you know, problems,
whether it was alcohol or whatever. And I'm generalizing here,

(01:15:53):
but I'm not surprised that, you know, we all have
blemishes and stuff, especially you know, in their field. And
so they paraded that out and did an effort to
take him down. So where's the incentive, guys? I don't
see any incentive to come out. I mean, you know,
Borland is like literally saying that he's going to be

(01:16:15):
off of you know, unemployment and doesn't know what he's
going to do. What does that say?

Speaker 21 (01:16:21):
You know, that's horrible?

Speaker 20 (01:16:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 15 (01:16:24):
Yeah, Well, and I guess I guess what Jay's doing.
I guess is that he's coming out with the book. Uh,
that movie is coming out by the end of.

Speaker 12 (01:16:38):
The year, supposedly.

Speaker 15 (01:16:40):
I think they already I think I think they already
got a streaming service Lockdown.

Speaker 13 (01:16:45):
So now I'm I'm hearing a million different things I'm hearing.
I talked to Jay about it, and he said that
he believed it was going to have a limited theatrical release.

Speaker 12 (01:16:54):
And that.

Speaker 13 (01:16:56):
The creator of the Dan Farr, the director, that he
was trying to engineer that. I've heard some other kind
of crazy rumors and stuff. So it's all uncertain, but
at least according to Jay, I can tell you as
of a few days ago, that was a game plan
for it to have a limited theatrical release.

Speaker 15 (01:17:15):
Okay, So I guess Jay is also trying to protect
whatever comes out there and in the book too, write,
because if he talked about it and the hearings, that
the book would have no real sense of it just
going out because he would spoil whatever is in that book.

(01:17:38):
But I do want to ask, though, because you do
have contact with him a little bit more, what do
you think is the overall reason he is not as
public as other utiful personalities, because from my point of view,
I think that he has like a one of the

(01:18:00):
most important stories to tell of all this. And I'm
still unclear of whether that phrase he said that he
saw with his own eyes non human craft and non
human beings, I don't know if that was from the
Skinwalker time, because he did say at one of those

(01:18:21):
conventions that he did see a predator like being, and
that he saw a UFO at Skinwalker Ranch. Do you
have any idea if those are the only experiences he
had or if he had others apart from that.

Speaker 21 (01:18:37):
Agree, Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 13 (01:18:40):
That he was an intentionally conflating Skinwalker Ranch with his experience.
I think that that was separate. I don't know for sure.
But we actually did wax on about about being out
there in the UFO community. We literally talked about that.
So it's funny that you're asking. We were talking about

(01:19:01):
how there's a lot of people say again synchronosity, yes,
synchronous exactly, because I want to know those questions as well.
And I and what he said. We were talking about
how there's a lot of people who come out and
they have something of relevance to say on the topic,
and everyone kind of has their piece of the puzzle, right,

(01:19:23):
and only a few have a few pieces. And he
was noticing, and both of us were kind of relating
that there's a lot of people that have that one
piece and then they keep showing up with other pieces
that don't go anywhere, but they want to stay relevant.
And he didn't want to be that guy. He made
the point to say that, and then also we kind
of talked about how everyone would you know, a lot

(01:19:44):
of people put themselves in their documentaries, and even George
Suklos was there in the green room with us, and
he was listening. Someone was asking me questions and stuff,
and he discovered that I had been there for eight years,
that I've been in this in the deep rabbit hole,
making you know, these documentaries, and then had mentioned, you know,
the new one Life Beyond Earth that we dropped, and

(01:20:05):
he goes, you've been at this a long time. How
come I haven't heard of you? And I was about
to answer him and say, because I don't put myself
in the videos and so I don't have this you
know presence that you see, and that's not my branding.
I want this stuff to speak for itself. I make
independent films. This is, you know, the way that I operate.

(01:20:26):
Other people do know, you know, shade to them. But
before I could tell him that, he got pulled on
stage because Travis Taylor was impersonating him, sticking his hair
up and going I'm not saying there's aliens, but they're aliens.
George ran over to give him crap on the stage
jokingly and everything. But sorry, getting back to Jay. Yeah,

(01:20:48):
he just kind of sat there like a cheshire cat
or stood there when I was talking to him, clocking
it all. Very smart, strategic man, and it looked like
he was kind of, you know, he was judging everything,
seeing how you know, the community and everything is and
being smart about it. And I think you're right. I

(01:21:08):
think he's kind of waiting to drop that book. But
it'll be interesting because Lula Asando's dropped his book, so
the benchmark has been set. Even though some will have,
you know, issues with some of the factoids and lose book,
Jay knows that's kind of where the bar is set.
So you know, I'm expecting his book to be to

(01:21:29):
be amazing so or to be interesting at the very
least very interesting.

Speaker 12 (01:21:35):
So Dean, while you're talking about that, you must know
about the friction between Jay's wife and louel A Zondo.

Speaker 15 (01:21:44):
I was just asking.

Speaker 13 (01:21:45):
That, Yeah, I don't get involved. That's where I pull
my little car over to the side of the road
and start going nominum. If it relates to exactly what
we're talking about, it it makes sense. But yeah, no, Plus,
both of those guys could could kill me in a heartbeat,

(01:22:05):
and none of you guys would know what happened to me.

Speaker 15 (01:22:08):
So ye'd be nice to get them both in a
room and talk about it, right.

Speaker 13 (01:22:14):
Maybe in a schiff.

Speaker 20 (01:22:15):
Yeah, can I get everybody's opinion on something real quick?
Something hearing? I thought it was really interesting when the
witnesses were asked if anybody was willing to name any gatekeepers,
and for like a good couple of seconds it was silence.
I was like, oh shit, crickets, like what is going

(01:22:37):
on here? And then all of a sudden, Nap steps
in saves the day, and he's like, yep, James Ryder
at Lockheed Martin and Glenn Gaffney at CIA. He was like, boom, boom,
double whammy. What do you guys think about that?

Speaker 15 (01:22:51):
I probably thought that Nap was like thinking, everybody says,
it's so uptight right now, I'm going to break the silence.

Speaker 20 (01:22:58):
I'm glad he did, though.

Speaker 10 (01:23:01):
Yeah, have you guys heard of him before? I don't
remember even seeing his name on the Global Access.

Speaker 12 (01:23:11):
Yes, someone wrote me about him recently and I'm trying
to trying to find that right now, but anyway, yes,
I have heard. I have heard that name, and like
he's instrumental.

Speaker 15 (01:23:25):
That came from Chris Sharp actually a deliberation.

Speaker 20 (01:23:32):
Oh you've got a good memory.

Speaker 15 (01:23:35):
I'm a journalist.

Speaker 8 (01:23:36):
I have to.

Speaker 20 (01:23:41):
And what about James Ryder at Lockheed? Anybody know anything
about him?

Speaker 12 (01:23:46):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 21 (01:23:50):
I heard that name.

Speaker 15 (01:23:53):
I've seen some people posting online about him, but nothing
like too detailed. I know that, uh, Coltheart mentioned him before.
I know that Matt Ford mentioned him before. So his
name has been around. But it was a big deal

(01:24:14):
for me that both of those names were in congressional
record now. So yeah, they have to inquire about them now,
so that's that's a big deal.

Speaker 20 (01:24:25):
Yeah, they're hiding under their desk.

Speaker 13 (01:24:30):
Yeah, well it's been this agreement apparently forever that you know,
it's the safeguard firewall. And like they said, as soon
as they stop putting things in writing, now we're you know,
now we're screwed. What are we gonna you know, do
foy on you know, wire tapping? I want to get
I want to touch on one thing. I want your

(01:24:51):
guys opinion on this. Did anyone else notice that that
the first thing that it's should be neuchatele as an Italian?
But I think it does new Chatelli mentioned his first
action reaction was to make sure no one was abducted.
Did you guys hear that?

Speaker 15 (01:25:11):
Yes?

Speaker 12 (01:25:12):
Oh yeah I did. That was crazy that we went
in the house to make sure that no one was abducted.
That and no one asked him I know.

Speaker 15 (01:25:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 13 (01:25:23):
Just as an addendum to that, everyone was saying, do
you you know, did you believe in UFOs or were
you interested in them beforehand? Well, the fact is eighty
five percent a pure report shows that we aren't all interested.
The chances are that these guys would be interested. So
it wasn't like saying, oh, there was some preamble to
their interest in help facilitate.

Speaker 8 (01:25:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 13 (01:25:44):
So but the abduction thing, no one went back and said,
what do you mean abduction? I would have loved because
this is the first time that experiences really was was
pointed out.

Speaker 8 (01:25:54):
That was big.

Speaker 20 (01:25:56):
Yeah, that was crane. I wrote a note about that.
He said that he didn't leave in UFOs until he
watched that video and then he became a believer. So yeah,
maybe we'll turn some more people into from skeptic to
believer or however you want to label yourself. But I mean,
that's why these hearings are so important is so that
people can see new things and have new things to

(01:26:19):
integrate into their reality and go, Okay, well if that's true,
then what does this mean? And then once you go
down the rabbit hole, it's like slip and slide, you
know what I mean, you guys get company. Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:26:30):
Well, rather, I want to just pick that term believer
because I don't think that's the right term, because anyone
that wants to look into this can see that there's
UAP UFO as they do exist. If the question is
what are they? That's the you know, I don't think
anyone turns into a believer if they really look into it,

(01:26:51):
they're just going to say, oh, this is really happening.
But what is it? That should be the question, you
know that we all have. That is a question that
we all have. But I thought that term believer and
I'm not, you know, saying it's a bad term. I
just think it's it doesn't really work when it comes
to the UFO UAP topic, you know, because they're either yeah,

(01:27:12):
I'm going to take here or they're not here.

Speaker 13 (01:27:13):
I'm going to take exception with that because I've never
really seen a UFO I've shot video of some kind
of strange things runs and stuff, but but not really
so I say I believe in that. If someone said
to me, do you know, I would still have to
say I don't know. I don't know firsthand. I've not

(01:27:34):
seen something up close compared to other people. But I
one percent believe that that this is happening. But I
can't I can't say with certainty that I personally know,
which is why I think it's important that we have
first hand witnesses and not second and third.

Speaker 12 (01:27:49):
Okay, so you're saying clearly that people believe in things,
that you believe that people are seeing things, but you're
not saying you believe in UFOs. That's two different things.

Speaker 13 (01:27:59):
But we will want I'm believing I believe in UFO
is based on people who have seen them and their testimony.
That to me makes you believe in it.

Speaker 12 (01:28:11):
But we'll have a discussion.

Speaker 13 (01:28:14):
Man, this is going to get ug I'm sorry, guys,
this is like.

Speaker 20 (01:28:18):
No, that's well, you guys hashed that out. I want
to piggyback on something that Pavel brought up earlier, and
that's the that's people that we like kind of wish
that we would have seen today, but for whatever reason,
weren't there. And George Knapp brought up two huge names
of people that should also have been witnesses, either today
or at some point in the future, and that's doctor Jacobs,

(01:28:41):
and that's Robert Sallas. And I know that Robert Salas
was there because I've seen him in some pictures of
the pre uh hearing party, so he was there, and
he has said many times on The Good Trouble Show
with Matt Ford, many times like look, I don't know
why they're not asking me to testify, but I want to,
like call me and you know, so I thought it
was cool that they dropped the name doctor Jacobs and

(01:29:03):
Robert Salace, who was there, but not as a witness.

Speaker 13 (01:29:06):
David, you're talking about doctor David Jacobs.

Speaker 20 (01:29:10):
No, Robert Jacobs, Robert Robert Jacobs, Robert Salace exactly.

Speaker 12 (01:29:14):
But but Bob Sallas, I talked with him quite often.
Bob Salace is there, and Bob Salas is meeting with
Burlson this afternoon. So yeah, okay, so that should be
interesting whatever happens with that. And I might, I might
even I asked someone to send a video if they
can to me about that. I hope, I hope. Uh

(01:29:36):
it's you know, at least somewhat revealing. But by the.

Speaker 15 (01:29:41):
Way, yeah, there was something that I read that happened
when bur Listen got some documents into congressional record. He
got Michael Retra's testimony in, he got Randy Anderson's testimony in,
and he got uh stuff from doctor Greer in. So

(01:30:03):
and that's on congressional record. Now. I don't know what
do you guys think about that.

Speaker 12 (01:30:10):
Well, Herrera was going to be one of the witnesses.
I don't know if you heard that, but there was
a while. Maybe it was just a rumor, but it
was out there everywhere that Mike Herrera was going to
be on, you know, one of the He was actually
noted as the first witness for a while, and then
you didn't hear anything about him. And I I've been
in contact with him here and there, but I didn't

(01:30:31):
send him anything on this. I thought he'd be overwhelmed
with messages. But I don't know what happened with it.
I can. I will ask him.

Speaker 10 (01:30:40):
Though, what did you guys think of Spielberger?

Speaker 12 (01:30:44):
Oh?

Speaker 10 (01:30:44):
Sorry, what'd you think of Spielberger being added? Did you
guys know about him. He wasn't on the original witness list.

Speaker 20 (01:30:50):
Do you think he was a I didn't know about
him till dot gov made the announcement and then when
I read his document, I was like, Okay, he's not
a witness, but he is bringing like he is bringing
attention to specific important things. And I hope I can
find my page and what he wanted. But I just
basically know that he wanted more whistleblower protection. That's basically

(01:31:10):
what he was calling for. He was stressing the importance
of why we need to have an environment for these
whistleblowers to walk into that are conducive for them to
share their testimonies with us, Because why would somebody want
to come forward and invite ridicule and career shaming and
public retaliation and assassination attempts? Even why would somebody want
to come forward as a whistleblower if that's the environment

(01:31:32):
that they're walking into. So I found it really enlightening,
and I was like founding it hopeful that a lot
of people were mentioning that we need more witness protection.
I mean, we were talking about with Borland's testimony, the
amount of retaliation that he personally has experience, and I
was glad to hear that, like, you know, on record,

(01:31:53):
because you know, a lot of rumors are going around
about stuff that's happened. I mean, look, David Brush was
standing behind Burlison today. We just learned that he got
a gun pulled on him a couple of days ago.
So I mean, this, this kind of stuff is no job.
Like our rational blowers really do need to be protected,
that their lives are at stake. They're not coming forward
to gain something.

Speaker 13 (01:32:12):
You don't.

Speaker 20 (01:32:12):
Whistleblowers aren't really gaining anything by doing this other than
sharing truth with humanity, which ultimately is the reason why
they do it, because they know that it's bigger than
all this petty little human stuff that we like to
do with the information.

Speaker 10 (01:32:25):
Yeah, also knew Catelli. I also noted he mentioned witness
intimidation as well. So Borland and new Catelli both said
that both.

Speaker 13 (01:32:35):
Yeah, yeah, not only that, I was really impressed that
we had trouble kind of articulating his points. Wigans Chief
Wigans that that he was there and active, you know,
armed forces officer. I had a guy that I just
met who is still he's kind of retired but he's

(01:32:58):
still been read in and he was telling me about
this USO and he was very specific about it, but
there was no way that he was ever going to
talk about it because he's still read into this program
and you want that privilege of being read in, so
you at least you know. But he you know, pulled

(01:33:21):
me aside and like, I'm just listening to the story.
I'm going this would be great on any platform, and
this guy could get booked on anything. Blah blah blah.
Not into it. He's just grateful that he's actually able
to be a part of this, and so that's something
that that is also I think a dynamic is that
a lot of these people are afraid that if they
do that, they're going to lose, you know, lose, always

(01:33:42):
saying that I don't want to lose my you know, clearance,
and so it's it's not just that, but that's a
really good point. Why what is the advantage of doing
this unless you're going, oh, I'm going to do a
book or I've got footage that I'm going to drop
and I'm going to sell the video.

Speaker 20 (01:33:58):
So right, and I'm glad that you brought up USOS
because Burchett also made a statement stating that he thinks
that Nhi are in our waters, and that's what been
one of my theories for such a long time. I'm like,
these oceans are eighty percent of our planet, ninety percent
of them are uncharted undiscovered, so who's to say there's
not basis or some sort of something down there. I mean,

(01:34:20):
that's just something that I've always stood on a soapbox about.
So I was glad to hear him talk about it.
And I mean, Richard Dolan has written books on usos.
It's just the topic that I feel like needs more
discussion because we're always worried about like looking up at space,
but let's look down into the oceans of the planet
we're sitting on already. You know, It's like, what if
they're already here?

Speaker 21 (01:34:38):
And I want to know, if you guys have ever
seen the movie called Oh the Abyss, Yes, and if
you haven't, for anybody, that's the song, I highly recommend.

Speaker 7 (01:34:47):
You go.

Speaker 12 (01:34:49):
All the Abyss.

Speaker 20 (01:34:50):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, didn't recently say that the Abyss
was true or made a reference to something.

Speaker 21 (01:34:57):
He thinks he thinks that's most likely the case. Yeah,
from what he's being told.

Speaker 12 (01:35:03):
Oh, there's a guy Scott. There's a guy named Scott Cassell.
He was the first person to film a giant squid
in the wild, and he's had five thousand hours under water.
And he was on a rebreather off the coast down
at Baja in the Sia Cortes and he all of

(01:35:23):
a sudden sees this cube that just shows up and
it starts. He starts like chasing it down. He goes
down to like four hundred feet and it's this gold cube,
just intelligently controlled. And he's sixty miles off shore, away
from everyone, and he encounters this and that is such
a dramatic story, and he's filming the whole time. He

(01:35:46):
has twenty five hundred He actually has a brain tumor
right now, unfortunately, but he's not able to find the
original film. But I mean, that's one of the most
crazy USO things I've ever heard. And he describes it
as a cube. And then I started wondering about what
Ryan Graves was reporting with a cube and a sphere,
you know, off the coast. You know, maybe there's some

(01:36:06):
type of relationship between the two there. It's fascinating, It is.

Speaker 20 (01:36:12):
Fascinating Papa, you looked like you were about to say something.
I was like, Oh, what was that.

Speaker 15 (01:36:17):
No, no, no, no, I just I don't know. There's
a lot there's a lot of different stories about USOS
and I've been talking to rich a little bit about uh,
some of the stories that he has for his volume
two and some of the things that he's going to
talk about there really really interesting and it's worldwide. It's

(01:36:40):
not just happening with the US or with the Navy.
It's happening all over. The most activity there is actually
is near my house and Baha I live in Tijuana,
and I went to interview fishermen who one of those
fishermen actually was also interviewed by Elissando, and they do

(01:37:03):
talk about that there's a lot of activity right up
north of Wallaalupe Island and there is an an electromagnetic
anomaly there where most of the sidings are and where
a lot of these objects get out of the water
and it's they light up the entire place and then
they just leave, They just go up, and there's there's

(01:37:25):
plenty of people who have seen them. There's a marine
biologist who studies animals within the island who has already
seen a couple of those objects that are they glow.
That's what It's not a light per se, it's a
glow and it's really intense glow.

Speaker 13 (01:37:48):
I can tell you what this guy told me, if
you guys want to hear about the us so he
was yeah, yeah.

Speaker 21 (01:37:54):
Hey, real quick, guys. Don't mean to interrupt you, guys,
but I actually have to go. I have to get
ready and go to work. But Ali's going to stay.
So I just wanted to thank you Chris for having
us on. And also I wanted to give a shout
out to Zen real quick. I saw your comment from
earlier and much love. Thanks for the support. But anyway,

(01:38:15):
it's been an honor. But I do have to go
to go to work. So thank you, guys, Yeah, thank you,
thank you. Justin bye, guys.

Speaker 10 (01:38:24):
By just let's hear the let's hear the USO story.

Speaker 12 (01:38:29):
All right.

Speaker 13 (01:38:30):
So I won't say whether he was, I'll just what
branch it is. I'll just say looking down on a
craft under the water, and they could see it, they
had eyes on it, and they're trying to communicate with
this very very large craft and no communication is happening.

(01:38:50):
They're pinging it. Nothing's happening, and so they decide to
send a torpedo at it. The torpedo comes and it
seems to absorb it and split into two. And then
he said it was like a lava lamp the way
that it moved away. And they were just sitting here,

(01:39:10):
I mean, they were like, what's going to happen when
the torpedo hits it. They were expecting the same, you know,
been explosion, everything right through it.

Speaker 2 (01:39:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 13 (01:39:22):
No, I can't tell you what branch he's in too,
you know, but I can tell you that the problem
or the challenge with underwater you know, submersibles is there's
so much life under the water. So I'm curious what
Ali thinks about this. There's so much life on the water.
How does the do these things move so fast? They
call him go fast I believe, or fast runners right

(01:39:47):
under the waters according to fast movers. Yeah, how do
they not get all the fish and not like, you know,
kill tons of fish and then the fishermen would come
and you know, scoop them up. How do they So
they must be some form of trans medium where they're
able to go through or whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:40:06):
What is your take on that?

Speaker 13 (01:40:08):
Alley I'm just curious.

Speaker 20 (01:40:10):
I mean, that's a great point, and I too have
wondered the same thing, because if these objects are moving
so quickly like that, the radars are having trouble keeping
up with them. I've always been like, Okay, well, how
are they not like ramming into a school of fish
or into a bluega whale or a great white shark
or something. I'm thinking maybe there's some sort of conscious

(01:40:30):
resonance with the creatures of the ocean. Like I mean,
when you see a flock of birds and I'm forgetting
the word when they move and it looks like a
big wave. What's that word? There's like a there's like
a I believe the word begins with an em. And
forgive me, I'm having a brain fart. I can't think
of what it is.

Speaker 13 (01:40:46):
Like where just kind of yeah, what is that?

Speaker 20 (01:40:49):
Yeah, there's a word for it, right, It'll it'll come
to me later. But the point is is like when
all of those birds are in that movement, in that motion,
and none of them are hitting each other, none of
them are banging into each other or falling out of
the sky due to collisions. So it's because they're all
in the same telepathic wavelength. They're all in the same resonance.

(01:41:09):
So I'm wondering if the USOS and the ocean life
have the same sort of connection or communication.

Speaker 15 (01:41:17):
It could be that, well, you know, or the gravity
bubble concept also that too.

Speaker 12 (01:41:24):
Yeah, it's amrmation by the way, Yeah, thank you, that
was the word mirormation. Yeah, but I've always you know,
to along your point. I've always thought, well, if they're
coming in from another star system or whatever, think of
all the debris and space that they would be hitting
if they're going multi million miles an hour, you know.

(01:41:45):
I mean, that's why there they must travel in a
certain way that we can't figure out. That doesn't make
any sense to us wherever they go.

Speaker 10 (01:41:54):
And yeah, yeah, they don't make they don't make supersonic
shock waves, you know. So it seems like they're not,
like Pavel said, some sort of gravity bubble or they're
basically bending light if you know, somehow they know how
to manipulate light and matter, so they're just.

Speaker 13 (01:42:17):
Yeah, I think the best the thing that where I
park my belief system on this. I've interviewed two of
the students from aerial school, and what they said is
that the beans were moving as if they were skipping time.
So I think that these crafts are able to move
at a certain pace, and then that's a base pace
because everyone says it's kind of the same, right, and
then it takes off and it's almost like it is

(01:42:40):
there and it's not. It's quickly moving. Well, if there
was any life in there, it would be spamming a can.
So my belief that I'm parking it again. My belief
is that they're relocating themselves in time further apart, increments
incrementally further apart, so it looks like they're taking off,
but it's just like we're done here and now we're
moving and doing this. That would make sense to me

(01:43:01):
because then you would not have a supersonic you know, blowback,
you wouldn't have any you know, anything else because you're
essentially moving at the same speed. You're just relocating where
you are.

Speaker 12 (01:43:15):
Does that make sense? Mm hmm, Yeah, sounds like yeah,
francis exactly That's exactly what I think it is. Yeah,
this it's time travel blinking out. The figure was blinking
out and ahead of itself, you know, he was trying
to describe it, but uh, I.

Speaker 13 (01:43:32):
Wouldn't move around other queens because you're just that's right.

Speaker 20 (01:43:36):
Yeah, And you know something that I also just thought about.
Oh sorry, Martin, do you mind if I get this
out of my head or before the brain cell dies.
We were talking about how in the UAP video about
how it looked like the missile kind of like bounced
off the edge of it, And now we're talking about
craft moving through the ocean and how it doesn't ram
into all of the ocean life that's down there. Now

(01:43:58):
it's also making me think about it. I'm not sure
how many of you watch the show Skinwalker Ranch, but
that bubble that they have where they're doing all these experiments,
and it seems like they know the parameters of the
perimeters of the bubble and how there's certain GPS data
that just gets bounced off, and like maybe these craft
have the ability to literally just create a bubble of

(01:44:19):
distortion of space time and that's what we're seeing, but
we're not fully comprehending the mechanics or the operations of
how it all goes down and how it all works.

Speaker 15 (01:44:28):
I know who I think is.

Speaker 12 (01:44:30):
I think we just solved the whole thing.

Speaker 20 (01:44:34):
We had two thoughts going on there.

Speaker 10 (01:44:37):
Okay, got, well that's what Borland said.

Speaker 2 (01:44:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (01:44:42):
Borland made reference to that on the basically within a
certain range and when it's shut off, that's when he
felt these electromagnetic effects. But go ahead, Martin, what were
you going to say?

Speaker 12 (01:44:53):
No, I'm just thinking I think we just solved the
whole UFO enigma right now. That's it. Oh no, all right,
time to go home.

Speaker 20 (01:45:00):
Yeah, it's as simple as a bubble right.

Speaker 13 (01:45:04):
Copyright.

Speaker 21 (01:45:07):
No, I think it all.

Speaker 12 (01:45:08):
It's all great points. I mean, it's such a mystery.
But what I wanted to tell you was off the
Baja that I didn't realize that's where you were, but
that's where that USO incident took place. And he was
saying it had a glowing from within, you know, like
a gold glowing from within. I I just think that's

(01:45:28):
I'm going to try to send you that link so
you can hear this guy describe it. Yeah, Crystal, hook
me up with your email address and maybe I will.

Speaker 10 (01:45:38):
I just wanted to finish on. I thought the best witness,
or the most exciting for me, was Borland. I don't know, Martin,
nin So you made a bunch of comments, So what
was your take on on Borland.

Speaker 12 (01:45:51):
I think it was absolutely awesome. The way he was describing,
describing everything, his his feeling his cell phone. The thing
looked kind of like liquid, and that kind of reminded
me of Jonathan Wygen's, you know, testimony and what he
saw in a way, you know, the different color changing,
you know, I'd like to know more about that. But

(01:46:13):
also he said at the same time he said he
thought it looked liquid. He said it had a sharp
ninety degree angle, and he also mentioned that it had
the lights that you keep hearing about on each corner
and the larger one in the center. How many times
have we heard that same thing many many times? And
how it moved off There was no air displacement, there

(01:46:33):
was no you know, sonic boom or anything like that,
no sound or anything too. And the only way he
knew it wasn't a star was because he saw it
ahead of time, you know, that's how fast it moved
up above him. I just love that whole testimony. I
just thought it was the best one I've heard there. Yeah, agreed.

Speaker 10 (01:46:54):
What was your take, Pazzle?

Speaker 15 (01:46:55):
Yeah, I think it's funny how these black triangles are
now on Congressional record, and they're getting more traction than
any other shape. That tells me that it's the shape
that most people see, at least within the military, and

(01:47:15):
it's the shape that has them the most puzzled. Because
I've spoken to a couple of people who have also
sightings and even video of these black triangles represented Burlison
like a month ago, confirmed the story that I did
of a civilian witness who recorded these black triangles. And

(01:47:41):
I just think that we're gonna just this is gonna
ramp up. We're gonna keep hearing and keep seeing stuff
about these triangles. And I'm just torn on which is
which right, because there's this debate that is never ending.
There's people that don't think that we reverse engineered anything,

(01:48:02):
there's people that do think that we did, and the
debate is really really hot all the time, and I
see people who have credible accounts, incredible points on both sides.
So I'm torn on whether we did or we didn't.

(01:48:23):
I don't know what you guys think about that, but
I think that was one of the most significant parts
of the whole leading up and the hearing and the
aftermath these Black Triangles. And I thought that was really interesting.

Speaker 10 (01:48:37):
I was actually I was surprised to hear a black
triangle because I didn't really know what was he he
was going to say right, because I knew he was
he worked at Geospatial Agency. I don't know if he
actually worked there, but he worked as an analyst, satellite analyst,
so I was expecting to hear more. He saw he
saw videos of orbs. That's what I was expecting, like

(01:48:59):
the John Ramirez type. Oh, I saw these videos, kind
of like a Matthew Brown release. You know, I wasn't
expecting this, similar to Nusatelli, you know, the direct witness
that he saw a triangle. So when he came out
and he described like a straight TR three B, I
was I was surprised, to be honest, I was like,

(01:49:20):
holy shit, man, that's literally a TR three B. And
he said it's the same three you know, lights on
the corners and then the big light in the center.
Excuse me. And then they asked specifically, do you think
it was foreign and he said no, it wasn't foreign
system at all, or he didn't believe it was foreign.

(01:49:43):
And then I still even am kind of confused. Now
I'd have to go back and watch on what he
said if they he thought it was us? Do you
guys remember.

Speaker 12 (01:49:52):
No, what he what he said was he thought the
military knew what it was. He didn't say whether it
was us or or whatever. By the way, just real quickly,
Mike Herrera has just said that. He just replied to
me basically said that they wanted to have new people,

(01:50:14):
and he did throw his hat in the ring, but
it you know, they decided they wanted new people, which
they had. Today you know they're talking about it, and
I guess they did a pretty good job at that.

Speaker 15 (01:50:28):
Can I offer a bit of insight into that what
you just said Martin about Mike, because and this is
something that happens to every single Whizzard blower that comes
forward before a hearing or on their own or through
X spaces like Jason Sands did, there's always like a

(01:50:48):
lot of mess going around right after they become public,
and they become toxic instantly because even if their story
is true, there's just too public about it. And for example,
Herrera's story is really out there. It took me a
while to just like pay attention to it because the
first time I heard it, I was like, no way,

(01:51:09):
this happened. It's way too fantastical to be true. And
I think that and if I'm thinking as Congress is
thinking leading up to the hearing, I would definitely want
people whose names are not that public yet and who
generally have like no toxicity around their case, as for example,

(01:51:35):
Ertra did, because you know how toxic it's been for
him and how incredibly difficult it's been for him. So
I completely understand their side, but I also understand his
frustration because he released the video where he basically told
other whistleblowers to not come forward because he wasn't going

(01:51:56):
to be at the hearings. I understand both sides, and
I think that whoever wants to come forward before hearing,
I think that they should really consider it. And based
on how they lose their anonymity, how they're attacked online,
how they're harassed, all of that happens to every single

(01:52:18):
one of them, and I think that's that's one of
the reasons why Congress is like, we got to keep
it to new names on known faces. I think that's why.

Speaker 10 (01:52:31):
I think it was also just more exciting to you know,
it was a new account and it hadn't been put
out previously. It hadn't been watered down or attacked on
X already. You know, it was like straight there. So
I thought it was amazing. And then I saw a
lot of comments on people and Dean even brought it up.

(01:52:54):
I'll bring you back Tan, I see her here now.

Speaker 12 (01:52:58):
Oh there is denry to attack.

Speaker 13 (01:53:00):
I have I have aunt spraying going on, no conspiracy,
we just have ants. It's the summer, so he's spraying it.

Speaker 10 (01:53:07):
So you guys have probably telling me I was muted.
So I just think it's very exciting. Borland was a
new face. You know, he hadn't been released prior, he
hadn't been attacked. As soon as you release a video,
it doesn't matter what it is, it's going to be
attacked on X, you know, of course, or anywhere else.

(01:53:30):
So I thought it was exciting that Borland released that.
And then like you brought up, Dean is he said,
I can tell you in a skiff. And I saw
a lot of comments from people saying, you know, why
don't they just say the information? And I think if
he says anything that's classified at all or then he
immediately opens himself up to be attacked legally right by

(01:53:52):
any government agency, and I believe if it's classified, if
what he said is classified, then he will he prosecuted
in a classified hearing, so meaning no one's going to
even know what he said or that he's even being prosecuted.
So I think as soon as he says anything that's

(01:54:15):
borderline or even can be considered classified, that he will
immediately be prosecuted, and so they can shut him down
that way. So I think that's why he says, I
can tell you that in a skiff, so he can
tell the stuff that's not classified, right, that what he
saw and what he believes. But as soon as they
start asking for any sort of possible classified information, I

(01:54:37):
think his hands are tied. I think his hands are tied.

Speaker 15 (01:54:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 13 (01:54:44):
Also, the fact we do have to take note of
is that, because we brought this up earlier, is that,
you know, why are these people coming forward. Here's someone
who is going to be running out of unemployment, who's
literally at the end of his rope, and so he's
throwing down. But even then he's doing it with caveats

(01:55:05):
because he knows that he can be severely harmed literally
you know, talking about the espionage you know law. So
it's just interesting that you know, these guys are getting
to a place where you know where they have to
get to that kind of dires Isn't this hysterical? This
is like Ghostbusters. I've got I'm gonna have to have

(01:55:28):
a sign and release what we've done.

Speaker 11 (01:55:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 13 (01:55:34):
So I did want to touch on one thing, and
and that is uh, I want to get who was
it was Republican wrap bull Barts She kind of slightly subtly, Yeah,
enforced the uh then Alan radiation conspiracy deal. So I'm

(01:56:00):
just going for people who still think that there's an
issue with that. The origin of the Van Allen Belt.
It was discovered by a physician, James Van Allen and
his team in nineteen fifty eight using data from Explorer,
the first American satellite. The belts, named after him, are
dunnet shaped regions of high energy charged particles trapped by

(01:56:22):
Earth's magnetic field. The discovery marked the emergence of space
physics and provided crucial information for future space exploration. Now
Here is the exploration of our explanation of why the
Apollo crafts were able to and humans were able to
circumvent this Apollo spacecraft got pasted. The Van Allen belts

(01:56:43):
by traversing at high speed along a specific trajectory to
minimize exposure time, and bypassing through the less intense weaker
parts of the belt, maneuver made possible by the belt's
weaker outer edge. The Apollo spacecraft's illuminate hull also provides
some radiation protection for the astronauts inside. Now, if that

(01:57:06):
still doesn't make you sleep better at night, just know
that humans are returned to the Moon with NASA's Artemis program,
with the first crew flyby mission Artemis two, expected to
launch next April the twenty twenty six, followed by the
first crude lunar landing mission, Artemis three, tentatively scheduled for

(01:57:30):
mid twenty twenty seven. The Artemis missions will send astronauts
to orbit and land near the Moon's South Pole building
on the twenty twenty two uncrewed Artemis one mission.

Speaker 12 (01:57:42):
So all of these.

Speaker 13 (01:57:43):
Questions with regards to footage and clean and everything clean
footage we are going to have and it's going to
be pretty amazing. I'm very excited about that. But again,
if you have a high power telescope, just go and
take a look at the lunar lander that's still in
the flag that is still on the moon. So please
let's let's.

Speaker 12 (01:58:01):
Put this flat. Is that the flat moon?

Speaker 13 (01:58:07):
It's flat when you look at from the flat Earth.

Speaker 10 (01:58:10):
Yeah, I wanted to add this special thanks to Brian Shirley.
He gave a big high to Pavel Chris and the
guys Shock Kangaroo. Thank you guys so much. And the girl,
the guys and the girl, the lady and the lady Chris. Yeah,

(01:58:32):
thanks to the super Chats and war Ranch LLC. Thanks
for all your generous support. Thank you.

Speaker 20 (01:58:38):
I would like to make go ahead, Martin, you go first.

Speaker 12 (01:58:44):
Well, no, I'm kind of being a humorous here. I
was at a conference when Paul Heinik was talking and
he shows everyone the Van Allen belt and then he
tells a story about it. It was a regular belt,
the leather belt that he is that Van Allen gave
his father, Jay Allen Heinek the belt. And here now
you have the Van Allen belt. The guy the the

(01:59:06):
guy that discovered that. So I thought it was pretty funny.
I was trying to end on some humor. Go ahead, Allie.

Speaker 20 (01:59:15):
I'm sorry, I just got distracted by somebody who said
that I'm an uneducated old lady. I have multiple degrees
and I'm young, so you're quite wrong. But anyways, I
wanted to bring up the point that George Knapp entered
documents into Congress regarding Russia. And if there's one thing
I know about America, it's that America is motivated by competition.

(01:59:41):
They don't want their quote unquote adversaries to have bigger,
better things than they do. Right, So I'm wondering if
the fact that we just entered this information into Congress
about Russia is going to move the needle in terms
of like what maybe the government will do, because if
you think back to even like this programs back and
I think it was like the seventies, the only reason

(02:00:03):
why they started those is because they heard that Russia
already had them going on. So I'm wondering if like
the same motivation that made us start spy programs because
Russia was is going to have the same sort of
effect in this scenario. It was just the thought that
I had. It could be conflating, but it's okay. I
just wanted to get it out. And then I also
wanted to end on Eric Burlison's message to everybody, which

(02:00:24):
was basically that the time to take action is now.
We have to pass HR five zero six to zero,
we have to get the UAPDA passed, and it's basically
time for us to get off of our butts and
make stuff happen. So it's help Danny Sheehan and all
them get these things passed. Helped Timburcheck get his HR
five zero six zero pass And the more things like

(02:00:46):
this that we have in place, the further we can
get without sliding backwards. So I just wanted to bring
that up and end on the note that Crockett said
that courage is contagious and we need more courage.

Speaker 10 (02:01:00):
YEA, thank you. What are your final points, Pavel that
you're you're You've already had great perspective.

Speaker 15 (02:01:06):
I thought that, well, first, thank you for having me.
This was really cool. I'm really happy that I got
to share the scream with you guys. I do want
to have you on my show eventually, all of you,
So let's if we can set that up. That would
be really cool. In terms of the hearing, I I

(02:01:28):
I'm happy that we kind of feel like we got
a little back on track after the November hearing. So
that's the main point that I want to put out there,
and I liked how George knapp uh kind of commanded
the conversation at the end when he started just like

(02:01:51):
spitting out facts and like rapidly. And hopefully we can
get more people like him who are like knowledgeable on
the overall topic to speak in settings like this one.
And hopefully we can also get another panel like the
one we had at the start of the year, because

(02:02:12):
I think those are important too, even if they're not
under oath. I think that getting panels like that and
getting people more used to this jargon and the knowledge
and the information, I think that is very important. Just
keep in mind we're still like five percent of the
world's population that is interested in this if at all,

(02:02:36):
Like seriously though, because I know that UFOs have been
mainstream since the forties basically, but nobody really regards them
as something serious to think about. And I think that
those numbers need to grow over the coming years, and
events like today's are going to help move that number up,

(02:03:00):
I think. And thank you for having me again. It
was a pleasure.

Speaker 10 (02:03:05):
Well, thank you very much, Pavel. I'm definitely going your
show for sure, and links to everybody, so to Martin Willis.
I've been on his show as well. Thank you, Martin,
You've been on Mind to Pavel. At Psychoactivo, we have
Ali and Justin UAP Society and then Dean his his
movies and is your next series already out? Is it

(02:03:28):
coming out? Dean?

Speaker 13 (02:03:30):
Yeah? So part two of the Alien Perspective just dropped
called Life Beyond Earth and they're both on Amazon or
you can just go to Alien Perspectivemovie dot com. And
and I'm also on social media under my name Instagram,
et cetera.

Speaker 10 (02:03:46):
Okay, what are your final points, Dean? What's your final points?

Speaker 13 (02:03:50):
My final point points are when ants show up, man,
you got to jump on that stuff. You have to
have exterminators out here. I kind of god not to
sound like I'm endorsing anything, but I feel like this
is the appetizer that we're seeing the hearings right, if

(02:04:12):
we were to fully sit down for at least a
couple of course meal, we would be talking about the experiencers.
And I know that Ralph Blumenthal was trying to get
an article out when the New York Times when the
new regime came in at New York Times and put
the kibosh on everything UFO related. But I know there's

(02:04:33):
a lot of people in the experiencer community who feel
like they deserve a seat at the table. But right
now we're kind of seeing the tail of the dog,
and the audience has to fill in the rest of
the dog. Well, that's a tale, that's a dog, but
the experiencers and that should be taking also kind of
into this. But maybe that's a whole separate thing, which

(02:04:55):
probably should be and bifurcated. But as far as the
hearings go, I agree it was Pavel who said this that,
or maybe it was you. I don't remember, but it's
it is back to the first It was as kind
of impactful as the first, very first hearing was, I
would say, And even though I was kind of surprised
that Knapp was there as well, I thought he was

(02:05:17):
able to set it, embed it in a context, and
to address certain things like this has been going on forever.
So don't tell me that we had that technology, whether
it was two thousand and four, whatever. The tic TAC
shape has been described for decades, so it's not like
all of a sudden UFOs started being seen. I'm more
concerned with the fact that the new narrative is that

(02:05:38):
there are technology and that's not the fact. And so
I think as a whole, we're here because of the hearing.
I would say that it was under the circumstances, it
was pretty strong. I thought it was pretty strong at
this moment. And also I want to say it was great.
Thank you Chris having me on, seeing you, Martin Pavel

(02:05:59):
nice meaning same with you, Ali and Jover.

Speaker 20 (02:06:02):
Nice to meet you as well. Dean, thank you, Thank you, Dean,
Sure and Mark, you guys already know me. I love collabs.
I love getting people together like this. I've already spoken
with Pablo on our show. We spoke with Chris on
our show, Martin, Dean, you guys are more than welcome,
open invites. I'll send you my email. But yeah, I
just also wanted to make sure that we thank the
people in the audience who have been sticking around with
us since ten o'clock. We've been going on some hours now,

(02:06:24):
So shout out to every single person that is in
the chat.

Speaker 13 (02:06:29):
Right except for the old lady comment, and I think
they were referring to your education. You have to be
an old lady to be that educated.

Speaker 12 (02:06:36):
Yeah, yeah, that's great.

Speaker 15 (02:06:38):
I think it was because of the cat. I'm kidding.

Speaker 8 (02:06:40):
I'm kidding.

Speaker 20 (02:06:41):
Oh, it's okay, it's all right, I don't mind.

Speaker 12 (02:06:44):
Well, it's funny Dean mentioned earlier about like, oh, you've
been around all that long and I don't even know
who you are, and I have that happened all the time.
I've been doing this podcast and focusing on UFO since
twenty eleven, and a lot of people don't know who
the hell I'm in I am, And that's okay. But

(02:07:05):
I thought today was really really good. Chris. Of course,
you and I were the last two people in the
door at the first hearing. I did go to the
second hearing. I froze to death starting at three o'clock
in the morning outside no place to use the bathroom.
It was just terrible. But and I made it in
that time too. And I got to tell you I
was center row, right behind Louel Azando last November. I

(02:07:28):
couldn't hear a thing. I couldn't hear I had, I
could see everything. I love doing it this way and
I'm not cold. But anyway, I thought it was I
agree with what everyone has said before. I think it
was very impactful, and it was to me this could
have been the first hearing just as well as as

(02:07:50):
you know, this could have taken place as the first
hearing with the great work. And I at first thought
also that, oh boy, George Knapp's going to be there,
He's going to talk about you know, Bob Bzaar or whatever.
But I think George did a wonderful job, and I
think he was a great asset for him being there, well,
you know, to let people know what he's been looking

(02:08:13):
at for all these years, and when they went through
all his awards and things like that, I mean, they
can't deny that he's not a really great journalist. So anyway,
I thought it was great and I really enjoy all
of you, and I, like I said, I believe in
cross pollinating shows. So you're all welcome on my show
as well. And it's been a real pleasure being here

(02:08:34):
today with all you and all you and the audience
as well.

Speaker 10 (02:08:39):
Yeah, thank you, thank you, Martin. Yeah, I think it
really had everything right in my book, the hearing, we
had a whistleblower protections, we had something for the UFO nuts.
I guess, like us, I think we had you know,
I was surprised by Borland's triangle account, but then we

(02:09:00):
also had for the mainstream I think is really what
this should be aimed at, like Pavel said, is getting
people used to the nomenclature, getting them used to the
long history. And then we also had two cases where
they talked about witness intimidation by the government, and so yeah,
I really covered everything I could have hoped for. I'm

(02:09:21):
sure people would disappoint be disappointed I saw in the
comments as well, but from my point of view, it
was a really solid hearing. I'm happy it happened, and
thank you guys so much for being here. I really
really enjoyed it. Everyone in the audience, thank you for
still being here, and go check out everyone's shows. Links
will be in the description, all different types of shows,

(02:09:43):
different angles, different perspectives, and I think, yeah, it's going
to take all of us really to try and get
through any sort of truth in the end. So thank
you so much for being here. Thank you to the
super chats. Really appreciate that. And if you want to support,
please hit the like button. Go check out all these
guys channels, and you can also check out Patreon, dot com,

(02:10:03):
Forward slash Chris Laedo, so thanks everybody, have a great
rest of your day, peace,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

.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;}UAP HEARINGS Whisteblowers Speak out on UFO Secrets! Part 2

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

UAP HEARINGS Whisteblowers Speak out on UFO Secrets! Part 2

Stuff You Should Know