September 15, 2025 • 33 mins
I give my reaction to the hearings and my initial analysis of the "Yemen UAP".
I think this is a must listen episode.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/lehto-files-investigating-uaps--5990774/support.
I think this is a must listen episode.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/lehto-files-investigating-uaps--5990774/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up everyone, Welcome back to Later Files. I just
finished reanalyzing the latest Congressional UAP hearing, and I need
to break this down for you guys, because there it
is a lot to unpack here. We had some genuinely
compelling testimony alongside some what I would call questionable decisions
(00:20):
that I think actually hurt the credibility of this entire process.
So I'm going to analyze this through what I call
the good, the bad, and the ugly framework. The good
is we got some of the strongest UAP evidence I've
ever seen presented directly to Congress. The bad we also
got some easily debunkable material that's now just dominating headlines
(00:43):
I'm referring to the new UAP video. And the ugly
we saw that there is some serious systematic issues that
this hearing exposed, so welcome to the channel. Either way,
it was a very exciting UAP hearing. I'm excited to
break it down for you guys. I get documents and
(01:10):
tips from sources worldwide, and I need to protect their
privacy and mine also, So that's where private Internet access
comes in, and they're sponsoring today's video. PIA masks your
real location and encrypts your traffic through their network of
next gen servers. What I appreciate about PIA is their
track record, so they've been operating for over ten years
(01:32):
without a single data breach. Their no logs policy isn't
just marketing. It's been tested in courtrooms when authorities demanded
user data, so PIA had nothing to give them. The
service works seamlessly across all my devices laptop, phone, and
tablet all covered under one account, and their split tunneling
feature lets me choose which apps go through the VPN
(01:54):
and which don't so I can optimize for both security
and speed. Get PA for two dollars and three cents
a month at my linkpiavpn dot com forward slash lata files.
That's eighty three percent off with four months bonus. Your
sport keeps this channel going, so thank you so much.
(02:14):
Now back to the show. Okay, let's start with the good,
and there was a lot of good. Honestly, Chief wiggins
testimony should be the headline of this entire hearing. That's
what we should be talking about is Chief Wiggins and
his amazing tiktac video from twenty twenty three, instead of
talking about some other video just off the cuff, which
I think can arguably be just a balloon. There's no
(02:36):
way to prove it's not a balloon. I'll talk about
it later and analyze it for you guys later. So
Chief Wiggins is on the USS Jackson encounter. This was
on February fifteenth, twenty twenty three, out in Whiskey two
nine to one. That's the same warning area that was
the original tiktak David Fravor's tiktac back in two thousand
and four. And this time we have eyewitness, very credible.
(02:58):
He's the first active dude witness to actually testify about UAPs,
and we got the whole shebang, all the multi sensors,
so they saw visual they saw lights outside right, so
they saw that something was actually there. They saw it
on the radar, that's what cued them off in the
first place. And then we had this amazing flear video
where it looks just like a tic tac and I
(03:20):
was so happy. Congressman asked what was the range, and
that's what we didn't know was the range, and he
said it's six or seven nautical miles, so that's well
within the range of identifying this so Mick West cannot
make an argument that it's some distant aircraft. It can't
be a planet, can't be something like that. So this
was within seven nautical miles based on the radar. There
(03:41):
were multiple contacts, and we had this amazing flear video
and we had an amazing witness testimony, and this should
be the headlines. This is what should be in the headlines.
It should not be some other off the cuff video
from Yemen and we don't really know anything about it earlier.
This case, the twenty twenty three case, is amazing. They
said it's trans medium or he suspen access trans medium
(04:01):
because it's hard to tell if it's coming out of
the ocean at that range, out at six nautical miles.
But then he says that there was multiple contacts and
they just disappeared, so accelerated extremely fast, just disappeared off
the radar and left. You also had multiple witnesses, so
there were multiple crew members in the Combat Information Center
(04:21):
and the full resolution was provided to Congress. And the
biggest takeaway I had is why didn't Arrow investigate this?
And they should have all the data, right, they have
the witness testimony. He's still active duty. They have the
fleer obviously it was posted, and if they go and
actually do an investigation, they will find the radar data.
So this case has everything we need and it's from
(04:43):
twenty twenty three, you know, just over two years ago.
So this is an amazing case. Why didn't Arrow investigate it?
We have everything we should be focusing on this. So
this is the gold standard. This is what compelling UAP
evidence looks like. Thanks so much to George Knapp and
Jeremy Corbel for bringing this case and getting it in
front of Congress. That is amazing. This is what we
(05:04):
should be talking about. Only well not only we have
more good, but this should should definitely be the headlines.
This is all the evidence we need, and there's more good.
So we have Dylan Borlin's encounter at Langley, and this
was surprising for me. He was a satellite analyst and
so I assumed it would have been he saw footage
(05:25):
of these orbs that John Ramirez talks about, etc. But no,
he had a first hand account. So this isn't some
distant sighting or he didn't watch a film. He literally
saw it in person. He was one hundred feet away
from a triangular craft for several minutes and he gave
your classic TR three B description. His phone overheated from
(05:48):
electromagnetic interference, and he described the craft in technical detail.
And he's a trained geospatial intelligence analyst, so he knows
what conventional aircraft should look like. He said it was
one hundred foot equilateral triangle one to two stories thick,
and there were white lights at each of the corners
(06:10):
and then a larger sphere light in the center and
this is exactly what we hear of the TR three B.
And then he says the craft just accelerated upwards and
he felt the energy and his phone was destroyed and amazing.
I'll cover this in the ugly section, but his career
(06:31):
was destroyed for coming forward, and that really tells you
how seriously the government takes these encounters, and that really
is part of the ugly. Okay, we have more good.
I thought George Napp just killed it, so he had
Russian documentation. A lot of people were afraid he was
going to bring up Bob Bazar because George Knapp obviously
(06:52):
made his name in the space by promoting Bob Azar
and breaking that story. But in this case he had
tons and paid and pages of Russian documentation. So George
knaps Russia files. So the source is from the Soviet
Ministry of Defense documents. It's the USSR's largest UFO investigation.
(07:15):
He had nuclear incidents from October nineteen eighty two ICBM bases.
They also document launch codes were activated by the UFO presence,
and there was also fighters involved, so forty intercept attempts,
three crashes, and two pilot deaths. They said to leave
UFOs alone. That was the order that was issued. So
(07:37):
these Russian files showed that the Soviets had their own
massive UAP investigation program, and also that UFOs nearly triggered
World War three in nineteen eighty two when they allegedly
activated the Soviet missile launch codes. And then finally from
the good was really the quality of congressional engagement. So
(08:00):
you had Moskovitz asking technical questions and he is a Democrat,
so we had bipartisan, like knowledgeable congress people. Luna was
pushing for transparency. I love the fact that she led
with the tic TAC video. That was amazing, and she
called out specifically and said Kirkpatrick is a known liar
(08:20):
that was the previous director of the era, right, the
office in charge of allegedly investigating all these events, right,
But where were they for the twenty twenty three Tiktac event.
You had Burchett's long term commitment, thought he was amazing,
and so I think what we're saying here is rare
bipartisan cooperation on a subject that I think, do we
(08:43):
have any other subjects with bipartisan cooperation? There was one
section I'll cover in the Ugly, but for now, I
think overall, Moskovitz was amazing, and you did have Democrats
there asking knowledgeable questions. Okay, but now let's get to
the and so this is where I have to be
critical of our side. The pro disclosure side is representative.
(09:08):
Burlison presented this video of what he claimed was UEP
deflecting a hellfire missile. So let's check out the video
that Burlison actually played at the hearing. David Grush was
seated right behind him. You'll see him in the cut
that happens. But Burlison described this video as an m
(09:28):
Q nine drone tracking an orb or this object, he said,
off the coast of Yemen. And he mentioned that another
MQ nine launched a helfire missile. So let's check it out.
I'll play it through normal and then we'll slow it down. Okay,
here's the object obviously tracked, so there's a lock on it,
(09:49):
and you'll see the missile come in from the upper left.
There it is, it's the object. And now he basically
loses the lock, goes to wide field of view and
(10:13):
now manually tracks the object. So the predator or reaper
operator now manually checking this object in wide field of view.
And you do that if you have trouble tracking an object,
(10:33):
you're going to go to wide field of view. So
that is the video, and you can see right behind
him is David Grush. So I'm so happy David Grush
is there and supporting Congress. But I do think he
made a miscalculation on this video. So I understand why
this This looks really compelling at first glance. I was
(10:53):
excited when I saw it. Write new videos are always exciting.
But once we analyze this tech technically, we can see
that the object is wavering just like a balloon, so
consistent with a balloon, the apparent movement is likely parallax.
So really the drone is moving, the camera is taking
the video and so what you're going to see from
(11:16):
any object it's tracking is in the distance. You will
see the opposite motion from the drone. And as far
as the Hellfire missile, Dean Aliodo noticed in our reaction
check out the live reaction video from the livestream. He
actually noticed that it didn't explode, so it didn't detonate.
And afterwards I also received an email from an experienced
(11:37):
Apache pilot because I did not know that that much
detail about hell fires, I didn't shoot them from of sixteens,
but he basically explained that it also didn't detonate, and
I asked what kind of fuses do they use, and
he believes they use impact fuses, So that means the
actual missile has to impact something hard enough to explode,
(11:58):
And you don't want your missiles just exploding off nothing,
right if it goes through like a cloud or there's
a little bit of ice something like that, or just
from the air pressure, So you want your missile definitely
to detonate, but there are safety percussions in place, so
you don't want it to detonate all the time. And
as we'll watch here in the video, I think the
(12:20):
missile actually did not detonate because it was hitting just
a balloon and deflected off of it basically did not
crush the impact fuse and did not detonate the missile. Actually,
we have a lot of problems with this. Ten percent
of bombs in Iraq Jadams, at least from certain tranches
of the bombs did not explode, right, Those were duds,
(12:41):
which is really dangerous. Now you have these heavy explosives
out there just not exploded, not detonated, but duds happen
more often than you would think. Actually, the other major
point of this is it's just a video from you
reaper feed off the coast of Yemen. There's no witness testimony,
(13:02):
there's no radar data, there's no other information at all.
And so I would be shocked if anyone could provide
any sort of compelling evidence why or how this is
not a balloon. And so I think what we're going
to see is another similar issue when Lou Alzano when
(13:22):
he showed that off the cuff photo right ended up
being a crop circle. At the last UAP briefing or discussion,
is I just don't think these are good ideas. You know,
we have an army of people out there you have
the debunkers who will tell you whatever counter information you
(13:43):
want or counter arguments. You have people like me that
are willing to analyze with discretion. Right, if David Grush
or Burliston wants one of these videos analyzed before publishing
in an important hearing like this, just email me. I
am glad to help. I will be totally discreet, not
tell anyone, but I would say, definitely, just after a
(14:03):
few short minutes looking at this video and actually watching
it in real time, is you should not at all
post this at the hearing, Okay, because now that's all
people are talking about, and it's taken over when there
was some really compelling evidence again put in a congressional record,
breakthrough stuff. But now because again we want to show
(14:26):
and I get it, you want to show new information.
It's exciting, it does make headlines. But the problem is
you're just throwing a softball to the skeptics and the
debunkers to just knock this out of the park when
we should be focusing on really the compelling evidence. Right
as we know, ninety five percent of compelling videos are
going to turn out to be mundane. This is just
(14:47):
the fact. It's difficult right, there are five percent, so
one out of twenty are really exciting. And we had
all of the information. We have it all, it's posted there.
Wigans amazing compelling radar data, witness testimony, visual flear video.
We have everything, right, There's no need to go off
the cuff and throw out some video that hasn't been
(15:08):
vetted through anyone. Right. And I get it that the
community would rather hear we'd rather watch stuff from magicians
and journalists rather than analysts like me. Right, I get
put off to the side, much fewer views. But maybe
you guys should be more discerning in where you're taking
your information from. And so I would ask them to consider,
(15:32):
please stop doing this, just focus on the compelling cases
which we have. We have, and I know it sucks
to hear this. I'm sure you guys are excited about
the video. I was excited as well. But let's go
through it at zero point twenty five speed and you
can see what I mean. Okay, So again tracking the
object and if you look closely at the object, you'll
(15:54):
see it's kind of moving. I mean, it looks like
a balloon. It's in white hot I believe because the
missile is white and I'm sure that the tail end
of that missile, even if the rocket's not firing. The
apatche pilot told me it fires for about four to
five seconds. It's going to be sub supersonic. It is
white as well, so you will see the exhaust from
(16:14):
the missile will be white. So I think we're actually
in a white hot form. And again, like any fighter pilot,
worth Assault is going to go black hot, white hot
and go to TV mode, especially for battle damage assessment
to see what actually happened or to identify this thing.
You're not just going to stick in one mode unless
you're targeting it right and you're worried about losing the lock.
(16:35):
But this guy is not targeting it with the missile.
The other MQ nine shot the hell fire and is
a targeting it either with a laser or with the radar.
We don't know. So we'll see here LRD lays designator.
I don't believe he's lasing. Normally you get some laser
indicator firing. Plus you don't want to shoot. You don't
(16:57):
want to laze from this side. You'd obviously lays from
the other side where the missile is shooting from. Okay,
I mentioned the parallax before. So the MQ nine that
we're viewing this from is flying through the air. Okay,
So if you're tracking an object in the middle, the
object could just be going with the wind being basically stationary,
(17:19):
although there will surely be some wind, and so that's
what we're seeing in the background is just the waves
going by. So here comes the missile. It's white hot,
like I said, okay, and it just deflex. You see
the missile going through, so it did not detonate. The
missile goes there, and now watch this the object. Okay,
to me, it literally just looks like a balloon. It
didn't pop, right, it's lower altitude balloon, but is literally
(17:43):
just wavering. I mean, if it's not under that much
of pressure, then to me, that's what a balloon would
look like if you hit it with the missile. I
don't burlisin with crushed behind him. Now they got wide
field view and people say, well, you can see the
main object and then the three other objects traveling in
(18:07):
the same line, and again that this could be falling
if you notice it is having trouble tracking and it
does look lower than the original cursor placement. So I
think it is falling, and that's what we're seeing is
the balloon and up parts of the balloon or object
which to me looks like a balloon in separate parts
now falling. It's descending, and then we're seeing the motion.
(18:29):
It's apparent motion from parallax. So I think this is
easily debunkable. It didn't do anything anomalous. I think if
you shot on hell fire at ten balloons and video
them and just only white hawk because you cannot change
(18:50):
the black cot or TV. Like. Another point for any
of our operators out there using these drones is used
the other modes of your sensors, like please, especially if
you don't know what you're shooting at. If you can't
identify it, look at it in other sensor modes. Which
makes me think that this could be at night if
(19:11):
they're not going to use the TV mode, So maybe
it is at night and we're about it. Says five
point four to nine nautical miles here that could be
to the ground, okay, because that's really they don't have
a lock on this thing. And three point eighty two
nautical miles so this could actually be too a navwaypoint
(19:33):
or something. So again we don't have range. We don't
know how high this object is, how far away it is.
We have limited information, so we didn't have range, we
don't have witness, we don't have any information. And just
you know, put that against this video, the twenty twenty
three tic Tac video, where we have range, witnesses, radar data.
(19:56):
And by the way, it looks like a ticktac, it
does not look like a balloon. At least you can
size this thing. I sized it out to around thirty
feet I believe. So you're looking at a thirty foot
long tictac object. There's multiple of them. We have radar information,
and we have a full witness. So this is the case.
(20:19):
This is what we should be talking about. We shouldn't
be talking about this other random video. So this is
just a pattern. Alexander did a similar thing. I mean,
I get it. You get new footage or an image
and it looks really interesting, and you want to make
a point, and you want to make a splash, you
(20:39):
want to make headlines. But I just advise these guys
to please be cautious. Ninety five percent of these videos
will turn out to be just conventional objects. And when
you present weak evidence at important venues like congressional hearings.
You're just handing skeptics an easy win. So the twenty
twenty three Tiktac case should have been the centerpiece of
this hearing. Dead we are talking about balloons essentially. But
(21:06):
I'm a huge supporter of Berlason and David Grush, Loue
al Asando abasing work I which just ask to take
this into consideration. So now let's move on to the
ugly and the ugly section is where this really gets disturbing.
So we heard two cases of systematic retaliation against UEP witnesses.
(21:28):
Borland is now unemployed and blacklisted, Grush had is medical
records leaked, and Newsatelli also said that he witnessed personally
witness intimidation to keep quiet. We also saw that ERO, sorry,
that should be a ro O Ultimate Anominate Resolution Office
(21:49):
ARRO looked terrible in this hearing. So basically it sounds
like ERO, as we suspected from lying Kirkpatrick pants is
that ARROW was actually a counter intelligence operation and is
not interested at all in actually investigating these claims. Obviously
they would have investigated the twenty twenty three and poor
(22:11):
Lynn and all of them. It just sounds like ERRO
just looked terrible and honestly should just probably be shut down.
I don't think it can be saved at this point.
So that leads into the next ugly point is the
political grand standing. So in the good we had fantastic bipartisan,
amazing questions from Democrats and Republicans, but in this we
(22:35):
just have counterproductive partisanship. Representative Lee just attacked and blamed
the current administration for previous administration failures. I mean, all
of the arrow issues predate the current administration. All of
these events predate the current administration, So why bring in
(22:55):
political attacks instead of just focusing on the evidence. It
was way worse actually in the first JFK hearing that
was brutal, and this we only had Representative Lee. But
you still risk turning clearly one of the sole bipartisan
issues into some sort of partisan grandstanding weapon. And I
(23:15):
think it just undermines any sort of cross party cooperation
and it just damages your credibility. So Representative Lee just
looked terrible to me in this, and I hope we
can stop this sort of ridiculous partisan grandstanding and blaming.
I mean, you can have all your complaints about the
(23:36):
current administration, but Aro was from the previous administration. Yeah,
so I just don't think it helps. But really, I mean,
the most obvious, disturbing revelation is how the system is
just designed to suppress information, suppress and destroy whistleblowers. The
Air Force destroys police records every three years, so we
(23:56):
can't even foia historical incidents. Private contractors are holding materials
with no congressional oversight, and we had multiple witnesses describe
ARROW as functioning more like a counterintelligence operation than an
investigation unit. Arrow does not care to actually investigate these cases.
(24:17):
They would have looked into the amazing twenty twenty three
tic Tec case, what about FLEAR one, you know, what
about the nimits? I mean, they should be shut down.
At this point, I think Arrow's lost all credibility. I mean,
witnesses describe it as a disinformation operation. That's the witnesses,
(24:38):
and then you have access denial, so even cleared Congress people,
these are members were blocked from information. So the system
is obviously designed to prevent accountability, designed to shut down
any sort of whistleblowers. And yeah, I think that was
probably the ugliest thing that we learned from this, So
(24:59):
I think all this was the best hearing that we had.
I mean, it was an amazing hearing, and I think
it did accomplish some really important things. So first, we
finally got some mention of nuclear sites. Right, all of
us in the community know that UAPs have been deeply
involved with nuclear cases, you know, Bob Salah Jacobs. We've
(25:22):
had so many instances across nuclear sites, and yet it
seems like they're just scared to mention it in any
sort of the hearings. It hasn't come up. So it
did come up here. So we had nuclear facilities right Vandenburg,
ICBM bases, weapon sites. You add all the Russia event
where they specifically mentioned turning on the ICBMs, which is
(25:46):
pretty crazy. We also got electromagnetic effects right direct witness
saying his phone malfunctioned, he felt the interference, and he
literally gave a description of a TR three B. I
thought that was amazing. We also had multi witness events,
so Nucatelli said, for sure, there was many many people
security forces that saw these objects. This isn't isolated individual sighting,
(26:10):
so there are a lot of people out there, primary
security forces, right, That's what Bob Solaz said as well
is that security forces are out there to defend all
these critical sites, and so I think you're going to
find a lot of witnesses in the security forces. We've
also seen just how bad Arrow is, where it really
does look like it is a counterintelligence operation. I think
(26:32):
that is the sy OP. The sy OP is Arrow
is the sy OP people I keep hearing that, you
know Elizondo is a SYOP, or David Grush or you
know these other whistleblowers of SYOUP. No, the sy OP
is obviously Arrow. So we're seeing no investigations or after
action reports. And the primary example was this one, the
(26:53):
twenty twenty three tic TAC event was amazing. All the
data should be there. They should still have the data,
I believe for sure, So they should go and investigate
this and if there was any transparency at all, they
would tell the public, which I doubt there is. And
we also saw a clear pattern of retaliation, so there's
career consequences for disclosure. Borland was very clear about that.
(27:14):
We also heard in the reaction interview with Martin Willis
he heard directly from Mike Herrera saying that he would
have testified but they wanted to bring in new people,
and Mike Herrera has said there's also serious consequences for
coming out as a whistleblower. So there is These are
the consistent patterns that suggest that there is a there there,
(27:37):
and I think it's becoming more and more obvious, and
I think this hearing really just laid it out in
a great way. So overall, I think it was fantastic,
and I think we should just focus on the solid evidence,
the best evidence we have, the twenty twenty three tic
TAC events, the direct witness testimony, the Russian files, and
(27:57):
then the clear issues that our whistleblowers are having. But
we also highlighted a critical need for better evidence standards.
You know, when you present weak, unvetted evidence alongside strong evidence,
the weak stuff just drowns out the strong stuff. Every
single time. We saw that before. So the path forward
(28:20):
is clear. So just focus on cases like the twenty
twenty three tick TAC. They have multisensor confirmation, there's documentation,
we can see anomalous behavior. You know, your medium evidence
is going to be your single sensor with a credible
witness and some documentation, right, single sensor, and then week
is the video only or an image only. There's no witness,
(28:43):
there's no anomalous behavior, and it's very easy to make
an obvious explanation for this, and yeah, it's just gonna
it's going to kill the message in the mainstream. So,
like the twenty twenty three TICKTAC, very strong evidence, I
think the strongest we have the Burlison balloon or whatever
(29:03):
they're going to call it, the object, I think is
very weak evidence. The bottom line is we're definitely making progress.
This UAP hearing definitely pushed the football or ran the
football however you want to say, down the field, may
have even thrown it. But we're also making unforced errors
that damage credibility. So Chief Wiggins, he gave us the
(29:26):
gold standard UAP testimony. You know, he's the first active
duty witness, and it's being overshadowed by this balloon footage.
We had the Russian files provide context. I believe that's
going in the congressional record. I can't wait to see that.
We've always been asking what about these other nations, and
it sounds like George Knapp just killed it and brought
(29:48):
a bunch of information. We're seeing bipartisan momentum so really
that was a big takeaway for me, is that the
Congress were just so more seasoned on this, so smart
and asked dedicated questions, and they really have come to
the final conclusion that they are being lied to, they
are being denied, and it doesn't look like they're going
(30:08):
to give up, and I think they shouldn't. I think
trust and government is at a historic low right now,
and it's for these exact reasons. Since the Kennedy assassination,
trust and government has just plummeted, and it's because the
agencies are not being transparent and truthful with the people
or the Congress, people who are supposed to give oversight
(30:31):
for the people. It also highlighted we need more witness protection,
so highlighting the need for legal protections. UAP Disclosure Act
needs to be signed. We need to again make a
push to try and support that, and whistleblower protections also
need to support that. So pattern recognection, I think we
are connecting similar incidents. We're in the age of information now.
(30:53):
I don't think it can be suppressed much longer. I
think sooner or later the dam is going to break.
So the bottom line, I think we did make great progress.
I really enjoyed the hearing. We had credible witnesses, we
had amazing sighting with all the detail you could want,
we had historical context. George Knapp killed it. We had
(31:15):
bipartisan support. I think there was some damage done again
the weak evidence presentation off the cuff. I understand why
they did it. I would ask that they please refrain
in the Future's just not helping and we'll see here.
I think you saw a lot of again political theater,
which is just unnecessary. So going forward, we need to
(31:37):
focus on just the strongest cases, focus on protecting the witnesses,
and keep demanding transparency. And the standard should be the
multisensor confirmation. I think should be the minimum bar. We
shouldn't be bringing up cases that haven't been vetted and
don't have multisensors, don't have witness testimony. I mean, we
have enough information out there, so just stick to the
(32:00):
most compelling and really maintain analytical rigor with supporting transparency,
and you know, use your assets people like me. Okay,
if you don't trust me for some reason, then use
another analyst, but someone that actually knows what they're talking about.
Don't just go to random journalists. Don't use use random YouTubers.
(32:21):
You know there are people that are willing to help,
and just email me Chris dot Laedo sixteen at gmail
dot com and I will drop everything and help any
of these commerce people or David Grush and his team.
I'm happy to help, and I will keep it completely
discreet and at least give you just first impressions and
I will not tell anyone about it that I helped. Okay,
but please use someone else before you just off the
(32:44):
cuff throw these videos and images out there. Otherwise, love,
love the work you guys are doing. Please keep pushing
forward and thank you so much for watching. Hit the
like button and then share this video as much as
you can. I think the more inform we get out there,
and the more detailed, analytical, as close to the truth
(33:05):
information we get out there, then the better. And please
consider our sponsors. They keep little files going and you
can directly sponsor at Patreon dot com, Ford slash Chris
Lado or become a YouTube member like all these fine people.
Have a great rest of your day. Peace,
What's up everyone, Welcome back to Later Files. I just
finished reanalyzing the latest Congressional UAP hearing, and I need
to break this down for you guys, because there it
is a lot to unpack here. We had some genuinely
compelling testimony alongside some what I would call questionable decisions
(00:20):
that I think actually hurt the credibility of this entire process.
So I'm going to analyze this through what I call
the good, the bad, and the ugly framework. The good
is we got some of the strongest UAP evidence I've
ever seen presented directly to Congress. The bad we also
got some easily debunkable material that's now just dominating headlines
(00:43):
I'm referring to the new UAP video. And the ugly
we saw that there is some serious systematic issues that
this hearing exposed, so welcome to the channel. Either way,
it was a very exciting UAP hearing. I'm excited to
break it down for you guys. I get documents and
(01:10):
tips from sources worldwide, and I need to protect their
privacy and mine also, So that's where private Internet access
comes in, and they're sponsoring today's video. PIA masks your
real location and encrypts your traffic through their network of
next gen servers. What I appreciate about PIA is their
track record, so they've been operating for over ten years
(01:32):
without a single data breach. Their no logs policy isn't
just marketing. It's been tested in courtrooms when authorities demanded
user data, so PIA had nothing to give them. The
service works seamlessly across all my devices laptop, phone, and
tablet all covered under one account, and their split tunneling
feature lets me choose which apps go through the VPN
(01:54):
and which don't so I can optimize for both security
and speed. Get PA for two dollars and three cents
a month at my linkpiavpn dot com forward slash lata files.
That's eighty three percent off with four months bonus. Your
sport keeps this channel going, so thank you so much.
(02:14):
Now back to the show. Okay, let's start with the good,
and there was a lot of good. Honestly, Chief wiggins
testimony should be the headline of this entire hearing. That's
what we should be talking about is Chief Wiggins and
his amazing tiktac video from twenty twenty three, instead of
talking about some other video just off the cuff, which
I think can arguably be just a balloon. There's no
(02:36):
way to prove it's not a balloon. I'll talk about
it later and analyze it for you guys later. So
Chief Wiggins is on the USS Jackson encounter. This was
on February fifteenth, twenty twenty three, out in Whiskey two
nine to one. That's the same warning area that was
the original tiktak David Fravor's tiktac back in two thousand
and four. And this time we have eyewitness, very credible.
(02:58):
He's the first active dude witness to actually testify about UAPs,
and we got the whole shebang, all the multi sensors,
so they saw visual they saw lights outside right, so
they saw that something was actually there. They saw it
on the radar, that's what cued them off in the
first place. And then we had this amazing flear video
where it looks just like a tic tac and I
(03:20):
was so happy. Congressman asked what was the range, and
that's what we didn't know was the range, and he
said it's six or seven nautical miles, so that's well
within the range of identifying this so Mick West cannot
make an argument that it's some distant aircraft. It can't
be a planet, can't be something like that. So this
was within seven nautical miles based on the radar. There
(03:41):
were multiple contacts, and we had this amazing flear video
and we had an amazing witness testimony, and this should
be the headlines. This is what should be in the headlines.
It should not be some other off the cuff video
from Yemen and we don't really know anything about it earlier.
This case, the twenty twenty three case, is amazing. They
said it's trans medium or he suspen access trans medium
(04:01):
because it's hard to tell if it's coming out of
the ocean at that range, out at six nautical miles.
But then he says that there was multiple contacts and
they just disappeared, so accelerated extremely fast, just disappeared off
the radar and left. You also had multiple witnesses, so
there were multiple crew members in the Combat Information Center
(04:21):
and the full resolution was provided to Congress. And the
biggest takeaway I had is why didn't Arrow investigate this?
And they should have all the data, right, they have
the witness testimony. He's still active duty. They have the
fleer obviously it was posted, and if they go and
actually do an investigation, they will find the radar data.
So this case has everything we need and it's from
(04:43):
twenty twenty three, you know, just over two years ago.
So this is an amazing case. Why didn't Arrow investigate it?
We have everything we should be focusing on this. So
this is the gold standard. This is what compelling UAP
evidence looks like. Thanks so much to George Knapp and
Jeremy Corbel for bringing this case and getting it in
front of Congress. That is amazing. This is what we
(05:04):
should be talking about. Only well not only we have
more good, but this should should definitely be the headlines.
This is all the evidence we need, and there's more good.
So we have Dylan Borlin's encounter at Langley, and this
was surprising for me. He was a satellite analyst and
so I assumed it would have been he saw footage
(05:25):
of these orbs that John Ramirez talks about, etc. But no,
he had a first hand account. So this isn't some
distant sighting or he didn't watch a film. He literally
saw it in person. He was one hundred feet away
from a triangular craft for several minutes and he gave
your classic TR three B description. His phone overheated from
(05:48):
electromagnetic interference, and he described the craft in technical detail.
And he's a trained geospatial intelligence analyst, so he knows
what conventional aircraft should look like. He said it was
one hundred foot equilateral triangle one to two stories thick,
and there were white lights at each of the corners
(06:10):
and then a larger sphere light in the center and
this is exactly what we hear of the TR three B.
And then he says the craft just accelerated upwards and
he felt the energy and his phone was destroyed and amazing.
I'll cover this in the ugly section, but his career
(06:31):
was destroyed for coming forward, and that really tells you
how seriously the government takes these encounters, and that really
is part of the ugly. Okay, we have more good.
I thought George Napp just killed it, so he had
Russian documentation. A lot of people were afraid he was
going to bring up Bob Bazar because George Knapp obviously
(06:52):
made his name in the space by promoting Bob Azar
and breaking that story. But in this case he had
tons and paid and pages of Russian documentation. So George
knaps Russia files. So the source is from the Soviet
Ministry of Defense documents. It's the USSR's largest UFO investigation.
(07:15):
He had nuclear incidents from October nineteen eighty two ICBM bases.
They also document launch codes were activated by the UFO presence,
and there was also fighters involved, so forty intercept attempts,
three crashes, and two pilot deaths. They said to leave
UFOs alone. That was the order that was issued. So
(07:37):
these Russian files showed that the Soviets had their own
massive UAP investigation program, and also that UFOs nearly triggered
World War three in nineteen eighty two when they allegedly
activated the Soviet missile launch codes. And then finally from
the good was really the quality of congressional engagement. So
(08:00):
you had Moskovitz asking technical questions and he is a Democrat,
so we had bipartisan, like knowledgeable congress people. Luna was
pushing for transparency. I love the fact that she led
with the tic TAC video. That was amazing, and she
called out specifically and said Kirkpatrick is a known liar
(08:20):
that was the previous director of the era, right, the
office in charge of allegedly investigating all these events, right,
But where were they for the twenty twenty three Tiktac event.
You had Burchett's long term commitment, thought he was amazing,
and so I think what we're saying here is rare
bipartisan cooperation on a subject that I think, do we
(08:43):
have any other subjects with bipartisan cooperation? There was one
section I'll cover in the Ugly, but for now, I
think overall, Moskovitz was amazing, and you did have Democrats
there asking knowledgeable questions. Okay, but now let's get to
the and so this is where I have to be
critical of our side. The pro disclosure side is representative.
(09:08):
Burlison presented this video of what he claimed was UEP
deflecting a hellfire missile. So let's check out the video
that Burlison actually played at the hearing. David Grush was
seated right behind him. You'll see him in the cut
that happens. But Burlison described this video as an m
(09:28):
Q nine drone tracking an orb or this object, he said,
off the coast of Yemen. And he mentioned that another
MQ nine launched a helfire missile. So let's check it out.
I'll play it through normal and then we'll slow it down. Okay,
here's the object obviously tracked, so there's a lock on it,
(09:49):
and you'll see the missile come in from the upper left.
There it is, it's the object. And now he basically
loses the lock, goes to wide field of view and
(10:13):
now manually tracks the object. So the predator or reaper
operator now manually checking this object in wide field of view.
And you do that if you have trouble tracking an object,
(10:33):
you're going to go to wide field of view. So
that is the video, and you can see right behind
him is David Grush. So I'm so happy David Grush
is there and supporting Congress. But I do think he
made a miscalculation on this video. So I understand why
this This looks really compelling at first glance. I was
(10:53):
excited when I saw it. Write new videos are always exciting.
But once we analyze this tech technically, we can see
that the object is wavering just like a balloon, so
consistent with a balloon, the apparent movement is likely parallax.
So really the drone is moving, the camera is taking
the video and so what you're going to see from
(11:16):
any object it's tracking is in the distance. You will
see the opposite motion from the drone. And as far
as the Hellfire missile, Dean Aliodo noticed in our reaction
check out the live reaction video from the livestream. He
actually noticed that it didn't explode, so it didn't detonate.
And afterwards I also received an email from an experienced
(11:37):
Apache pilot because I did not know that that much
detail about hell fires, I didn't shoot them from of sixteens,
but he basically explained that it also didn't detonate, and
I asked what kind of fuses do they use, and
he believes they use impact fuses, So that means the
actual missile has to impact something hard enough to explode,
(11:58):
And you don't want your missiles just exploding off nothing,
right if it goes through like a cloud or there's
a little bit of ice something like that, or just
from the air pressure, So you want your missile definitely
to detonate, but there are safety percussions in place, so
you don't want it to detonate all the time. And
as we'll watch here in the video, I think the
(12:20):
missile actually did not detonate because it was hitting just
a balloon and deflected off of it basically did not
crush the impact fuse and did not detonate the missile. Actually,
we have a lot of problems with this. Ten percent
of bombs in Iraq Jadams, at least from certain tranches
of the bombs did not explode, right, Those were duds,
(12:41):
which is really dangerous. Now you have these heavy explosives
out there just not exploded, not detonated, but duds happen
more often than you would think. Actually, the other major
point of this is it's just a video from you
reaper feed off the coast of Yemen. There's no witness testimony,
(13:02):
there's no radar data, there's no other information at all.
And so I would be shocked if anyone could provide
any sort of compelling evidence why or how this is
not a balloon. And so I think what we're going
to see is another similar issue when Lou Alzano when
(13:22):
he showed that off the cuff photo right ended up
being a crop circle. At the last UAP briefing or discussion,
is I just don't think these are good ideas. You know,
we have an army of people out there you have
the debunkers who will tell you whatever counter information you
(13:43):
want or counter arguments. You have people like me that
are willing to analyze with discretion. Right, if David Grush
or Burliston wants one of these videos analyzed before publishing
in an important hearing like this, just email me. I
am glad to help. I will be totally discreet, not
tell anyone, but I would say, definitely, just after a
(14:03):
few short minutes looking at this video and actually watching
it in real time, is you should not at all
post this at the hearing, Okay, because now that's all
people are talking about, and it's taken over when there
was some really compelling evidence again put in a congressional record,
breakthrough stuff. But now because again we want to show
(14:26):
and I get it, you want to show new information.
It's exciting, it does make headlines. But the problem is
you're just throwing a softball to the skeptics and the
debunkers to just knock this out of the park when
we should be focusing on really the compelling evidence. Right
as we know, ninety five percent of compelling videos are
going to turn out to be mundane. This is just
(14:47):
the fact. It's difficult right, there are five percent, so
one out of twenty are really exciting. And we had
all of the information. We have it all, it's posted there.
Wigans amazing compelling radar data, witness testimony, visual flear video.
We have everything, right, There's no need to go off
the cuff and throw out some video that hasn't been
(15:08):
vetted through anyone. Right. And I get it that the
community would rather hear we'd rather watch stuff from magicians
and journalists rather than analysts like me. Right, I get
put off to the side, much fewer views. But maybe
you guys should be more discerning in where you're taking
your information from. And so I would ask them to consider,
(15:32):
please stop doing this, just focus on the compelling cases
which we have. We have, and I know it sucks
to hear this. I'm sure you guys are excited about
the video. I was excited as well. But let's go
through it at zero point twenty five speed and you
can see what I mean. Okay, So again tracking the
object and if you look closely at the object, you'll
(15:54):
see it's kind of moving. I mean, it looks like
a balloon. It's in white hot I believe because the
missile is white and I'm sure that the tail end
of that missile, even if the rocket's not firing. The
apatche pilot told me it fires for about four to
five seconds. It's going to be sub supersonic. It is
white as well, so you will see the exhaust from
(16:14):
the missile will be white. So I think we're actually
in a white hot form. And again, like any fighter pilot,
worth Assault is going to go black hot, white hot
and go to TV mode, especially for battle damage assessment
to see what actually happened or to identify this thing.
You're not just going to stick in one mode unless
you're targeting it right and you're worried about losing the lock.
(16:35):
But this guy is not targeting it with the missile.
The other MQ nine shot the hell fire and is
a targeting it either with a laser or with the radar.
We don't know. So we'll see here LRD lays designator.
I don't believe he's lasing. Normally you get some laser
indicator firing. Plus you don't want to shoot. You don't
(16:57):
want to laze from this side. You'd obviously lays from
the other side where the missile is shooting from. Okay,
I mentioned the parallax before. So the MQ nine that
we're viewing this from is flying through the air. Okay,
So if you're tracking an object in the middle, the
object could just be going with the wind being basically stationary,
(17:19):
although there will surely be some wind, and so that's
what we're seeing in the background is just the waves
going by. So here comes the missile. It's white hot,
like I said, okay, and it just deflex. You see
the missile going through, so it did not detonate. The
missile goes there, and now watch this the object. Okay,
to me, it literally just looks like a balloon. It
didn't pop, right, it's lower altitude balloon, but is literally
(17:43):
just wavering. I mean, if it's not under that much
of pressure, then to me, that's what a balloon would
look like if you hit it with the missile. I
don't burlisin with crushed behind him. Now they got wide
field view and people say, well, you can see the
main object and then the three other objects traveling in
(18:07):
the same line, and again that this could be falling
if you notice it is having trouble tracking and it
does look lower than the original cursor placement. So I
think it is falling, and that's what we're seeing is
the balloon and up parts of the balloon or object
which to me looks like a balloon in separate parts
now falling. It's descending, and then we're seeing the motion.
(18:29):
It's apparent motion from parallax. So I think this is
easily debunkable. It didn't do anything anomalous. I think if
you shot on hell fire at ten balloons and video
them and just only white hawk because you cannot change
(18:50):
the black cot or TV. Like. Another point for any
of our operators out there using these drones is used
the other modes of your sensors, like please, especially if
you don't know what you're shooting at. If you can't
identify it, look at it in other sensor modes. Which
makes me think that this could be at night if
(19:11):
they're not going to use the TV mode, So maybe
it is at night and we're about it. Says five
point four to nine nautical miles here that could be
to the ground, okay, because that's really they don't have
a lock on this thing. And three point eighty two
nautical miles so this could actually be too a navwaypoint
(19:33):
or something. So again we don't have range. We don't
know how high this object is, how far away it is.
We have limited information, so we didn't have range, we
don't have witness, we don't have any information. And just
you know, put that against this video, the twenty twenty
three tic Tac video, where we have range, witnesses, radar data.
(19:56):
And by the way, it looks like a ticktac, it
does not look like a balloon. At least you can
size this thing. I sized it out to around thirty
feet I believe. So you're looking at a thirty foot
long tictac object. There's multiple of them. We have radar information,
and we have a full witness. So this is the case.
(20:19):
This is what we should be talking about. We shouldn't
be talking about this other random video. So this is
just a pattern. Alexander did a similar thing. I mean,
I get it. You get new footage or an image
and it looks really interesting, and you want to make
a point, and you want to make a splash, you
(20:39):
want to make headlines. But I just advise these guys
to please be cautious. Ninety five percent of these videos
will turn out to be just conventional objects. And when
you present weak evidence at important venues like congressional hearings.
You're just handing skeptics an easy win. So the twenty
twenty three Tiktac case should have been the centerpiece of
this hearing. Dead we are talking about balloons essentially. But
(21:06):
I'm a huge supporter of Berlason and David Grush, Loue
al Asando abasing work I which just ask to take
this into consideration. So now let's move on to the
ugly and the ugly section is where this really gets disturbing.
So we heard two cases of systematic retaliation against UEP witnesses.
(21:28):
Borland is now unemployed and blacklisted, Grush had is medical
records leaked, and Newsatelli also said that he witnessed personally
witness intimidation to keep quiet. We also saw that ERO, sorry,
that should be a ro O Ultimate Anominate Resolution Office
(21:49):
ARRO looked terrible in this hearing. So basically it sounds
like ERO, as we suspected from lying Kirkpatrick pants is
that ARROW was actually a counter intelligence operation and is
not interested at all in actually investigating these claims. Obviously
they would have investigated the twenty twenty three and poor
(22:11):
Lynn and all of them. It just sounds like ERRO
just looked terrible and honestly should just probably be shut down.
I don't think it can be saved at this point.
So that leads into the next ugly point is the
political grand standing. So in the good we had fantastic bipartisan,
amazing questions from Democrats and Republicans, but in this we
(22:35):
just have counterproductive partisanship. Representative Lee just attacked and blamed
the current administration for previous administration failures. I mean, all
of the arrow issues predate the current administration. All of
these events predate the current administration, So why bring in
(22:55):
political attacks instead of just focusing on the evidence. It
was way worse actually in the first JFK hearing that
was brutal, and this we only had Representative Lee. But
you still risk turning clearly one of the sole bipartisan
issues into some sort of partisan grandstanding weapon. And I
(23:15):
think it just undermines any sort of cross party cooperation
and it just damages your credibility. So Representative Lee just
looked terrible to me in this, and I hope we
can stop this sort of ridiculous partisan grandstanding and blaming.
I mean, you can have all your complaints about the
(23:36):
current administration, but Aro was from the previous administration. Yeah,
so I just don't think it helps. But really, I mean,
the most obvious, disturbing revelation is how the system is
just designed to suppress information, suppress and destroy whistleblowers. The
Air Force destroys police records every three years, so we
(23:56):
can't even foia historical incidents. Private contractors are holding materials
with no congressional oversight, and we had multiple witnesses describe
ARROW as functioning more like a counterintelligence operation than an
investigation unit. Arrow does not care to actually investigate these cases.
(24:17):
They would have looked into the amazing twenty twenty three
tic Tec case, what about FLEAR one, you know, what
about the nimits? I mean, they should be shut down.
At this point, I think Arrow's lost all credibility. I mean,
witnesses describe it as a disinformation operation. That's the witnesses,
(24:38):
and then you have access denial, so even cleared Congress people,
these are members were blocked from information. So the system
is obviously designed to prevent accountability, designed to shut down
any sort of whistleblowers. And yeah, I think that was
probably the ugliest thing that we learned from this, So
(24:59):
I think all this was the best hearing that we had.
I mean, it was an amazing hearing, and I think
it did accomplish some really important things. So first, we
finally got some mention of nuclear sites. Right, all of
us in the community know that UAPs have been deeply
involved with nuclear cases, you know, Bob Salah Jacobs. We've
(25:22):
had so many instances across nuclear sites, and yet it
seems like they're just scared to mention it in any
sort of the hearings. It hasn't come up. So it
did come up here. So we had nuclear facilities right Vandenburg,
ICBM bases, weapon sites. You add all the Russia event
where they specifically mentioned turning on the ICBMs, which is
(25:46):
pretty crazy. We also got electromagnetic effects right direct witness
saying his phone malfunctioned, he felt the interference, and he
literally gave a description of a TR three B. I
thought that was amazing. We also had multi witness events,
so Nucatelli said, for sure, there was many many people
security forces that saw these objects. This isn't isolated individual sighting,
(26:10):
so there are a lot of people out there, primary
security forces, right, That's what Bob Solaz said as well
is that security forces are out there to defend all
these critical sites, and so I think you're going to
find a lot of witnesses in the security forces. We've
also seen just how bad Arrow is, where it really
does look like it is a counterintelligence operation. I think
(26:32):
that is the sy OP. The sy OP is Arrow
is the sy OP people I keep hearing that, you
know Elizondo is a SYOP, or David Grush or you
know these other whistleblowers of SYOUP. No, the sy OP
is obviously Arrow. So we're seeing no investigations or after
action reports. And the primary example was this one, the
(26:53):
twenty twenty three tic TAC event was amazing. All the
data should be there. They should still have the data,
I believe for sure, So they should go and investigate
this and if there was any transparency at all, they
would tell the public, which I doubt there is. And
we also saw a clear pattern of retaliation, so there's
career consequences for disclosure. Borland was very clear about that.
(27:14):
We also heard in the reaction interview with Martin Willis
he heard directly from Mike Herrera saying that he would
have testified but they wanted to bring in new people,
and Mike Herrera has said there's also serious consequences for
coming out as a whistleblower. So there is These are
the consistent patterns that suggest that there is a there there,
(27:37):
and I think it's becoming more and more obvious, and
I think this hearing really just laid it out in
a great way. So overall, I think it was fantastic,
and I think we should just focus on the solid evidence,
the best evidence we have, the twenty twenty three tic
TAC events, the direct witness testimony, the Russian files, and
(27:57):
then the clear issues that our whistleblowers are having. But
we also highlighted a critical need for better evidence standards.
You know, when you present weak, unvetted evidence alongside strong evidence,
the weak stuff just drowns out the strong stuff. Every
single time. We saw that before. So the path forward
(28:20):
is clear. So just focus on cases like the twenty
twenty three tick TAC. They have multisensor confirmation, there's documentation,
we can see anomalous behavior. You know, your medium evidence
is going to be your single sensor with a credible
witness and some documentation, right, single sensor, and then week
is the video only or an image only. There's no witness,
(28:43):
there's no anomalous behavior, and it's very easy to make
an obvious explanation for this, and yeah, it's just gonna
it's going to kill the message in the mainstream. So,
like the twenty twenty three TICKTAC, very strong evidence, I
think the strongest we have the Burlison balloon or whatever
(29:03):
they're going to call it, the object, I think is
very weak evidence. The bottom line is we're definitely making progress.
This UAP hearing definitely pushed the football or ran the
football however you want to say, down the field, may
have even thrown it. But we're also making unforced errors
that damage credibility. So Chief Wiggins, he gave us the
(29:26):
gold standard UAP testimony. You know, he's the first active
duty witness, and it's being overshadowed by this balloon footage.
We had the Russian files provide context. I believe that's
going in the congressional record. I can't wait to see that.
We've always been asking what about these other nations, and
it sounds like George Knapp just killed it and brought
(29:48):
a bunch of information. We're seeing bipartisan momentum so really
that was a big takeaway for me, is that the
Congress were just so more seasoned on this, so smart
and asked dedicated questions, and they really have come to
the final conclusion that they are being lied to, they
are being denied, and it doesn't look like they're going
(30:08):
to give up, and I think they shouldn't. I think
trust and government is at a historic low right now,
and it's for these exact reasons. Since the Kennedy assassination,
trust and government has just plummeted, and it's because the
agencies are not being transparent and truthful with the people
or the Congress, people who are supposed to give oversight
(30:31):
for the people. It also highlighted we need more witness protection,
so highlighting the need for legal protections. UAP Disclosure Act
needs to be signed. We need to again make a
push to try and support that, and whistleblower protections also
need to support that. So pattern recognection, I think we
are connecting similar incidents. We're in the age of information now.
(30:53):
I don't think it can be suppressed much longer. I
think sooner or later the dam is going to break.
So the bottom line, I think we did make great progress.
I really enjoyed the hearing. We had credible witnesses, we
had amazing sighting with all the detail you could want,
we had historical context. George Knapp killed it. We had
(31:15):
bipartisan support. I think there was some damage done again
the weak evidence presentation off the cuff. I understand why
they did it. I would ask that they please refrain
in the Future's just not helping and we'll see here.
I think you saw a lot of again political theater,
which is just unnecessary. So going forward, we need to
(31:37):
focus on just the strongest cases, focus on protecting the witnesses,
and keep demanding transparency. And the standard should be the
multisensor confirmation. I think should be the minimum bar. We
shouldn't be bringing up cases that haven't been vetted and
don't have multisensors, don't have witness testimony. I mean, we
have enough information out there, so just stick to the
(32:00):
most compelling and really maintain analytical rigor with supporting transparency,
and you know, use your assets people like me. Okay,
if you don't trust me for some reason, then use
another analyst, but someone that actually knows what they're talking about.
Don't just go to random journalists. Don't use use random YouTubers.
(32:21):
You know there are people that are willing to help,
and just email me Chris dot Laedo sixteen at gmail
dot com and I will drop everything and help any
of these commerce people or David Grush and his team.
I'm happy to help, and I will keep it completely
discreet and at least give you just first impressions and
I will not tell anyone about it that I helped. Okay,
but please use someone else before you just off the
(32:44):
cuff throw these videos and images out there. Otherwise, love,
love the work you guys are doing. Please keep pushing
forward and thank you so much for watching. Hit the
like button and then share this video as much as
you can. I think the more inform we get out there,
and the more detailed, analytical, as close to the truth
(33:05):
information we get out there, then the better. And please
consider our sponsors. They keep little files going and you
can directly sponsor at Patreon dot com, Ford slash Chris
Lado or become a YouTube member like all these fine people.
Have a great rest of your day. Peace,
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.