UFO Hearing Watch Party September 9 2025

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello and welcome you fologers. Today we are seeing, hopefully
history happen for this upcoming UFO hearing taking place supposed
to be at ten am EST seven am PST. But
you always know how it goes when it comes to Congress,
when it comes to the government, they're always running late.
We are watching the stream live and it just says

(00:21):
it'll begin shortly. It says here it is ten oh
six and we are still waiting. But thank you so
much for catching today's live show, because not only are
we going to be watching this take place, but right
after you and I are going to chat it up.
How did it go, did it meet our expectations if

(00:41):
we even had any, what were the key takeaways? And
then I will be doing another video on a more specific,
detailed oriented analysis after watching it a few times, because
for some you watch it, you miss a few things.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
This hearing of the Task Force on Declassification of Federal
CITYUK will come to an order. Welcome everyone, without objection.
The Chair may declare a recess at any time. Additionally,
without any objection, the following members are waived onto the
Task Force for the purpose of questioning witnesses at today's
hearing Representative Bigs of Arizona, Representative Baggich of Alaska, Representative

(01:18):
Ogles of Tennessee, Representative Titus of Nevada, and Representative Moscoits
of Florida. There are no objections. I recognize myself for
the purpose of making an opening statement, Good morning, and
welcome to the hearing regarding UAP disclosures. For too long,
the issue of unidentified anomalous phenomena commonly known as UAPs

(01:39):
has been shrouded in secrecy, stigma, and in some case,
outright dismissal. Today, I want to state clearly that this
is not science fiction or creating speculation. This is about
national security, government accountability, and the American people's right to
the truth. I've spoken now to a number of whistleblowers
from the military, to include the infamous Egglin Air Force
Base incident that occurred when my self and former Representative

(02:01):
Matt Gates, as well as Representative Burchett, followed up on
a lead for multiple active duty Air Force pilot whistleblowers
that allege that the United States Air Force was covering
up UAP activity at Gland Air Force Base. We have
heard from a number of whistleblowers, specifically military pilots, that
the reason for not coming forward publicly is out of
fear that speaking out would cost them their flight status
and potentially their careers. This is unacceptable. We cannot protect

(02:25):
our airspaces if our best trained observers are silenced. We
cannot advance science if we refuse to ask questions, and
we cannot maintain trust in government if we keep the
American people in the dark. Now, Congresses try to fix
this problem. Congress tried to create formal channels through the
All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office also known as ARROW, and

(02:46):
the Intelligence Community Inspector General for service members and officials
to make disclosures, but the reality the reports come in
are often to brush aside, slow walked, or met with
skepticism rather than serious investigation. Recently, the former ERA director
known as Sean Kokpatrick attacked our witnesses and members on
this committee. It should be noted that he's a documented

(03:07):
liar and brings into question what his purpose that AERRA
really was if it was not to follow up on
investigations and disclose his findings to members of Congress. A
former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Chris Mellin
described a report published by ERA that found no evidence
that any usg investigation, academic sponsored research, or official review
panel has confirmed any sighting of UAP represented extraterrestrial technology

(03:33):
as the most air ridden and unsatisfactory government report I
can recall reading during after decades of government service. Mellan
further noted that this was a first air report submitted
to Congress without the Director of National Intelligence's sign off,
and seemingly excluded input from any scholars or experts who
have studied or written exclusively about this topic, extensively about

(03:54):
this topic, as would normally be in any other case
in this field. Determined that this report failed to fulfill
the congressional mandate under which it was required, omitted entire
agencies with known investigations or activities related to UAPs, and
omitted any discussion of efforts to hide classified or unclassified
information about UAP. Such efforts were or unaddressed by the report,

(04:18):
despite the existence of agency records and investigations concurring with them,
including those at US Customs and Border Protection. If we
set up offices and oversight bodies only to let them
become graveyards for testimony or worse, yet cruises for pretending
to investigate when in actuality there was no fallow up,
then we are not doing our jobs. In recent months,

(04:39):
Congress has also been presented with evidence that points to
technologies that, to our knowledge, are beyond our current capabilities.
It is our duty as elected representatives to follow the
facts wherever they lead, and to ensure that those facts
are not buried under classification stamps or bureaucratic excuses. Let
me be clear whether UAPs represent adder, serial technology, natural phenomena,
or some thing beyond current human understanding. Congress has a

(05:02):
responsibility to investigate. If these objects are foreign in origin,
then they pose a direct threat to our national security,
And if they represent something aknown, they demand rigorous scientific inquiry,
not ridicule, not secrecy, and not silence. The stakes are
very high. Address Sarah. Nations are not waiting for us
to catch up. They are studying these phenomena as well, aggressively,

(05:23):
as multiple nations have also announced their own parliamentary investigations
into this very topic. If we are to continue to
hide information from ourselves, we risk strategic surprise. If we
continue to ignore our pilots and service members, as well
as countless government whistleblowers, we risk losing their trust, and
if we continue to shield the truth from the public,
we risk eroding the very foundation of democratic accountability. This

(05:47):
is why this hearing matters. This is not about fueling speculation.
This is about demanding the basic transparency from the Department
of Defense and the intelligence community and other military contractors.
It is about asking the question every American has the
right to ask. What do we know, what don't we know?
And why in a free society are we being told
so little. A major barrier to this Committee's inquiry into

(06:11):
UAPs has been the lack of cooperation and transparency from
the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. In preparation
for previous UAP hearings, the Committee repeatedly asked the Department
of Defense to allow members to view videos and files
related to UAP incidences. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense notified
the committee staff that, due to the Department's Special Access

(06:32):
program rules, only members of the House Armed Service Committee
as well as the Defense Subcommittee on House Appropriations also
known as hack D, were allowed to be read in
onto such programs. For a non committee member to be
allowed to view these documents and videos, individual members must
be approved by the chairman and ranking member of both
HASK and hack D Independent stap oversite has presented a

(06:53):
consistent problem for Congress as well as program budgets are classified. Additionally,
oversight reporting to CONGO is classified and only provided to
the authorizing and appropriations committees of jurisdiction. The American people
are not fragile. They do not need to be shielded
like children from reality. What they cannot tolerate and what
they will not forgive, is a government that withholds the

(07:14):
truth and punishes those who dare to speak up. I
want to close with this. Future generations will look back
at this moment and ask what we did when presented
with the unknown. Did we look away, embarrassed or afraid?
Or do we pursue the truth with courage. I intend
to be on the side of truth, transparency, and accountability,
and I hope my colleagues on this task force will
be able to do the same. To quote a few

(07:37):
elected officials, Senator Schumer has stated multiple credible sources allege
a constitutional crisis over UFOs. Senator Rounds has stated that
these are brilliant individuals and they are not making this
stuff up. In our current Secretary of State Marco Rubio
has stated very high clearances and high positions within our
government in regards to these whistleblowers. Senator McConnell also describe

(08:00):
these whistlers as staying incredible, and the witnesses today are
not alone. In fact, they're far from it. In fact,
thirty four senior military, government and intelligent officials have broken
their silence. This includes Senator or now Secretary of State
Mark or Rubio, Senator Round, Senator Gillibrand, General Jim Clapper,
the former director of the government government's UAP Task Force,

(08:21):
the former head of aviation security for the White House
National Security Council, the former Secretary of Defense, and many more. Again,
to quote Senator Secretary of State Rubia in an upcoming
documentary known as the Age of Disclosure, even presidents have
been operating on a need to know basis that begins
to spin out of control. And to quote Senator Gillibrand,

(08:42):
who also went public in this documentary, It's not acceptable
to have secret parts of this government that no one
ever sees. It's time for the fundamental truths of UAP
to be real to our nations leaders and the public.
It's time for the US government to exercise transparency, and
with that I yield to Ranking Member Crockett for the
opening statement.

Speaker 3 (08:59):
Thank you so much much, Madam Chair. At a time
of increasing distrust in government, it is important for Congress
to take action to restore the government's credibility. Bringing transparency
to an issue of great public interests is a step
toward doing just that. So I think Shairwoman Luna for
calling this bipartisan hearing to discuss unidentified anomalist phenomena or.

Speaker 4 (09:23):
UAP, which is today's term for what.

Speaker 3 (09:26):
Was commonly known as UFO's unidentified flying objects. And while
some people think of flying saucers when they hear these terms,
it is vital that we focus on the real world's
impact of UAPs on critical infrastructure, civilian safety, and national security.
There is good reason to believe that most UAPs have

(09:49):
origins far closer to home. Currently, NASA has not found
any evidence that any UAPs have an extraterrestrial origin. Our
adversary are working to develop new capabilities to gain military advantages,
and those efforts are likely explanation for the mysteries that

(10:10):
we have observed. Nevertheless, the federal government has a responsibility
to the American people to investigate and provide transparent disclosures
about every incident. The federal government is equally obligated to
protect those who report what they've seen, especially to commanding
officers and supervisors, and Congress should do everything in its

(10:32):
power to protect whistleblowers and conduct oversight of agencies that
are failing to provide that protection. Democracy depends on transparency,
and transparency often relies on the courage of individuals willing
to risk their careers, reputations, and in some cases, their
personal safety.

Speaker 4 (10:51):
To tell the truth.

Speaker 3 (10:52):
So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.
We should welcome their accounts and acknowledge the bravery they
have shown to come before us. We must ensure that
all whistleblowers feel that they can come to Congress to
tell their stories without fear of retaliation or of professional consequences.
We need transparency not just to make better policy, but

(11:15):
also to ensure that information flows between all those who
need it. There are too many tragic examples in our
history where information lapses and a lack of cross agency
coordination led to disaster.

Speaker 4 (11:29):
Just this year, failure to communicate between.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
FAA and the Department of Defense led to tragedy over
the Potomac. The Biden Harris administration sought to eliminate some
of these lapses when it established the All Domain Anomaly
Resolution Office at the Department of Defense. AERO can convene
sources from all branches of military, the FAA, and NASA

(11:55):
to combine forces to create a comprehensive picture of what
is happening in our skies.

Speaker 4 (12:00):
Some UAP reports have perfectly.

Speaker 3 (12:02):
Normal explanations satellites, consumer drones, weather balloons, even pranks, but
we need to track down each and every single UAP.
The United States has millions of eyes in the sky,
both electronic and human, but only the combination of civilian, commercial,

(12:23):
and military sources can begin to create a complete picture.
So we need to ensure that people can come forward
and report what they have seen to the relevant authorities,
and they have to have the right to do so
without fear of retaliation. This country has a history of
dedicated public servants standing up for what is right, even

(12:44):
in the face of potential consequences. From the Pentagon papers
to Watergate to torture programs, whistle blowers have not only
informed the public, but also empowered Congress to fulfill its
constitutional duty of oversight. Past congress uses have written laws
to grant legal protection for whistle blowers, and it is

(13:05):
up to us to work responsibly with all sources to
hold the executive branch accountable. We are here today to
listen to the stories of those who have witnessed events
of interest to the American people and to support the
policies that cultivate an environment that welcomes and protects whistle blowers.

(13:25):
I hope this hearing will be an example of the
respect and protection wistle blowers deserve and the importance of
conducting oversight of the federal government.

Speaker 4 (13:35):
I yel back.

Speaker 2 (13:38):
I am pleased to welcome the panel of witnesses for
today's hearing. I'd first like to welcome mister Jeffrey Nussatelli
is the United State's Air Force veteran and a career
federal employee with more than twenty years of experience in
national security, law enforcement, and public administration. Next, we have
mister alex Alexandra Wiggins. Mister Wigisigins is currently serving as

(14:01):
a Senior Chief Operation Specialist in the United States Navy.
Mister Wiggins is testifying in his personal capacity today and
not on behalf of the United States Navy. Next, I
would like to recognize a gentlewoman from Nevada, Representative Titus.

Speaker 5 (14:15):
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman Ranking Members, for allowing
me to sit with you on this panel today. I'm
honored to be able to introduce a witness here who
is from my district, George Knapp, who has been the
definitive expert and reporter on this topic that you're exploring
today UAPs or UFOs. George is a longtime friend out

(14:40):
say that up front, but a very respected journalist and
a recognized expert in this field nationally and internationally. Just
a little something about George. He came to Las Vegas
in nineteen seventy nine and joined KLS television station as
a general assignment reporter in nineteen teen eighty one. Since

(15:01):
nineteen ninety five, he's been the chief investigative reporter for
that channel. He also hosts a national radio show you
can listen to on Coast to Coast AM which covers
many of the paranormal topics that y'all are discussing. Over
the years, George has been, as I said, recognized for
his work. He's been honored with the Peabody Award, the

(15:24):
Dupone Award, the Edward Murrow Award, in twenty seven different
regional Emmys for his investigative reporting. Indeed, he has told
Nevada's story with the clarity, with objectivity, and with integrity.
So I know that his testimony today is going to

(15:46):
be of great interest and vague to this committee, So
thank you very much.

Speaker 2 (15:52):
Next we have mister Dylan Borland. Mister Borland is United
States Air Force veteran, has a long career in federal service.
And finally I'd like to enter mister Joe Spielberger, a
senior policy council at the Project of Government Oversight. Pursuant
to Committee Rule nine G, the witnesses will please stand
and raise the right hand. Do you solemnly swear or

(16:19):
affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is
a truth, the whole truth, and the nothing but the truth.
So help you God, let the record show that the
witnesses answered and affirmative. Thank you. You may take your seat.
We appreciate you being here today and I look forward
to hearing your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that
we have read your written statements and it will appear

(16:42):
in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral
statements to five minutes, but I understand you have a
lot to get through, so if it goes a little over,
don't worry about it. As a reminder, please press the
button on the microphone in front of you so that
it is on and the members can hear you. When
you begin to speak, the light in front of you
will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow,
and when the red light comes on, your five minutes

(17:03):
have expired and we will ask you to please wrap
it up. I now recognize that mister Nustelli for his
opening statement.

Speaker 6 (17:11):
Good morning, Thank you Chairwoman Luna, ranking Member Crockett, and
members of the Task Force for giving us the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Jeffrey Neusatelli. I'm a
former military police officer with sixteen years of active duty
service in the US Air Force. I'm here today because

(17:31):
the American people have both the right and the responsibility
to know the truth about unidentified aerial phenomenon. That truth
remains hidden, classified and silenced by fear, retaliation, stigma, and confusion.
Today we are here to help break that silence. Between
two thousand and three and two thousand and five, five

(17:54):
UAP incidents occurred at Vanderberg Air Force Base, home to
the National Missile Defense Project, a top national security priority
at the time. We were conducting launches deemed by the
National Reconnaissance Office as the most important in twenty five years.
These were historic launches. These facilities were vital, and they

(18:15):
were repeatedly visited by UAP. Each incident was witnessed by
multiple personnel, documented, investigated, and reported up the chain of command.
We sent information up, but we got no guidance down
on how to handle these events. I personally witnessed one

(18:36):
of these events and investigated others as they occurred. Six
other service members have provided me with the information that
I will share with you today. The incursions began on
October fourteenth, two thousand and three, when Boeing contractors reported
a massive, glowing red square silently hovering over two missile

(18:56):
defense sites. After several minutes, it drifted further east onto
the base and vanished over the hills. This event, now
known as the Vanderberg Red Square, was referenced by Representative
Luna at the first hearing on this topic.

Speaker 7 (19:11):
Official Air Force.

Speaker 6 (19:13):
Records of this event are in possession by ARROW and
the FBI. Later that night, while I was on duty,
security guards at a critical launch site reported a bright,
fast moving object over the ocean. I responded to the incident.
Chaos ensued over the radio as the object approached rapidly.

(19:34):
I heard my friends screaming, it's coming right at us,
It's coming right for us, and now it's right here.
Moments later I heard them say that it had shot
off and was gone. When I arrived on seeing, I
talked to five shaken witnesses who described a massive triangular
craft larger than a football field, that hovered silently for

(19:56):
about forty five seconds over their enter control point before
shooting away at impossible speed. About a week later, another
patrol reported a light over the ocean behaving erradically. Believing
it might be an unannounced aircraft, they declared an emergency
and an armed response force responded. Before the forces could arrive,

(20:18):
the object descended and either landed or hovered on our
flight line, and then took off again at impossible speed.
The witnesses to this event were threatened and intimidated. Afterward,
they were told to keep quiet and think about what
they were reporting. After that, things did get quiet until

(20:43):
about two thousand and five, when another patrol reported a
massive triangular craft larger than a C one thirty silently
floating over the installation. He watched it for a few minutes.
It traveled west and disappeared into the night. And then
I had my own encounter again. In two thousand and five.

(21:04):
I was off duty, sitting in my backyard with two
other police officers when we noticed what first appeared to
be a satellite in orbit, but it wasn't acting like
a satellite. The light was strange. It was pulsing, and
then it started to maneuver. It dropped in elevation. At
times it would vanish from view and reappear in a
different location in the sky, and eventually it reappeared two

(21:26):
hundred feet over my house. It was a thirty foot
diameter sphere of light. My friends and I watched it
for a moment, and then it gently accelerated and traveled
up and disappeared into the stars. These events profoundly changed
my life and the lives of my friends. We stand

(21:47):
at a pivotal moment in history. The question is no
longer whether these events are real but whether we have
the courage to face them. True leadership requires vision, a
willingness to confront the unknown with transparency and resolve. So
I ask the Congress to help we the people, enact
this vision.

Speaker 7 (22:07):
There are three goals.

Speaker 6 (22:09):
Fund independent research and treat UAP study with the same
seriousness as we would any other scientific field. Two, end
secrecy and overclassification. Transparency is the foundation of truth. Without it,
witnesses like us are dismissed.

Speaker 7 (22:27):
Three.

Speaker 6 (22:28):
Protect the witnesses. Many stay silent out of fear for
their careers, reputations, and the safety of their families. Protect them,
and you will embolden others to join this cause. These
phenomenon challenge are deepest assumptions about reality, consciousness, and our
place in the universe. Exploring them can unlock transformative breakthroughs

(22:52):
in technology, biology, and human understanding. Let this be the
moment when America chooses courage over fear, transparency over secrecy,
and progress over stagnation. Let's show the world that our
nation leads not only through strength.

Speaker 7 (23:09):
But through fearless pursuit of the truth.

Speaker 2 (23:12):
Thank you, Thank you, mister NELI. I now recognize Chief
Wiggins for his opening statement. Please press your button.

Speaker 8 (23:32):
Thank you, Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Crockett, and
members of the task Force and the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Alexandro Wiggins.
I'm an active duty US Navy Operation Specialist, senior Chief
Pity Officer, father of three, and dedicated American, testifying today

(23:54):
in my personal capacity. The views I share are my
own and I do not represent the official positions of
the Department of the Navy or any subordinate organization. On
the evening of February fifteenth, twenty twenty three, at approximately
nineteen fifteen PST, and the Whiskey two nine to one

(24:15):
warning area off the coast of southern California, I was
serving on board USS Jackson. During that period, I moved
between the Interior Communications Center ICC one and the Bridge Wing,
correlating the censor pitcher with visual observations, part of my
routine responsibilities for surface and air picture management. What I

(24:39):
observed in what our crew recorded was not consistent with
conventional aircraft or drones as they appear on our system.
A self luminous, tic tax shaped object emerged from the
ocean before linking up with three other similar objects. Or

(25:00):
then disappeared simultaneously with a high synchronized near instantaneous acceleration.
I observed no sonic boom and no conventional propulsion signatures,
no exhaust plume, no control surface articulation on the Sapphire
image system shortly after the synchronized departure radar tracks dropped.

(25:24):
These observations were multisensor and recorded inside of ICC one
with time location overlay visible in our source frames that
have been made public by journalists. From my experience operating
in this region over many years, and consistent with our

(25:45):
public characterized encounters, unidentified objects reoccur in United States operation
areas off southern California. That fact alone does not tell
us what they are, but it does argue the systematic
stigma free reporting and for the preservation of sensor data

(26:06):
so analysts can evaluate safe and intelligence implications with rigor.
I want to underscore three points for the task Force
and the Committee, Aviation and Maritime safety. When crews and
watchstanders observe objects that maneuver or accelerate in ways that

(26:28):
does not match known profiles, and do not then do
so near our ships and aircraft, that is first and
foremost a safety issue. Standardized checklist and training should ensure
we capture the best possible sensor data in real time,
including IR settings, slant range estimates, and bearing and range

(26:51):
altitude snapshots, and immediate change of chain of custody for
any recordings. Reporting without stigma protection without retribution, Sailors need
to know that reporting UAP encounters will not harm their careers.
Congress can help by reinforcing witness protection and by directing

(27:14):
the relevant office to maintain confidential destigmatized channels for service
members who step forward with data declassification and transparency where possible.
The Task Force Declassification Mission is directly relevant here where
operational security permits, releasing metadata, preserved sensor excerpts or at

(27:38):
least technical summaries would improve public trust and accelerate outside
scientific scrutiny that includes, when feasible, the time, GEO reference,
IUR frames, and radar parameters needed for independent analysis. To
be clear, I am not here to make claims beyond
my lane, here to provide a first hand account of

(28:01):
what I saw, what our systems recorded, and why it
matters for safety, for intelligence, and public confidence. My request
to you is practical, help us capture, protect, fairly evaluate
the evidence and provide a safe pathway for those in

(28:22):
uniform to report it. In closing, I want to thank
the Committee and the Task Force for holding this hearing
and for the plit, and for placing this discussion in
a form where evidence can be examined carefully and openly.
I appreciate your attention and stand ready to answer your questions.
Thank you, Thank you. Chief.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
I now recognize mister Napper's opening statement.

Speaker 9 (28:53):
Good morning, chair Woman Luna, ranking member Miss Crockett, and
members of the Task Force and Dina Titus. Knew we
were going to get you involved in this topic at
one point. Great to see you here. I'm George Napp,
chief investigator reporter at KLASTV in Las Vegas. I began
my pursuit of this weird mystery way back in nineteen
eighty seven, and for thirty eight years, I've always approached

(29:15):
this as a news story. It's not a matter of
faith or belief. To me. It's a story, and it's
an important one. I'm proud to be here alongside these
witnesses today, men who have seen strange things and step
forward to tell the world about it. Whistleblowers and witnesses
who step up are routinely insulted, belittled, or worse, they

(29:37):
risk their reputations, their careers, their clearances, their livelihoods, and
sometimes much worse than that, even their freedom. I know
that one of the goals of the task force here
is to figure out ways to protect whistleblowers and witnesses.
And it's a tall order because so many of the
things that happened to witnesses like these are extra legal.

(29:58):
They're carried out by per since unknown, as mister Dave Grush,
sitting up at the top of the room knows all
too well, including events in recent days that have happened
to him. I want to share a couple of things
that I've learned along the way on this long journey,
and I submitted most of that in written form because
I estimate that my statement here today would take about
four and a half hours, so I'm going to try

(30:19):
to jump over and touch on the more important salient points.
I submitted the detailed written statement for the record, and
we'll go into a lot of that here. But you know,
the public has been told over and over since the
late forties, there's nothing to worry about here. These mysterious
craft seen by millions of people in the skies, in
the oceans over the land are not real. They're not

(30:42):
a threat. The witnesses are wrong, they're crackpots. Don't believe it.
That changed for me. What got me hooked is the
paper trail documents that were squeezed out of the US
government after the FOIA Freedom of Information Act became the
law of the land, and those documents paid a much
different picture than what the public, the press, and Congress

(31:03):
have been told over many years. The documents from military
and intelligence personnel behind closed doors admit that quote, these
things are real, they're not fictitious. They can fly in formation,
they're evasive, and they outperform any aircraft known to exist,
including hours. The public, of course, as I said, has
been told something much different. Back in nineteen eighty nine,

(31:24):
I reported about a guy named Bob Lazar who claimed
that he worked at a facility dubbed S four out
in the Nevada Desert, very near to Area fifty one.
He said he was part of a reverse engineering program.
He said, there are alien craft that will be taken
apart to figure out how they operated out there, and
that's what was a pretty tall order. I had clearly
taken a dive into the deep end of the pool there.

(31:45):
But in the years since then, I've interviewed dozens of
other people, and I've detailed what their testimony has been
in the written statement. They include Senator Harry Reid, Senator
Howard Cannon, also of Nevada, a guy named Al O'Donnell
who was the first general manager of EG and G
in Nevada, which managed to eat Nevada Test Site which
blew up hundreds of nuclear weapons. There's a guy named

(32:06):
doctor James Lakatski who was a career scientist with a
defense intelligence agency, who was the guy who initiated a
program called AWSAP Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, which is,
as far as we know, the largest acknowledged UFO program
ever funded by the US government, which put together an
amazing pile of information that members of this Committee and

(32:30):
the world, most of which they have never seen. The
DA still hasn't released ninety five percent of what was
prepared by that program at a cost of millions and
millions of dollars. The one name I do want to
bring up in this section session, though, is Robert Bigelow.
So looking into the idea of crash retrievals and reverse engineering.

(32:51):
While AWSAPP that program was active, the diias contractor Robert
Bigelow of Las Vegas made a bold attempt to acquire
physical proof of UFO crashes. It's been widely reported and
suspected that Lockheed Martin is one of the contractors, the
defense contractors that has held this stuff, stored it away
in secrecy, and tried to figure out how it works.

(33:15):
I have confirmed on the record that Robert Bigelow and
a trusted colleague from OSAP met with and negotiated with
senior executives at Lockheed Martin and hammered out a deal
wherein Bigelow's company, BASS would receive a quantity of unusual
material that had been stashed away and protected at a
facility in California. That material was not made here. I

(33:38):
want to move on now to the Russia files, because
that was going to be sort of the central impetus
of what I was going to talk to you about today.
Back in the early nineties, I got into Russia, met
with a number of their defense officials, Ministry Defense, and
others who confirmed for me that Russia had been doing
the same thing that the United States had been doing,
that is, secretly studying UFOs while publicly saying something completely different.

(34:02):
The documents and interviews that I obtained and have now
shared with this task force showed that the USSR launched
what is almost certainly the largestfo UAP investigation in the world.
The first phase of that was an order was sent
out to the entire USSR military empire that every unit
you see anything strange in the sky, a craft, an

(34:24):
or something unusual, you had to gather all the evidence,
collect testimony from the witnesses, look for physical evidence, and
all of that information went into one program at the
Ministry of Defense. Thousands and thousands of these reports came in.
A lot of them were first routed to the KGB,
but then back to another program that came after this

(34:45):
collection effort called Thread three, and Thread three was an
analysis program. We provided to the committee the documents of
what they were trying to do, and essentially they were
trying to build their own UFOs. They were using the
information from their observations and studies to try to figure
out that technology. The guy who was in charge of
that program, Colonel Boros Sokolaw, told me that their goal

(35:06):
was to basically develop technology that would be superior to
anything we had based on what they learned from UFOs.

Speaker 2 (35:14):
Mister Napp, just in the name of time, it's my understanding,
did you have anything you wanted to submit for Congress
to see in this committee?

Speaker 9 (35:21):
I have submitted those documents there like.

Speaker 2 (35:24):
To play any videos? Do you have a video that
you would like to play?

Speaker 9 (35:27):
I don't think it's for me to play. Yeah, Alexander's video, Okay,
you can play it. He could narrate it, Okay.

Speaker 2 (35:36):
We can in the name of showing that video to
everyone on the task course, we'd like to play that
video at this time.

Speaker 10 (36:02):
Jazz surprised.

Speaker 8 (36:17):
That that ship took off earlier.

Speaker 2 (36:25):
If we can get rid of the audio real quick,
mister Wiggins and mister Naple will get back to what
that video was in a moment, but we just want
to make sure that it was entered into the record
as well as all the documents. Those will be able
to be publicly found for everyone in the country to
view if we could. Mister Napple will continue on the
line of questioning, but I'm gonna move on to mister
Borland's opening statements.

Speaker 11 (36:48):
The morning, members of the task Force and the Committee.
I would like to express my gratitude for being invited
to testify to the current task Force created under the
People's Chamber in the American public. As an American citizen, veteran,
and an intelligence community professional. It is an honor and
a privilege to serve under oath before you on behalf
of our country. I speak for myself and no former

(37:09):
agency or company I have been previously affiliated with. My
name is Dylan Borland, a former one N one geospatial
intelligence specialist for the United States Air Force and an
active duty and listic capacity from twenty ten to twenty thirteen.
I've also been employed with BAE Systems and Intrepid Solutions
as a senior analyst expert in analyzing video, radar and

(37:30):
advance electro optical imagery for official identification of aerial order
of battle as well as naval and ground order of battle.
I'm a federal whistleblower, having testified to both the ICIG
and ERA with direct firsthand knowledge of and experience with
craft and technologies that are not ours and are reportedly
operating without congressional oversight. Because of my direct knowledge of

(37:53):
the reality of certain legacy UAP programs.

Speaker 10 (37:55):
My professional career.

Speaker 11 (37:56):
Was deliberately obstructed, and I have endured sustained reprisals from
government agencies for over a decade. From twenty eleven to
twenty thirteen, I was stationed at Langley Air Force Based, Virginia,
conducting twenty four hour operations via mandon n mandarial vehicles
for Special Operations Forces in the Global War on Terror.

(38:17):
During the summer of twenty twelve, my team was on
standby for weather and I returned to my barracks on base,
and at approximately zero one thirty I saw an approximately
one hundred foot equilateral triangle take off from near the
NASA hangar on the base. The craft interfered with my telephone,
did not have any sound, and the material it was
made of appeared fluid or dynamic. I was under the

(38:40):
triangular craft for a few minutes and then it rapidly
ascended to commercial jet level in seconds, displaying zero connectic disturbance,
sound or wind displacement. Some years after that experience, I
was further exposed to classified information from the UAP legacy
crash Retrieval program through a sensitive position I held within
a special access programing this time, intelligence officers approached me

(39:02):
and fear for their own careers, citing misconduct within these
programs and similar retaliation that I was already enduring at
this time. These issues include medical malpractice committed by veterans,
affairs staff, denial of work I performed while en listening
in the United States Air Force forge to manipulated employment documents,
workplace harassment including colleagues being directed to not speak with me,

(39:24):
manipulation of my security clearance by certain agencies, blocking, delaying,
and ultimately removing my ability to be employed within the IC.
The retaliation I faced and the retaliation against individuals I
know who worked in these programs is what convinced me
in March twenty twenty three to become a whistleblower. I
came forward out of concern for people's lives and to

(39:45):
ensure I did everything I could to let our elected
representatives know the truth about what is really happening in
the executive Branch. At the end of March twenty twenty three,
I agree to meet with Arrow following the suggestion of
other federal officials, believing it was what our required of me.
I had reservations with Arrow due to assessments they were
reporting publicly at the time as a misrepresentation of the truth.

Speaker 10 (40:09):
Because of these.

Speaker 11 (40:10):
Concerns, I did not share sources and methods information in
order to protect current and formal federal person personnel who
had firsthand exposure to technologies of unknown origin. I did
not want anyone to face further retaliation beyond what they
had already endured. An Unfortunately, a staff member ended up
getting in some trouble because of that. After David Grush

(40:31):
testified under oath in the summer of twenty twenty three
and provided historic disclosure, I was then asked to go
to the ICIG and did so in August twenty twenty three.
It was very clear early on during my intake interview,
which was video recorded under oath, that the objective was
to solely assess how much I know, and not move
forward with an investigation with new information I provided them.

(40:53):
The aftermath of that IG complaint still troubles me to
this day. Since my ICIG camplane, i'd been prevented from
assuming prior employment and can confirm I still blacklisted from
certain agencies within the intelligence community. In addition, multiple agencies
attempted phishing attacks to assess what I had divulged to
the Inspector General, including being asked to disclose details of

(41:14):
my ICIG complaint during a CI polygraph or a position
unrelated to UFO UAP matters. As recently as November twenty
twenty four, as I sit before you today, I and
many other whistleblowers have no job prospects, no foreseeable professional
future in a nation every single one of us came
forward to defend. Numerous individuals have come forward in various

(41:35):
ways to reveal the truth of the UAP reality as
patriots and defenders of our nation, Yet many feel discarded, isolated, hopeless,
separated from the country they serve. Efforts to rectify this
situation for all whistleblowers have been difficult, in troubling, and
to my fellow whistleblowers and officials who know this information,
I offer you my apology, something that I have never gotten,

(41:59):
and I'm giving it to you. I swore an oh
to the Constitution of the United States and note that
demand's truth and transparency for our democratic republic to function.
Each day these truths remain hidden from our citizens, humanity
drifts further from the principles our nation was founded to
uphold Each day victims of crimes committed by agencies and companies.

(42:20):
Maintaining this secrecy or deny justice is another day our
constitution is shredded. In twenty twenty three, patriots provided this
committee in the Executive Branch with undeniable proof of the
UAP reality, and I commend your continued commitment. The future
of humanity is one which we either travel to the
stars or aggress to the Stone age with this technology.

(42:41):
My career has been to deliver critical information to decision makers.
Your role, as elected by your representatives is to act
on it.

Speaker 10 (42:50):
The time to act is now.

Speaker 2 (42:52):
Thank you, mister Borland. Thank you for your service to

(43:15):
our country, and we appreciate you, and we are sorry
about how you've been treated, and we will make sure
that we try to rectify that situation. Mister Spielberger, please
your opening remarks.

Speaker 12 (43:28):
Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Crockett, and task force members, thank
you for the opportunity to testify here today about the
importance of strengthening whistleblower protections, especially in the context of
national security. I'm a senior policy counsel at the Project
on Government Oversight, a non partisan independent watchdog organization that
investigates and exposes waste, corruption, abuse of power, and when

(43:51):
the government fails to serve the public or silences those
who report wrongdoing. Whistleblowers are the first line of defense
to root outte fraud, abuse of power, and corruption in
our government. Congress relies on whistleblowers so that it can
fully exercise its oversight and legislative authorities. It's understandable that
former presidents of both parties have often taken a hostile

(44:15):
approach toward whistleblowers. Their disclosures can embarrass the president and
their political party, or even lead to a national scandal.
But whistleblowers continue to play a vital role during both
democratic and Republican administrations. They help Congress and the public
identify and understand what government corruption looks like. Their disclosures

(44:36):
fuel investigations and allow us to address wrongdoing and hold
those responsible to account. That's why historically there's been a
strong bipartisan consensus in Congress to support and protect whistleblowers.
Doing so protects the country and ensures our government is
more responsive and accountable to the people. National security whistleblowing

(44:58):
in particular, is a tradition going back to the founding
of our country and over time, national security whistleblowers and
their disclosures have impacted some of the most fundamental issues
and questions about how we wish to be governed and
how our government can better serve its people. From the
role the US plays around the world, to holding powerful

(45:18):
actors accountable, government ethics and transparency, human rights and civil liberties,
executive branch authority, First Amendment, freedoms of speech and dissent,
freedom of the press, and the public's interest and right
to know. Despite this invaluable public service, blowing the whistle
comes at great personal risk. Whistleblowers risk losing their jobs, careers, livelihoods,

(45:41):
and reputations. They can face retaliatory investigations, lawsuits, and even
serious criminal charges. And they can endure deep mental, emotional,
and psychological harm. All of that risk to speak the
truth to ensure that agencies fulfill their core missions and
that they serve the best interests of the people. Those

(46:03):
who retaliate against whistleblowers don't just violate their legal rights,
they inflict real harm on our government and betray the
public's trust. Targeting whistleblowers instead of the corruption they expose
wastes agency resources and further allows that corruption to continue unaddressed.
It can instill a chilling effect across an agency, fostering

(46:24):
a climate of fear and distrust, quieting dissent and try speech,
and deterring potential whistleblowers from coming forward in the future.
Whistleblowers are often some of the most dedicated and principled
public servants we have because of their willingness to put
themselves on the line to do what's right, and Congress

(46:45):
has historically supported them again on a biparisan basis, but unfortunately,
whistleblowing has increasingly become more politicized, with support for whistleblowers
often hinging on which party is in power and which
party is politic inconvenienced by the misconduct being exposed. But
to be clear, targeting whistleblowers individually risks undermining whistleblowing period.

(47:11):
Pogo advises members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle to focus on the evidence, not the individual. We
will always need whistleblowers to achieve the government that best
serves its people, because when people of conscience, integrity, and
good character refuse to speak up out of fear, complacency
or self preservation and leave corruption to fester behind closed doors.

(47:34):
That is probably the most dangerous risk of all. If
we are serious about increasing government transparency and restoring the
public's trust, we need public servants committed to the truth.
Whistleblowers need safe and effective channels to make lawful disclosures.
They need stronger protections against retaliation, and when they do
face retaliation, they need a fair shot to be made.

(47:57):
Whole Congress has made strides to pass whistleblower legislation, and
these laws need to be updated and expanded so that
whistleblowers truly receive the protections they need, retaliators are held accountable,
and we can achieve the type of government that people deserve.
We strongly urge Congress to continue its historic tradition of

(48:17):
championing the rights and protections of all whistleblowers. Thank you
again for the opportunity to testify here this morning. POGO
is committed to working with you and the Oversight Committee
to address these critical issues. I look forward to any questions.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
Thank you sir very much. Additionally, without objection, the Additionally,
without objection, the following members are waved onto the Task
Force for the purpose of questioning witnesses at today's hearing
Representative Perry of Pennsylvania and Representative Graffman of Wisconsin. Sorry

(48:53):
own a representative big stromers and already got you. But yeah,
we're good without objections, so ordered, I now recognize mysel
for five minutes of questioning. Also as my friend, mister
Mosquwitz might have to go. Would you like to go now? Okay,
all right, mister Borland. In your testimony, you describe witnessing

(49:14):
large Trangler craft while station at Langley Air Force Base
in twenty twelve. Can you explain what you observed in
terms of size, behavior and why you're confident it was
not conventional technology?

Speaker 11 (49:24):
Great question, ma'am. So on barracks on the base. I
lived in the barracks. There was a little smoke hit outside.
I was there on the telephone, and what came across
to the flight line and I see a white light
pop up and stop about one hundred feet in the air.

Speaker 10 (49:40):
I thought it was a weather balloon.

Speaker 11 (49:42):
I've seen tests from there before a weeknight, you know,
normal thing, not surprising. I actually finished my cigarette and
I began walking up towards the flight line. There is
a track and because I was on three months of
night work. I began I would walk the track of
night when we were weather down. And as I began
walking towards the light, towards the flight line in the track,

(50:05):
the light then flies across the base, across the flight line,
and as it flies to me, a triangle manifests around
the light. I can't tell you if it's active camouflage.
I can't tell you if it appeared around the light,
but I can tell you that it was a white
light and then it was a triangle. It stopped about
one hundred feet in front of me and approximately one
hundred feet above me. My telephone got extremely hot, completely

(50:28):
froze dead. I remember how thick it was. It was
between one to two story stick equilateral triangle. I could
never see the top of it, and the edges were
ninety ninety degrees. There were four lights in total, one
light on each corner and a larger light in the

(50:48):
center two to three times the size of the corner lights.
But what was really odd was the outside. The best
way to describe it is like looking at a James
Webb telescope picture where you have the colors and then
the black background. So the craft itself was this black
metallic flight paint, but on top of the craft was

(51:09):
this gold lava plasma, some type of fluid going over
and around the craft. I'm under this for about two
to three minutes, and then the center light flashes two
to three times. No sound, immediately shoots up to commercial
jet level minimum in my opinion, and I immediately feel

(51:30):
static electricity all over my body, and then I smell
the smell of after a thunderstorm or lightning storm, that
really strong summer thunderstorm smell.

Speaker 10 (51:40):
Gets up to flight level.

Speaker 11 (51:42):
I'm trying to get my phone reset, and I can
only see the center light at this point. If I
didn't actually see it take off, I would have thought
it was a star. And then it hovers up there
and it begins to slowly move deu east out over
the Atlantic Ocean. I finally got my phone reset. The
entire thing was about the time I saw the light
pop up near the hangar until it took off out

(52:03):
over the ocean was about fifteen minutes.

Speaker 2 (52:07):
And following up to that question, after you disclose this
information to the intelligence community, Inspector General, your subject to
phishing attempts and job blacklisting. How widespread do you think
this is across the intelligence community for those who raise
concerns regarding UP programs.

Speaker 11 (52:22):
It's a difficult question to answer. I think prior to
David Grush and people beginning this process of bringing people
into awareness of the reality of these programs and certain
things people have witnessed, probably extremely widespread. I think today
there's still an issue, but because people are able to

(52:42):
come before you and people are speaking out, I think
it has been somewhat less I would hope though, that
people would because if this goes back into closed doors,
this is going to get really ugly.

Speaker 2 (52:56):
What type of behavior have you witnessed from former AERO
director Sean kl Patrick as well as his staff and
relate to this information you provided to them. Did they
ever try to classify this information as non human technology?

Speaker 10 (53:09):
Good question.

Speaker 11 (53:10):
The problem with this is that I know what I
experienced firsthand.

Speaker 10 (53:14):
I know other things.

Speaker 11 (53:16):
I think the staff at ERA that I met with
in March of twenty twenty three, I think they were
good people doing the job they were told to do.
I did not meet with Kirkpatrick. He was either not
president or did not want to meet me that day. However,
they did classify information about the reality of this subject,

(53:37):
and it was very concerning because in my era MFR,
they had actually referenced a former staff member that was
the one who told me to go there, and they
probably shouldn't.

Speaker 10 (53:51):
Have done that.

Speaker 2 (53:52):
And real quick, before my time is up, and we
might go to second runt of question. Just so you're
all aware, how important, given everything that you've seen in
experience is the UAP Disclosure Act of twenty twenty five
and restoring both public accountability and trust I.

Speaker 10 (54:05):
Think very important.

Speaker 11 (54:07):
I would hope though that the seven year window could
be shrunk my opinion, but very important. The truth needs
to be known.

Speaker 2 (54:16):
Thank you very much. I now recognize Jared Mosquittz of Florida.

Speaker 13 (54:22):
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Thank you for allowing me to
wave on to the committee. I remember, you know, the
last committee when we had a bunch of former military
personnel folks that either served on basies, were pilots, or
were in different programs experiencing knowledge. It made me recognize

(54:45):
that the narrative has changed. Right, it's politically convenient for
the government if you all weren't military folks and suits.
It would be much better if you pulled up in
winnebagos and were hats and so the picture of this
because that it's important for the American people on how

(55:06):
you tell a story, what the message looks like, and
who the messenger is. So this is now the second
or third committee where we have former military folks with
impeccable records, with information and knowledge, and it's definitely clear
on a bipartisan basis that we have to protect our whistleblowers.

Speaker 10 (55:24):
It's no doubt.

Speaker 4 (55:26):
And in a day in.

Speaker 13 (55:27):
Which it's really hard to tell what's true or not
from a political standpoint, and so I don't really know
what is true. I don't know on this subject, but
I do know when we're being lied to, and we
are definitely being lied to. There's just no doubt about that.
Mister Wiggins, I want to talk to you. I find

(55:49):
your background testimony compelling. When you first saw what you
were looking on, what you were looking at, what were
your first thoughts.

Speaker 8 (56:02):
My first thoughts were, I think everything that I was
told and taught as a kid and a growing, growing
adult no longer uh, you know, was applicable. If I'm
able to see something that I thought defies gravity in
such a way, then what else could be possible?

Speaker 10 (56:19):
That was my first thoughts.

Speaker 13 (56:20):
So you did you think what you were looking at
was a weapons program that you were unaware of, or
did you think what you were looking at was obviously
some extraterrest serial piece of technology.

Speaker 8 (56:33):
I didn't Neither one of those crossed my mind. It
was just, how about now, what do you think it is?

Speaker 10 (56:39):
Now?

Speaker 8 (56:41):
I'm not the expert I think it. I want to
be as skeptical as everyone else and just hope to
know them.

Speaker 13 (56:49):
From anyone in the US government tell you what you
were looking at to try to dissuade you from what
you thought it was.

Speaker 8 (56:54):
No.

Speaker 13 (56:55):
So, no one was like, of you know, there was
some anomaly with the technology. No one from the garment
did that.

Speaker 8 (57:01):
No one.

Speaker 13 (57:02):
How do you think you were treated when you reported
this information or have talked about you know, the tic
TAC video is well out.

Speaker 10 (57:10):
There, it's well reported.

Speaker 14 (57:11):
How were you treated.

Speaker 8 (57:14):
I've had no pushback at all. I haven't had anyone
reach out to me or try to, you know, dissuade
me in either direction militarily speaking. So I was treated
fair and I appreciate the Navy itself with assisting me
with coming here to being able to testify.

Speaker 10 (57:33):
That's good.

Speaker 13 (57:33):
So what do you think the American people should take
away from watching your video?

Speaker 10 (57:37):
Right?

Speaker 13 (57:37):
Because when we watch it, obviously, right, we've never seen
anything like that. It defies what we know to be
technologically possible. What are we supposed to think someone's lying
about something, someone's hiding something, Right, that's not normal what
you looked at.

Speaker 8 (57:54):
I think what the American people should think when seeing
that video, along with others before me, is that there
is something out there, and we should know as the
people what it.

Speaker 13 (58:06):
Is, right, and so let's eliminate possibilities. So they didn't
come to you and say there was a technological error
with what you were looking at, so we put that aside. Right,
they didn't say it was broken. So we look at
that and we see something. So it's either a weapons
program being reverse engineered by our governments or other governments,
or it's nobody's government and it's not from here. Those

(58:26):
those are it? You agree with that assessment? I agree
one of the other, mister Borland, when when you first
experienced what you were looking at, and you what did
you do next? Like, what was your next step after
it had passed? And you were done.

Speaker 11 (58:47):
I actually kind of laughed on myself and said, okay,
so this exists as well. Worked in enough programs, been
exposed to enough that I was like, okay, so this
is a real thing. I went back, walked the track,
talked with a couple of my friends about it. I
did talk with some of my co workers, one in particular,
which I thought was a joke and it definitely wasn't

(59:08):
was like, you probably should never say this anybody. Uh,
And then what happened to me happened.

Speaker 13 (59:14):
So what about you, mister?

Speaker 10 (59:19):
How do you pronounce your lesson?

Speaker 13 (59:23):
And sorry, I know I'm running out of time, Madam, chairman, chairwoman.
So obviously your incident happened well before we could record
things on cell phones and things of that nature. Right,
how do you what did you do when you first
experienced Because what you saw right, you saw it happen
like right out of your base, correct, So tell me

(59:46):
what you did after you saw that? What was like
your next move? And I want to hear how what
your experience was.

Speaker 6 (59:51):
My next move. I went into my house after he left.
I made sure no one had been abducted, and I
of the landline. I called the security Forces Command Center.
I reported it. I requested that they give me a
callback and make notifications up the chain of command. I
got a call back in about fifteen minutes. They reported

(01:00:13):
that the weather station reported no balloons or aircraft, nothing
on radar, no aircraft inbound or outbound. So I got
that notification, and then within the following day or two,
me and the other witnesses wrote statements we prepare to report,
and then we filed all that information.

Speaker 13 (01:00:32):
Madam sure and thank you for your indulgence in my questioning,
and thank you for continuing to lead on this subject.
What are you and your friends think about it today?
You all have talked about it, I mean, so what
do you think about your experience as a collective group.

Speaker 15 (01:00:47):
That'll be my last question, Madam surely.

Speaker 6 (01:00:50):
I mean, we've been talking about this for twenty years.
We don't know what we saw. What we saw changed
our lives and the way we think about every thing.
It was incredibly profound. The object I saw, I don't
even know if it was an object. It was a
it was a light, it was an orb It didn't
look like a craft, but it did look solid, and

(01:01:13):
that's what we talk about. We noticed the object. And
this was a pattern across all the encounters. Someone would
see a light, they would pay attention to the light
that and then the object response it performs for you,
and then they come down and they investigate you. So
it's almost like they're curious. So that's the thing we

(01:01:35):
primarily talk about. You know, why did it come after
we noticed it? Maybe it noticed us after we noticed it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:46):
Well, I now recognize Representative Macee for five minutes, Thank you,
Madam Charon.

Speaker 16 (01:01:53):
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
here today. Mister Borland, I like to start with you
and ask a few quiestquestions.

Speaker 1 (01:02:01):
Were there any other witnesses when.

Speaker 16 (01:02:02):
You saw the equalateral triangle with their other witnesses that
saw the same thing, Not to my.

Speaker 10 (01:02:06):
Knowledge, ma'am.

Speaker 11 (01:02:07):
At that point, the only people that would be awake
is thus those of us that were doing operations for
the g WATT and then security forces, so not to
my knowledge.

Speaker 16 (01:02:16):
And do you think that, in your opinion that the
equal adult triangle was the US government's technology?

Speaker 11 (01:02:25):
I did once upon a time, but knowing what I
know now, I'll have to answer that question.

Speaker 16 (01:02:30):
And a skiff probably I was good one of my
asked questions you teased us. So knowing what you know
now means what.

Speaker 11 (01:02:37):
I know enough to know that. If you want to
answer to that question, go to Era. They have the answer.

Speaker 4 (01:02:43):
Do you think it was a foreign government?

Speaker 10 (01:02:45):
I do not know.

Speaker 16 (01:02:48):
And Aero is supposed to be disclosing. The last time
I was going to skiff with Arrow, they said they
were going to be doing disclosures.

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
Had they been doing much of that?

Speaker 11 (01:02:57):
I don't have an answer to you. For you, I'm
a I don't know. I know what Aero reports publicly,
and I know what I've been through.

Speaker 16 (01:03:04):
Yeah, and some of this stuff can be I think debunked.
Right There are sometimes there are weather balloons that look
kind of a little funky, or drones or whatever to
being on the angle direction speed, et cetera.

Speaker 1 (01:03:17):
Are you scared for your safety?

Speaker 11 (01:03:22):
That's a complicated question. So being here today, if I
say the wrong word, technically, I can be charged with espionage.
Espionage is a death penalty. Whistle Blowers have faced it.
John Karaoku, for example. I am not scared for my
physical safety in the sense of an agency or company
coming to kill me.

Speaker 10 (01:03:42):
But I have no job.

Speaker 11 (01:03:44):
My career has been tarnished. You know, I'm unemployed, living
off of unemployment for the next three four weeks until
that's gone. So it's a complicated ques.

Speaker 16 (01:03:54):
Have there been stories leaked about your life to try
to discredit you in the public.

Speaker 11 (01:03:58):
Eye As of now, I don't know they that to
mister Grush.

Speaker 10 (01:04:04):
I am aware, yes, ma'am.

Speaker 16 (01:04:05):
They leaked his medical private medical information, horrific things.

Speaker 10 (01:04:09):
It is.

Speaker 16 (01:04:10):
Okay you said in your testimony earlier with the chairwoman,
you know other things. I guess it has to be
mentioned in a skiff.

Speaker 10 (01:04:20):
It would other things, It would pending.

Speaker 11 (01:04:22):
I'm even legally allowed to speak on and the people
in the room are even legally.

Speaker 10 (01:04:25):
Allowed to hear it.

Speaker 16 (01:04:27):
And is that would we need to know like the
the compartmentalized word, like what the code word is, or
the name of the program the special Access program, or
even hear it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
You have to know the word, right.

Speaker 10 (01:04:38):
I would see the name of it, right.

Speaker 11 (01:04:39):
I would suggest that to be asked to d and
I Dabbert and work with her for that, because I
can't give you the answer on what is the requirement.

Speaker 16 (01:04:48):
This is what the US government does, right, They compartmentalize
the informationally certain people know the name of the program,
and if you don't know it, you can't get the information.
If you don't have the name, you don't know what
asked for. Even when we're reviewing the budget, we go
into a skiff. We look DoD budget in the budget
of like black box programs, and we don't know what
we're looking at because we don't know what these programs are.
Is it a way for the government to hide from

(01:05:08):
Congress what's really going on, where the money's going.

Speaker 10 (01:05:11):
In my opinion, absolutely yes.

Speaker 16 (01:05:15):
You mentioned too in your testimony earlier that quote you
went to speak with the government and they said, they
said somebody's name, a colleague name. You said they shouldn't
have mentioned that staff versus name. What does that mean?

Speaker 11 (01:05:27):
A Senate staffer who is the one who helped me
get to Errow, recommended me I go there, gave me
the email and the phone number because I could not
find that information at all at the time. In fact,
I believe you guys have talked about how Aero didn't
even have a website for quite a period of time.

Speaker 16 (01:05:41):
We were told they were going to do disclosures both
what they've debunked, because some of it can be bunked
and then what they haven't been able to debunk and
to my knowledge, you know, it hasn't been a thing.
I only have one minute left, so mister Napp, we
were definitely going to watch every documentary you guys have done.

Speaker 2 (01:05:55):
You and Jeremy have done a terrific job. It's I
usually have more questions than I have answers.

Speaker 16 (01:06:00):
I think we all do, and you guys are joining
a triffic job to bring information to the public. Do
you think that any of this is a syop by
the US government entirely possible.

Speaker 9 (01:06:09):
I mean, our government and other governments have admitted that
they've tried to use UFOs to cover secret projects, but
I think they also do some reverse engineering of those claims.
So years after people start seeing UFOs over Area fifty one,
for example, they come up with the story, oh yeah,
that was we planted that story. So I read in

(01:06:30):
a major newspaper just a couple of weeks ago they
planted this story, and an Air Force colonel went out
into the desert, went to a bar at Rachel and
gave them some fake UFO photos, And that's how the
whole story about Area fifty one started, which is preposterous.

Speaker 16 (01:06:45):
Yeah, and I didn't even get to the crash retrieval
program stuff yet, miss hairwoman.

Speaker 2 (01:06:50):
There's just so much Okay, thank you so much for
your time today. Wish we had more time.

Speaker 4 (01:06:55):
Thank you, Madam Sure.

Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
I now recognize missus Crockett for five minutes.

Speaker 3 (01:07:06):
Thank you so much, Madame Chair, and thank you so
much to each of the witnesses that have come before
us today. The federal government has had a long standing
over classification issue in general. We all know that from
the assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X to the cointail
pro and torture programs to now UAPs, the federal government

(01:07:30):
has kept the American public in the dark about issues
of immense public interest. The federal government has routinely made
excuses for failing to provide transparency to the public, the
most common of which.

Speaker 4 (01:07:41):
Is national security concerns.

Speaker 3 (01:07:44):
Mister Spielberger, can you provide an example of when national
security was inappropriately used as a pretext for classification, Congresswoman.

Speaker 12 (01:07:55):
Probably one of the most infamous examples of that is
the nine to eleven Commission that found that overclassification was
a key factor in the failure to adequately prevent the
attacks of that day.

Speaker 3 (01:08:11):
In addition to that, what lessons from these oversight failures
should guide Congress in approaching UAP oversight.

Speaker 12 (01:08:21):
Generally speaking, we would advise this Congress to ensure that
agencies adopt general policy in favor of disclosure instead of
a knee jerk needing to overclassify information and documents. We
should ensure that when information is classified or deemed sensitive,

(01:08:44):
it's only for legitimate national security and privacy concerns, And
we would recommend adding additional factors to the considerations of
cost value, and certainly to the extent that it's credit
for the public interest and the public's right to know,
especially when we are talking about these very serious national

(01:09:07):
security concerns and implications.

Speaker 3 (01:09:10):
Can you speak to how whistle blowers have historically helped
Congress uncover the truth in other areas and how that
might apply here.

Speaker 10 (01:09:21):
Absolutely so.

Speaker 12 (01:09:22):
Again, Congress has always relied on whistleblowers coming forward and
making disclosures in a number of different issues across different agencies,
anything from national security to airline safety, railway safety, environmental concerns,

(01:09:43):
workplace health and safety, a lot of issues coming out
of the COVID pandemic. For example, whistleblowers have come forward
with important disclosures on just about any critical issue affecting
our government and affecting the American people, all which have
grave implications for the rights and protections that we have

(01:10:05):
and how we live our lives in communities across the country.

Speaker 3 (01:10:09):
How important is it for whistleblowers to have strong protections
when it comes to UAP related disclosures or disclosures of
other topics of excessive government secrecy.

Speaker 10 (01:10:22):
It's absolutely vital.

Speaker 12 (01:10:23):
This has been one of the disappointing failures of doing
this work of advocating for stronger whistleblower protections. We recognize
the invaluable public service that brave whistleblowers play in coming
forward again taking all of these risks that we've heard about,

(01:10:44):
just to speak the truth, to get important information out
in the public consciousness. But they can only do so
when we have safe and secure channels for reporting, when
there is trust in the independence of agency watchdogs like
Inspectors General, like the Office of Special Counsel, like the

(01:11:05):
Merit Systems Protection Board that play critical roles in investigating
whistleblower disclosures and enforcing the protections of whistleblowers all of
that is essential to allow whistleblowers to keep coming forward
and playing these incredibly important public roles.

Speaker 4 (01:11:25):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 3 (01:11:26):
Let me just say this, people look at Congress, especially now,
and they see a lack of unity. They don't see
the ability for us to come together really on much
of anything. I will say that I do apply the
chairwoman and the work of this committee because for once,
I feel like we are focusing on governing, which should

(01:11:48):
be about transparency.

Speaker 4 (01:11:50):
The reality is that we.

Speaker 3 (01:11:51):
Cause more harm than good when we allow a lack
of transparency to fester. It allows for all time types
of conspiracy theories instead of us actually making the investments
that we need to make to get the information and
actually provide it to the American people. The reason that
I wanted to focus on making sure that we answer

(01:12:13):
some questions, specifically around the protections of those that are
willing to come forward, is because the only way that
we can make this government actually work for all of
us is if, no matter where you are in this
federal government, you feel as if you are safe when
you come forward with information of any issue. And so

(01:12:35):
I do want to thank you for all of your stories.
The reality is that we only get five minutes, and
the vast majority of everything that you have to say
cannot be contextualized within five minutes. But I know that
my colleagues are going to get to kind of pulling
some more of that out. But again, I really just
want to thank you for your courage in this moment,

(01:12:57):
and thank you for your service to our country.

Speaker 2 (01:13:06):
I now recognize mister Burchett from Tennessee for five minutes.

Speaker 17 (01:13:10):
Thank you, Chair Lady, and thank you Ranking Member Crockett.
I see a lot of friends out there, and I
see a couple enemies, so I remember that it's a
pleasure being here. I want to remind people too, this
thing is an ongoing deal. We're not going to get
this overnight. We've been fighting this battle, some of y'all

(01:13:31):
for thirty years and maybe longer. I hope we just
keep focused on what we're trying to get to as
total disclosure. We get a little wrapped up in a
lot of things. But the government has something and they
need to turn it over to us. We pay their
dad gum salary. You pay our salary, and you ought

(01:13:52):
to get more out of us than you do. And
that's what disgusted me about this whole thing. I think
they're just trying to run the clock out on us. Really,
They'll they'll poke us a little, they'll make jokes to
us and try to pull us off the off the target.
But I think we know where we're at, and that's
why they're firing at us, because we are over the target.

(01:14:13):
My first question is, mister Knapp, I recently introduced the
UAP whistle Blower Protection Act to help provide whistleblower protection
the federal personnel for just closing the use of federal
taxpayer funds to investigate UFOs.

Speaker 10 (01:14:28):
I still don't want.

Speaker 17 (01:14:29):
To say, UAPs, how can Congress further increase whistleblower protections.

Speaker 9 (01:14:37):
I think you've got to unleash the dogs and go
track down the money and where it goes, because a
lot of this stuff has been moved out of government,
as you know, Burchet. It's been given to private contractors
who stashed it away. They've had it for so long
that there's nobody left inside government or very few who
know where it is.

Speaker 17 (01:14:56):
And they do that to keep us from for you, correct, Yeah,
it's to.

Speaker 9 (01:14:59):
Keep it from yeah. And I think that the contractors
had this stuff for a very very long time set
their own standards about who is allowed to know what,
and it's a very small group that ever cracks that.
I think Representative Luna has been looking at the use
of classifications to hide things. I'm not sure that even

(01:15:19):
this committee getting security clearances that should allow you to
see this stuff would allow you to follow where it
really goes.

Speaker 17 (01:15:27):
I worry about the people that are looking at it
don't even know what they're looking at. I mean, it's
gone through so many I mean since Oswell, for instance,
I mean you think there's nobody even allow that was
around any of that stuff.

Speaker 9 (01:15:39):
So I don't think they've made much progress. From the
people that I've talked to, I don't think they've made
much progress. And learning that technology might have made some,
but you wonder, you know, the implication is tiktac Oh, yeah,
that's ours? What flu over Washington, d C and fifty
two is that ours too? What are you going to
break that out? You guys authorized tens of billions, hundreds
of billions of dollars on weapons systems that can't do

(01:16:01):
half of what we've seen you if UFOs do so,
when did they break this out? If if it's really
a classified project could change the world. I don't think
they've made much progress, and I think they've been lying
to us and you and the rest of the world,
and they're still doing it.

Speaker 10 (01:16:16):
Yes, sir, I agree with you.

Speaker 17 (01:16:18):
How did you manage to obtain the classified Russian uIP
documents and how did you get them back in the
United States.

Speaker 9 (01:16:25):
Well, I met this Russian physicist who was in the
United States.

Speaker 17 (01:16:29):
I want to clarify that I can't even take a
thing of honey home on my airplane when I fly
back to Tennessee. So I did something pretty dumb, and
I'm bitter about it, but go ahead.

Speaker 9 (01:16:40):
I did something kind of dumb. I met with these
officials who you know during that time period Glasnow's Perastroika,
the Russians were trying to open up to the world,
and I saw it as a window of opportunity and
it was, and we were able to talk these folks
into providing us information that otherwise we would never have seen.
Some of that was classified. Found out that there they
only stamped the top pages of these documents that were classified.

(01:17:03):
So I just removed them. I removed those pages and
I carried them out and if they'd caught me, I'd
be in a gulag.

Speaker 18 (01:17:08):
Still.

Speaker 17 (01:17:09):
Yeah, we'd be saying what happened to George Nayat? Oh yeah,
what happened to the Russians that came forward to you
in nineteen ninety three, And were there any repercussions for them?

Speaker 9 (01:17:20):
Well, there were the first thing that happened when I
talked about this. After getting back and going through the
files and things and sifting through it, the Russian physicists
who had helped us being introduced all these people wrote
back and said there was a huge eruption that there
was the real right, far autocratic forces that wanted a

(01:17:43):
return of the USSR had really go after these guys.
They described them as traders. Nikolai Kapranov, the physicist's friend
of mine, said, look, if this has happened five years earlier,
we would be in prison. If it had happened ten
years earlier, we would have been shot. Luckily, at that
point Putin was not in power. But none of those
people that we talked to on that trip in nineteen

(01:18:04):
ninety three would ever talk to me again. I went
back in nineteen ninety six, and it was like I
had the plague and spoke to different people, but they
were scared, and eventually the story was spun where the
Ministry Defense officials who gave us this information were described
as ufologists who said there was nothing really significant to
these files. They didn't really find anything a big deal,

(01:18:26):
and I can tell you you'll see those files that
I shared with you. They did find stuff. There was
an incident in October nineteen eighty two over an ICBM
base where UFOs popped up. Was observed. Over this base
where the missiles are pointed at US, the United States.
These UFOs perform incredible maneuvers. They split apart, they fused
back together. They'd appear and disappear, and right at the

(01:18:49):
end of this four hour period, the launch control codes
for the ICBMs lit up. Something entered the correct codes.
The missiles were fired up and ready to launch, and
they could not shut it down. The Russian officers were panicking.
The UFOs go, they disappeared, the launch control system goes
back to normal. Colonel Sokolov and his team came in,

(01:19:09):
took the thing apart. Could not figure out what it was.
It wasn't a power surge or EMPs or some of
the Ballooney excuses that our country has given for similar
events involving our nuclear missiles. They thought it was a
message from wherever the UFOs were from. And that's a
chilling thing. I mean that was we were a couple
of seconds away from World War three starting and the
UFOs were responsible for it.

Speaker 17 (01:19:30):
All right, I'm out of time, but real quick, who
are the contractors that had this material?

Speaker 18 (01:19:35):
Corporations?

Speaker 9 (01:19:36):
Well, one of them is Lockheed. And I'll tell you,
I mean, you know, I'm not saying Lockheed's the bad guys.
They're doing what they were asked to do. They have
lied about this because that they're what they're supposed to do.
But Lockheed would be one. There's a list I can
give you, Congressman, some of the big ones, the usual suspects.

Speaker 17 (01:19:51):
Okay, thank you, you back, cheer lady. Sorry for going
over all.

Speaker 18 (01:19:55):
George Knap's fall.

Speaker 2 (01:19:59):
Now recognized Miss Bobert for five minutes.

Speaker 19 (01:20:02):
Thank you, Madam, Chair Chief Wiggins. Based on your training
and operational experience, could the behavior that you witnessed a
trans medium object vanishing without a sound be explained by
any known technology that we possess or other governments.

Speaker 8 (01:20:19):
Possessed it cannot.

Speaker 19 (01:20:22):
And has any government agency debriefed you or any of
your shipmates regarding the EO I, R and radar confirmed
u AP encounter aboard USS Jackson.

Speaker 8 (01:20:35):
No one has.

Speaker 19 (01:20:37):
What was that encounter like when you brought that up,
if you want to briefly summarize that, when when you
brought that to their attention and then you were not
provided any follow up? Who was told and what? How
did you feel when there was no contact back.

Speaker 8 (01:20:54):
To you As as far as the actual incident happening.

Speaker 2 (01:20:58):
At at the reporting level, yesie, uh.

Speaker 8 (01:21:01):
It was within the event happening. My duties are to
report to the tactical action officer on watch while we're
standing watch. So uh, tactical action officer was there. I
made my report. I've not had any discussion outside of
that day. There's been no communication to me or requests

(01:21:23):
from me, uh to you know, within side of the military.
But speaking of that actual incident itself, once the report
was made to the taitical action officer, UH, that's when
I made the decision to ask the individual watchstander that
was controlling Sapphire to be able to slew into the location.

(01:21:48):
And that's what you see in the video itself is
when the watchstander is slewing in and kind of showing
us what we're looking at. But outside of that, that's
the reporting went that I know of.

Speaker 2 (01:22:03):
Thank you, Chief.

Speaker 19 (01:22:04):
Just for the sake of time, mister Anusatelli, has Row,
the Air Force or the FBI ever followed up with
you personally about the Red Square event.

Speaker 6 (01:22:13):
I did have follow up by Arrow. Nothing with the
Air Force. The Arrow Office updated me. I think at
least two times. They let me know that they were
unable to locate any records, that the records have been
destroyed by the Air Force. The Air Force is destroying
all their police records every three years on a schedule.

Speaker 19 (01:22:35):
So you were informed that that these documents were destroyed.

Speaker 6 (01:22:39):
Well, I have a Freedom of information Act from the
Air Force the states clearly that they destroy all police
records on.

Speaker 7 (01:22:46):
A three year schedule.

Speaker 19 (01:22:47):
Okay, So they were sitting on documentation destroyed it, refused
to question any of the lead investigators anything leading into
this investigation.

Speaker 6 (01:23:01):
Yeah, basically, they destroyed all the police records, so you
couldn't even like call the Air Force and asked them
if there was a vehicle accident in that timeframe. So
that's a big problem. We're losing data in real time,
so we'll never be able to go.

Speaker 7 (01:23:17):
Back and try.

Speaker 19 (01:23:18):
Our federal government has a history of destroying records. Thank you,
Thank you very much, mister news to tell you, doctor Borlan,
as a geospatial intelligence officer, have you seen classified data
indicating UAPs operate in restricted US airspace and has that
information been withheld from Congress?

Speaker 11 (01:23:39):
I have not in US airspace that is intelligence oversight,
so I did not have domestic authorities.

Speaker 19 (01:23:46):
After filing your inspector general complaint over retaliation inside the
Pentagon's UAP office, did you receive any kind of protection
or just more retaliation within the.

Speaker 11 (01:23:58):
IG or the or aero man either arrow They went
after the staff member and classified everything, shut that down
the IG. To this day, I don't even know if
my complaint's active. I know my attorney that represented me
was very, very very concerned, and the best of my understanding,
I was determined credible, not urgent.

Speaker 19 (01:24:20):
And do you think that that experience would suggest that
the internal UAP investigations may may be compromised?

Speaker 10 (01:24:31):
Possibly?

Speaker 11 (01:24:32):
I mean, it's so hard because this goes back to
people doing the job they're told to do, and very
few people are going to want to give up their careers,
twenty thirty year pension, give up, get rid of their
kids' healthcare, get rid of their house.

Speaker 10 (01:24:43):
It's it's possible.

Speaker 19 (01:24:46):
Yes, yes, thank you very much, doctor Borlan, mister Spielberger,
do national security whistleblowers currently have any external appeals processes
to challenge retaliation or are they just stuck relying on
the same agencies that they're accusing?

Speaker 12 (01:25:05):
Congress Woman, this is one of the biggest concerns that
we at POGO have basically around the independence of investigations
and accountability for retaliation. Basically, yes, national security whistleblowers have
to rely on internal administrative processes that go through agency
inspector generals. There are some differentiations, but the bottom line

(01:25:30):
is that they are forced to rely on protection from
the same agencies and people who they are alleging retaliated
against them.

Speaker 19 (01:25:39):
Yes, well, I thank you all for your bravery. We
are out of time here. Thank you so much for
coming forward, and we will do everything that we can
to ensure that you are all protected. Thank you for
trying to bring truth and transparency to the American people.

Speaker 2 (01:25:51):
Adam Cherry Yield I now recognize mister Berlisson for about
five minutes.

Speaker 20 (01:25:56):
Thank you everyone. It takes such great courage to come
forward and knowledge of that, and I hope that you
see that we are taking that seriously and so very
thankful for what you're doing today. I'm also very thankful
for previous witnesses that have come forward. I see Matthew
Brown in the audience. He courageously step forward and was
as a as a witness. I encourage everybody to look

(01:26:19):
and seek his his testimony. I want to thank the
people that came in our first hearing, Ryan Graves, David Grush,
David Fraver, and in our second hearing, Admiral Galadet, lou
Elizondo and mister Gold and the many others that have
come forward. We hear you, and it's time that we

(01:26:39):
you know, enough is enough, is time that we take action. Look,
I'm not I'm not jumped to the conclusion that I
believe that there are you know, aliens coming from another planet.
But I'm open to that and I think that it's
my our responsibility, especially when we're seeing that we have
a government that is blocking, actively blocking information from us.

(01:26:59):
Just like last night, I tried to get an amendment
onto the National Defense Authorization Act that fit in the
GERMANEENUS of that bill to have UAP disclosure, and conveniently
it was named non Germaine. Mostly deemed by staff, not
even an elected official. This is the kind of stuff
that we repeatedly see. Last year, we were blocked by

(01:27:23):
someone in House administration from being able to receive a
full briefing from Arrow. So not an elected official, but
someone in staff blocked us. And I've had it. Enough
is enough? I want to queue up a video that
I've been given and as before it starts, I'm going

(01:27:43):
to describe. This was taken October thirtieth of twenty twenty four.
This video is of an m Q nine drone tracking
an ORB or this object off the coast of Yemen.
You'll see that another m Q nine launched a health
fire missile that you cannot see that drone and so

(01:28:04):
uh you and I'm not going to explain it to you.
You'll see exactly what it does. This is when it

(01:28:41):
zoomed out, so you can still see it traveling. So,
mister NAP, do you have any have you heard about uh,
you know, events like this occurring and what information might

(01:29:02):
you have.

Speaker 9 (01:29:03):
I have heard about events like this. I have heard
about this event. Jeremy Corbel and I talked about it
in one of our episodes a while back. We did
not have the video, though. There are servers where there's
a whole bank of these kind of videos that Congress
has not been allowed to see that the public hasn't
been allowed to see. Occasionally, some of that stuff gets
out in the wild and it comes our way. It

(01:29:26):
should be going to you, you know, the public should
be seeing this stuff. And why you're not allowed to
I don't know. But that's a hell fire missile smacking
into that UFO and just bounced right off and it
kept going.

Speaker 20 (01:29:38):
It kept going, and it looks like the debris was
taken with it.

Speaker 9 (01:29:40):
Yeah, what the hell is that?

Speaker 20 (01:29:42):
So again, I'm not going to speculate what it is,
but the question is, what you know? Why are we
being blocked from this information consistently? I want to ask
this just a question, how in the world this is
the document I want to enter this in for the record,
if it hasn't already been entered, Madam Chair. The documentary
provided on thread three. This is a huge file. How

(01:30:06):
in the world did you smuggle this out of Russia
carefully in your socks.

Speaker 9 (01:30:13):
I don't think I want to be really specific about it,
because I might have to go back there and get
some more some time, although now that'd be crazy to
do that. Well again, I took the top pages off
that were stamped with the security signature and I carried
them out on my person, But the rest of them
I just threw in my suitcase and threw some caviar
in there as a distraction as well, and hope for

(01:30:35):
the best. Otherwise I'd be a citizen of Siberia right now.

Speaker 20 (01:30:39):
And you had you reported James Lkatski came to you
with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately
gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim.

Speaker 9 (01:30:54):
Doctor Lakatski is an honorable man who served most of
his career with the DA, very trusted high level rocket
scientists and intelligence analysts who inspired the ASAP program. As
I said earlier and in full disclosure, I've co written
two books with him. He dropped this on myself and
our other co author, out of the Blue, and it

(01:31:14):
took fourteen months for us to get dopts for approval
for him to release two sentences on that. He said,
this craft we had managed to get inside of it.
It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, It had
no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it
flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like
it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's

(01:31:39):
by the book guy, and until he gets clearance to
say more about that, I don't think we're going to
hear much more. But it's not ours. It wasn't ours.
We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it
and how it was built and how it operated. We've
got at least one and I don't know. I think
that's enough confirmation that.

Speaker 20 (01:31:54):
We do have relever discs and material leastlie mister Berlin,
in the in the classified realm, have you been exposed
to undeniable confirmation of NHI technology? And then my second
question is is Base Systems involved in any way with
reverse engineering exploitation of non human intelligence craft?

Speaker 11 (01:32:18):
Yeah, we're gonna have to call We're gonna have to
have a conversation this skiff for that. Whether I'm legally
even allowed to answer that, and whether you're even allowed
to hear it, sir.

Speaker 20 (01:32:26):
Okay again you can you can sense our frustration, and
so I just want to thank you for coming forward.
We will continue to fight because look, this is about
making sure that this government belongs to the people, in
restoring the republic the way it was intended to be.
Madame Chair, I also have further witnesses of courageous individuals.

(01:32:46):
It was given to me by doctor Stephen Greer, including
Michael Herrera and his testimony. We have Roderick Cassel and
his testimony, Randy Anderson his testimony, Stephen Digna and others,
three others all saying similar things to what the witnesses

(01:33:06):
today have said, and I would like to enter that
into the record as well, no objection, thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:33:11):
I now recognize Representative Lee for five minutes.

Speaker 4 (01:33:15):
Thank you, Madam Chair.

Speaker 21 (01:33:17):
I think we need to make sure that we don't
get distracted by sensational stories only of unidentified anomalists phenomena
and lose track of what the core of this hearing
is about. This is all a perfect example of why
whistle blowers are so important and why it's so important
that we step up and protect them with Trump RFK

(01:33:40):
Junior EPA administrator Lee Zelden and others committed to dismantling
government and firing professionals who do dare to speak out
against the threats this administration disastrous policies create. We have
to focus on protecting all whistleblowers, not only the ones
who are reporting on UAP. I'd like to thank the
whistleblowers who have agreed to come before the committee today

(01:34:01):
and speak their truth. This administration's claims to care about waste,
fraud and abuse, and so often it is the whistleblowers
who care and who are the tip of a sort
fighting against the real waste, fraud and abuse. One study
found that whistleblowers exposed fraud at more than twice the
rate of third party auditors. So, mister Spielberger, what are

(01:34:23):
some of the best examples of whistleblowers exposing fraud and
abuse in the federal government?

Speaker 10 (01:34:30):
Thank you, Congresswoman.

Speaker 9 (01:34:32):
Again.

Speaker 12 (01:34:32):
Whistleblowers have played such a vital role across so many
different issues. One prominent example goes back to the twenty
fourteen via Weightless scandal. Cogo actually played a very instrumental
role coordinating with Iraq and Afghanistan. Veterans of America at
that time, we receive tips and whistleblower disclosures from over

(01:34:53):
eight hundred different individuals talking about the VIA subjecting veterans
to extensive UH wait times in order to get the
basic standard of care that they deserve. It's certainly prolonged

(01:35:14):
serious illnesses, even contributing to hasten deaths, and we were
able to help shed more light on UH that issue,
which I think just emphasizes the importance even outside of
the national security context. We are often still talking about

(01:35:37):
serious issues and even life and death concerns.

Speaker 21 (01:35:40):
And unfortunately whistleblowers can whistle blowing can lead to serious
repercussions and retaliation, especially in this vidictive and lawless administration.
Mister Spielberger, in the past, what kinds of retaliation have
they faced and what are we seeing today under the
Trump administration.

Speaker 12 (01:35:58):
So we've certainly heard about a number of different examples
of retaliation. One that I'd like to highlight that mister
Borland referenced previously is retaliation through abuse of the security
clearance process that can have grave implications not just for
a whistleblower, but also their ability to seek legal counsel
and defend themselves against retaliation. And when we look at

(01:36:22):
the past several months of this administration, unfortunately, we've seen
a really systematic approach toward dismantling the non partisan civil service.
We've seen the mass firings. We've seen undermining of independent
agency watchdogs, mass firings of Inspectors General, undermining the Office
of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board. Again, these

(01:36:45):
entities that are meant to be independent and play a
critical role in investigating whistleblower disclosures and ensuring that their
rights are protected.

Speaker 8 (01:36:56):
Thank you.

Speaker 21 (01:36:57):
In nineteen eighty nine, Congress pass the whistleblower protection and
then broadened it again in twenty twelve to ensure that
federal workers could feel free to come forward to their
elected officials. And it's a good thing we did, because
whistleblowers have played a more important role than ever since
Trump has taken office. It was thanks to a whistleblower
that we learned that Dose willisurely put every single americans
personal security information at risk by bypassing safeguards and copying

(01:37:21):
all this data to an unsecure server. I asked anatamus
consent to enter into the record of New York Times
article title quote those put critical social security data at risk.

Speaker 4 (01:37:29):
Whistleblawer says, good to go.

Speaker 9 (01:37:32):
Thanks.

Speaker 21 (01:37:33):
We've had whistleblowers at the National Labor Relations Work reveal
that DOSEE minions may have shipped case files outside of
the agency, possibly to help then co President Elon must
continue to exploit his workers, and last week, whistleblowers at
the National Institute of Health came forward to say that
RFK Junior's vaccine and for misinformation campaign have pervaded even
the highest levels of the agency. Typically, whistleblowers have an

(01:37:54):
Inspector General they can rely on to investigate their claims
and register issues with agency leadership. But President Trump has
fired mode it over twenty inspectors General. If I may
ask one more question, mister Spielberger, can you explain how
ere roting the independence and capabilities of Inspectors General further
in danger these whistleblowers.

Speaker 18 (01:38:11):
Absolutely so.

Speaker 12 (01:38:12):
Again, whistleblowers already face incredibly great challenges in coming forward
under normal circumstances, and when we erode these entities that
are expected and required to enforce whistleblower protections fairly investigate
their disclosures, it calls into question the integrity of their

(01:38:33):
investigations and findings, whether they'll take whistleblowers seriously when they
come forward, and whether we can trust that they will
use their authority to enforce the protections of whistleblowers who
do come forward, essentially, whether they will continue in their
role as an independent watchdog or basically become a lapdog

(01:38:54):
for a current or future president.

Speaker 21 (01:38:57):
Thank you, and I will note I was no longer liver,
no more liberties.

Speaker 9 (01:39:01):
I go back.

Speaker 2 (01:39:02):
Thank you, I now recognize mister Crane for five minutes.

Speaker 15 (01:39:06):
Thank you, miss chairwoman for holding this hearing. Thank you
to the witnesses for appearing in the effort of transparency.

Speaker 2 (01:39:16):
Here.

Speaker 15 (01:39:16):
I got to admit to the witnesses that, you know,
growing up, I really never believed in UFOs or any
of this stuff. I always sound thought it was a
little kooky and whatnot. But uh, you know, after hearing,
you know, your testimony from honorable service members, watching videos
like my colleague mister Burlison just presented, you know, I

(01:39:36):
gotta admit I've become a believer. Not that I know
where these things come from or you know what they
really are up to, but I'd like to start with
asking the witnesses mister news Telli, you were in the
Air Force.

Speaker 9 (01:39:50):
Right, Yes?

Speaker 15 (01:39:53):
Did you believe in UFOs prior to your encounter?

Speaker 7 (01:39:56):
I've always been interested.

Speaker 15 (01:39:58):
Okay, Chief Wiggins, you're currently in the Navy, is that correct?

Speaker 10 (01:40:02):
Correct?

Speaker 15 (01:40:02):
Did you believe in UFOs before your encounter?

Speaker 8 (01:40:06):
I did. I'm from Las Vegas and I've watched George
Nap that whole life.

Speaker 15 (01:40:10):
Okay, what about you, mister Borland?

Speaker 10 (01:40:13):
I have always been open to where facts go.

Speaker 15 (01:40:17):
So were you guys scared or hesitant to come forward
and tell your story because of fear and believing that
you might be reprimanded or ostracized from society because of
your stories?

Speaker 7 (01:40:33):
Yes? Absolutely.

Speaker 6 (01:40:35):
I probably would not have come forward if I didn't
have documentation to prove some of my story. And I
also wouldn't have come forward without the people that paved
the way for us, you know, the first Congressional hearing, Chief.

Speaker 10 (01:40:48):
What about you?

Speaker 8 (01:40:51):
Once I got the okay from the Navy from top down,
that gave me a level of relief. Prior to that,
I didn't have any thought left or right of that,
But I think the Navy to give me the go ahead,
and that gave me the relief that I would not
have any level of reprisal or anything happened to me.

Speaker 15 (01:41:10):
Mister Borland, how about you?

Speaker 10 (01:41:12):
Absolutely?

Speaker 11 (01:41:13):
I mean, after I went through everything, it was pretty
clear that I caused a major issue in the executive branch.
So I did what I was supposed to do, and
that's why I haven't spoken publicly publicly. That's why I'm
happy to be here. This is how I wanted this.

Speaker 10 (01:41:28):
To be done.

Speaker 15 (01:41:29):
In regards to me, mister Borland, why do you think
that you faced reprimand and discipline for your effort to
come forward and be transparent about what you saw?

Speaker 11 (01:41:42):
About what I saw is the reason why I got
into what I know and has been disclosed to Arrow
and the IG. And I think that information while it
was it was labeled an extremely sensitive national security issue.

Speaker 15 (01:41:56):
Thank you, mister Knapp. I've watched many of your video
on Joe Rogan in other places. One of the big
questions I think for many of us is why do
you believe that the federal government refused to be transparent
about this issue.

Speaker 9 (01:42:12):
I think there's probably multiple reasons. At the start, when
these things first started invading our skies in large numbers,
we were scared. It was right after World War two,
and we didn't know what they were, and they didn't
want to panic the public, and that was probably a
good call. Over time, I think they the lynge sort
of became institutionalized. You know, flights over Washington, d C.

(01:42:32):
In nineteen fifty two, they're seen, they're captured on radar.
Jets are chased after these objects, and then we get
an explanation. It was a temperature inversion. And those kind
of lies have been told for a long time. What
was told to me by an investigator from Congress, a
guy named Richard Demato, who was sent after this story
by Robert Byrd and Harry Reid. He came out to Nevada,

(01:42:55):
tried to get into Area fifty one, did get in there,
looked around, talk to people, trying to get to the
bottom of it. He believed that this program reverse engineering,
et cetera, was inside, had been moved inside these corporations,
and he said, when this comes out, people are going
to go to prison. And he meant people who were
basically misusing legitimate national security funds tens of billions of

(01:43:15):
dollars in order to keep this cover up going. I
also believe there's a legitimate reason for the cover up
in that there is undeniable connection of national security involved
in this technology. If we are racing for it to
master that technology against the Russians and the Chinese, which
is what I have been told by Senator Read and
many others, then it is a race that's critical to

(01:43:37):
our survival. There could be a form of disclosure. I think, yes,
it's real, it's from somewhere else, without revealing all the
details that would allow someone else to have an advantage
in the race for this technology. Thank you.

Speaker 15 (01:43:50):
Finally, I'd like to enter into the testimony a letter
I sent to the DoD regarding the case of Major
David ARLs Grush, a UAP whistleblower who's been extremely helpful
to this committee. Unfortunately, due to his participation in the
disclosure of UAP, he suffered reprisal like the removal of

(01:44:11):
his clearance, denial of promotion, and loss of medical retirement.
I wrote the DoD on July twenty fourth, twenty twenty five,
on behalf of Major Grush, and I'm still waiting for
a reply. I appreciate any help the Committee can offer
to get a response.

Speaker 10 (01:44:26):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:44:26):
I yield back with that objection we'll be following up
with the DoD after this hearing. Thank you, Representative Crane.
I'd like next like to recognize Representative Gil for five minutes.

Speaker 15 (01:44:38):
Thank you Chairwoman Nelma Luna for holding this hearing, and
I'd like to yield a minute of my time to
you perfect.

Speaker 2 (01:44:44):
My first question is to mister Napp, how do we
know that the files that you obtained from the former
Soviet government are not BS and just given to you
as a disinformation campaign against US government.

Speaker 9 (01:44:55):
That's a good question. So I shared some of them
with the Senate Intelligence Committee when I first got back,
because that was requested by the Russians who shared some
of that information with me. Secondly, I gave all of
that material to the DEA through BASS the offs APP program.
Sorry for the acronyms.

Speaker 2 (01:45:10):
Can you name names real quick? Sorry at BASS or
what did you give them?

Speaker 7 (01:45:15):
Two?

Speaker 9 (01:45:15):
Directly, I gave them to Robert Bigelow and to Jim Lecatski,
and they hired a whole team to go through them
and retranslate them and analyze it. Then they created a
structure of how the UFO programs in the USSR and
Russia were put together. They said they were real. The
other person who said they were real.

Speaker 2 (01:45:34):
Is David Grush noted, thank you, Representative Gil, and.

Speaker 15 (01:45:39):
Thank You'd like to yield the remainder of my time
to Eric Burlison.

Speaker 20 (01:45:45):
Thank you, Representive Gil. Mister Wiggins, Chief Wiggins. In your view,
what mechanisms such as internal protocols, witness debriefings, or cross
agency documentation should be better establish in order to ensure
that such a credible sighting like the one that you
have given are preserved and made available to oversight bodies

(01:46:09):
like this.

Speaker 10 (01:46:11):
Thank you, sir.

Speaker 8 (01:46:14):
As a active duty Navy member, our mission is to
carry out the ship's mission or the commands mission, and
we on a general basis don't have knowledge of what
to do when we see things like this. We just don't.
We're there to do our mission and do what's told

(01:46:34):
of us, right, So I think what would be important
is giving active duty members a clear way of being
able to report things like this to where it gets
to this point and ensuring that we have a standard

(01:46:54):
level of understanding that there wouldn't be any level of
reprisal or anything happening. Because you know, I've been in
the Navy for almost twenty four years, but What about
the sailors that I've been in for two years that
experience things like this, They're not going to have the
knowledge or they'll probably be a little bit more fearful
to speak up, being at that their career is just starting.

Speaker 10 (01:47:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 20 (01:47:15):
I just I want to commend you. You're the first
witness to come forward that is currently serving and it's recognized,
and so I thank you, and your testimony is unbelievable.
Let me ask this question, are you familiar with the
Witness Protection Act that that Represented Burchett has filed.

Speaker 8 (01:47:34):
I'm not too familiar, sir.

Speaker 20 (01:47:35):
Anyone on the committee familiar with it. It's fantastic. It's
the language that we need. It's language that will protect
with you know, whistleblowers from from any kind of reprisal.
And yet it's again and again blocked by you know,
this body in some way. Many times it's being blocked

(01:47:56):
not by elected officials, but by staff behind the scenes.
And the other bill, the UAP Disclosure Act, which was
filed last year Senator Schumer, who I cannot believe that
there's a topic that he and I agree on, but
he and I agree on this topic. He is sponsored
in the Senate he put it on the National Defense

(01:48:17):
Authorization Act last year. Remarkably, I can't get it on
the It was stripped out by the House last year,
and I can't get it onto the bill leaving the
House this year. Mister Napp, how far would that would do?
That bill go to actually getting the answers that we need?

Speaker 9 (01:48:37):
Pretty far? I think they're still going to have roadblocks,
you know, the keepers of the secrets, the private companies
that have been doing this job for intelligence agencies for
a long time, are not going to cough it up.
You'd have to force it out of them. And whether
you can get them to admit that they have it
or not, I mean they're supposed to lie about it.
They've been lying about it, you know. I more power

(01:48:57):
to you. I hope it works. I hope it passes
this time, but it's a it's a daunting challenge to
get them to open up after lying about it for
more than seventy five years. Yeah.

Speaker 20 (01:49:09):
And then, finally, mister Borland, when you engage with Arrow
in twenty twenty three, you noted that their public statements
did not match the reality that you and others had witnessed,
and your assessment what were the key limitations of Arrow.

Speaker 10 (01:49:24):
You know, I would put it to you this way.

Speaker 11 (01:49:26):
The statement Arrow has made is scientific evidence of extraterrestrials.
Scientific evidence requires a scientific control extraterrestrials, an entity on
another planet. The only way to scientifically prove extraterrestrial is
we have to go to that planet, acquire technology, bring
it back, and compare it to what we have here.

Speaker 20 (01:49:46):
So you're saying they won't let anything out because or
they won't. They won't come forward unless they confirm that
it and let's say, go to the planet and confirm
where its origin is.

Speaker 11 (01:49:56):
That that would be scientific evidence. Yes, And by that statement,
Aro found no scientific evidence of better terrestrials. Is basically
I don't want to call it a SI off, but
a misrepresentation because we do have things. But making that
statement is not technically a lie. It's a misrepresentation of
the full truth.

Speaker 9 (01:50:16):
Thank you, madam chair may I.

Speaker 19 (01:50:18):
Just since we're on that topic real quick, how do
we get to these other planets? How do we pass
the Van Allen radiation belt safely?

Speaker 10 (01:50:28):
Good question for you. I cannot answer that for you.

Speaker 2 (01:50:34):
I would now like to recognize mister Perry for five.

Speaker 20 (01:50:36):
Minutes thanks, Madam chair.

Speaker 22 (01:50:40):
I think I'll start with maybe, mister Borland. So you
have a clearance, right, you're in uniform. You have a clearance.
When did you leave at service?

Speaker 10 (01:50:49):
A year? I left in twenty thirteen, February thirteen.

Speaker 22 (01:50:52):
Who was a president?

Speaker 10 (01:50:53):
If you recall twenty thirteen would have been President Obamas?
Was a President Trump?

Speaker 8 (01:50:58):
Right?

Speaker 22 (01:50:58):
No, sir, okay, So you have clearance, right, you're serving
the uniform, you have a clearance.

Speaker 10 (01:51:02):
Your story.

Speaker 22 (01:51:04):
You know, I think many of us are kind of
picturing the scene you walk out in the flight line
having to smoke.

Speaker 18 (01:51:08):
This event occurs.

Speaker 22 (01:51:11):
Do you have the perception, at least I do, based
on your story that this involves the US government? Whatever
you saw involves the US government.

Speaker 11 (01:51:23):
That is one hundred percent my opinion then and now.

Speaker 22 (01:51:28):
And was there an after action? Was do you do
a daily debrief of the activities of the day. Was
any of that recorded? Was there a conversation with the command?
Was there any documentation that you know of at the time?

Speaker 10 (01:51:42):
Not to my knowledge?

Speaker 11 (01:51:43):
I mean, like I said, I talked about it and
uh on the off floor and a couple of people
that pulled me aside, some older and listed and We're like,
you probably want to keep that to yourself.

Speaker 22 (01:51:52):
So did you get the did you get the impression
that they knew what you were talking about, just didn't
want you to harm your career or or seem crazy,
or that they didn't really witness Do you know anybody
else that witnessed.

Speaker 10 (01:52:05):
What you saw? Again? Not that night?

Speaker 11 (01:52:07):
Like I said, the only people that would have been
out there would have been security forces and then those
of US that were.

Speaker 22 (01:52:11):
Doing security forces in uniform or contract probably both. Did
you talk to them? Did anybody talk to them in
an after action?

Speaker 10 (01:52:19):
Not to my knowledge?

Speaker 22 (01:52:20):
Is there any interest in the command to determine and
verify what you saw?

Speaker 10 (01:52:25):
Not to my knowledge or it's.

Speaker 22 (01:52:27):
Unfortunate, Chief Wiggins. Thank you for your service, gentlemen, Thanks
all of you for your courage that be here. Your
story's a little bit different. Sounds like it well.

Speaker 10 (01:52:41):
For both of you guys, and.

Speaker 22 (01:52:42):
Also mister Nussatelli. If this were sanctioned by the US government,
even though you have a clearance, but it's classified above
the clearance level, do you see any reason why they
would allow you access being present, viewing it, hearing it,

(01:53:03):
you know, being around it, Like, what is this an accident,
like does the US government make these kind of acts?

Speaker 9 (01:53:10):
They make accidents, mistakes.

Speaker 22 (01:53:12):
Like this way, Oh we're doing this, we're doing this
test of this new system, and we forgot these guys
are standing here. Does that sound like something that the
US government would do?

Speaker 7 (01:53:24):
No, sir.

Speaker 6 (01:53:25):
Some of the launches we were doing were like five
billion dollar projects that had taken like ten years to
develop the technology, and these objects were coming right up
to the launch pad. So any kind of mistake, I mean,
we could it could cause a catastrophe. Right, So it's
very confusing why these objects would be operating in in

(01:53:46):
around our bases or during training exercise.

Speaker 22 (01:53:49):
It lend us would lend you to believe that the
US government had no, had nothing to do with whatever
it is you saw. Correct, They wouldn't want it there
because it would pretend actually interrupt the proceedings at the time.
Was there an after action? Was there a discussion by
your command where that Was there an investigation? It's pretty
significant activities that you were involved in. Was there an

(01:54:12):
investigation that you know of?

Speaker 6 (01:54:14):
We conducted investigations in real time, right, We document all
the evidence, But as far as anything from higher up,
I don't know if there was an investigation, no information
came down on what we should.

Speaker 22 (01:54:25):
Were you ever interviewed at someone else's request.

Speaker 7 (01:54:29):
About that incident?

Speaker 18 (01:54:30):
About the incident?

Speaker 7 (01:54:31):
I don't believe.

Speaker 22 (01:54:31):
So do you think that's you find that odd? If
something happens. You're around multi million, maybe billion dollar operations
and launches of national security interests very sensitive. There's an
anomaly in the operation.

Speaker 6 (01:54:48):
The only person witnessed that saw UAP at Vanderberg at
a time frame it was interviewed was the one that
witnessed the thing.

Speaker 22 (01:54:56):
Land Well, why wouldn't Well, I don't know why I'm
asking you, but it seems to me that we would
want to interview everybody associated, even not associated, to find
out if they were associated. Chief Wiggins, how about you
did anybody? Was there an investigation? Was there an after action?
Was there documentation on the incident that you were privy to?

Speaker 8 (01:55:16):
No, sir, not that I know of. And in my
previous experience as an operation specialist, all operations that I've
been a part of have been deliberate.

Speaker 22 (01:55:27):
So yeah, there and deliberate operations. After the operations, you
conducted an after action review, or that's what the Army
calls that. I don't know what the imagine the Navy
has something similar to determine your weaknesses your successes. Do
you do that in regard to this incident, No, sir,
the Navy.

Speaker 8 (01:55:45):
Calls it after action reports, and not to my knowledge,
was there after action report of this incident's unfortunate.

Speaker 2 (01:55:54):
Thank you, Jerr I yield, I now recognize mister Biggs
for five minutes.

Speaker 18 (01:55:59):
Thank you, Man Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for
being here today.

Speaker 23 (01:56:02):
I'll tell you that today's testimony should alarm every America,
no matter their views on UPS.

Speaker 18 (01:56:08):
This isn't simply about UPS.

Speaker 23 (01:56:09):
It's about government integrity, responsible use of taxpayer funds, and
congresses constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch for evidence
of critical information hidden in special access programs off limits
to virtually every elected representative and certainly to the public.
Incredible witnesses report retaliation for speaking out. These are clear

(01:56:32):
attempts to silence those who are exposing the truth. We
must protect the whistleblowers. In the decades of government disinformation
have eviscerated public trust. So this isn't a partisan matter.
It's a constitutional matter. And when you talk about the vas,
Miss Bilberger, and all the problems that they had. The
hub of that was Phoenix, and they went after the

(01:56:55):
whistleblowers there, and that was under the Obama administration. So
it doesn't matter which administration, which party. Both parties have
got to come clean, particularly on this. So the government
thinks you can hide the truth and punish those who
speak out, Congress has to keep pushing until the facts,
whatever they are wherever they leave, come to light.

Speaker 18 (01:57:15):
Let me go to you, mister Nap.

Speaker 23 (01:57:16):
First, you've interviewed numerous UAP whistleblowers over the years. The
question is how do you verify their claims before deciding
they're credible enough to report.

Speaker 9 (01:57:24):
On the combination of factors. First, to check their credentials.
Did they really serve where they said they did? And
did they work where they said they did? Are there
any other witnesses? Is their visual proof, film, footage, things
of that sort. You ask the people around them that
know them, that used to work with them, if they're
credible people. That's one way, you know, I think about ARROW,

(01:57:45):
the organization that this body created to deal with witnesses
and whistleblowers. I hope I'm not taking too much of
your time here, but they invited people to come forward
service members who knew saws things and had experiences. And
I can tell you that the people that I have
talked to who went through that are deeply disappointed. There
was a guy named Bob Jacobs who was a lieutenant

(01:58:06):
attached to Vandenberg in nineteen sixty four. His unit would
record missile tests. They recorded all of them. On one
of the particular tests, a UFO comes out of nowhere.
Zapp's what looks like a laser beam at what would
have been a nuclear dummy, a nuclear weapon and disable it.
And he is called into the commander's office. Two guys

(01:58:28):
in suits clipped that film footage out that chowse the
UFO and he's ordered to never talk about it. He
comes forward to Arrow he hear, heeds the call, thinking
he's doing his duty as an American to tell that story,
and they completely dismissed him. They made up a story
that they had tracked down the original footage and there
was nothing like that in it. Well, there was no

(01:58:48):
original footage. It had been taken away the day the
footage was recorded. He's deeply disappointed. People like Bob Sallas,
who had worked at a nuclear ICBM base who saw
UFOs flying over the base and these missile silos were
taken down. He went to Arrow too and was completely disregarded.
It almost looks like Arrow operated as a counterintelligence operation
to get people to come in tell their stories, and

(01:59:10):
then discredit all of them. I can't imagine that any
whistleblower or witness will ever go to Arrow again because
of what happened under the first director, who's now long
gone but still seems to act as the spokesperson for
that organization.

Speaker 23 (01:59:24):
And I would say, I would say, Madam Chair, maybe
at some point we need to really dig deep into Arrow,
and I would.

Speaker 2 (01:59:30):
Encourage you, So I'd be happy to send maybe a
subpoenats mister Kilpatrick.

Speaker 18 (01:59:37):
Mister.

Speaker 23 (01:59:39):
Mister Muktelly, Misteratelly, you've testified that official Air Force records
of the Red Square incident are now held by Arrow
and the FBI. Has Congress or you been denied access
to those records and and on what grounds would they
would we be denied access you or US?

Speaker 10 (02:00:00):
Now?

Speaker 7 (02:00:00):
The records are unclassified, so okay.

Speaker 23 (02:00:06):
In the two thousand and three to two thousand and
five incidents you described where any physical effects electromagic interference,
radio anomalies, or security system disruptions documented in base logs
or any reports official reports not to my knowledge, mister Wiggins,
as the full resolution, unended footage of your incident been

(02:00:28):
provided to Congress, Yes, okay, where you or your crew
ever instructed formally or informally not to document or discuss
the event ever?

Speaker 15 (02:00:40):
Nod.

Speaker 23 (02:00:42):
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 10 (02:00:52):
I can do that in a skiffser.

Speaker 11 (02:00:55):
Because of being a part of a multi agency special
access program, I cannot give the publicly, So I had.

Speaker 23 (02:01:01):
To encourage us, Madam Sure, to have that skiff, that
skiff meeting if we can.

Speaker 18 (02:01:06):
And then mister Borland again for you.

Speaker 23 (02:01:08):
Justify that you withheld certain sources and methods from AERO
due to mistrust. Can you give us some specifics that
legit believe they were misrepresenting the truth.

Speaker 11 (02:01:18):
Well, as I said already, what I said about scientific
method scientific control, extraterrestrials. I mean, I know what I've seen,
I know what I know, and I know it's true.
So any agency that's going to go public and try
and manipulate the public perception of this subject in such
a way that is negative when I know the truth

(02:01:41):
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 18 (02:01:51):
So, Madame Chair, thank you for letting me wave on.

Speaker 23 (02:01:53):
I think the key thing there you talked about was
manipulation of message, manipulation of narrative.

Speaker 18 (02:02:00):
That is really the problem with its entire.

Speaker 23 (02:02:06):
The system that we've seen since you've you've started these
wonderful hearings, Madam Chair, and I thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (02:02:12):
Thank you Governor, I mean Representative Biggs. Miss the Chair
would now like to represent or recognize mister I guess you.

Speaker 24 (02:02:19):
For five minutes, Thank you, Madam Chair. First question, mister Borland.
Earlier today you mentioned that under in a skiff you
would be able to discuss whether a member of Congress
is actually legally able to access certain information. Under what
authority would a member of Congress be restricted from accessing
information on this topic even within a skiff?

Speaker 11 (02:02:41):
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 10 (02:02:57):
Next question to George J.

Speaker 24 (02:03:00):
Nap, what is the estimated annual budget your view for
the for the program for investigating or reverse engineering UAP
related technology, including official, misappropriated or black budget funds.

Speaker 14 (02:03:12):
I wouldn't have a clue. I don't know any person
that's ever seen it.

Speaker 24 (02:03:15):
Does anyone on this panel wish to address that question?

Speaker 18 (02:03:19):
Okay?

Speaker 24 (02:03:19):
Moving on, are any of you willing to name specific
gatekeepers within the root cell of the UAP SAP Federation?

Speaker 14 (02:03:34):
You mean specific people and contractors that have dealt with us.

Speaker 18 (02:03:37):
Specific specific individuals.

Speaker 9 (02:03:43):
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.

Speaker 14 (02:03:56):
They're supposed to lie if people ask about it.

Speaker 9 (02:03:58):
And the intelligence agencies who gave this stuff to them CIA,
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 18 (02:04:14):
And this is again available to anyone.

Speaker 24 (02:04:16):
Is there a security classification guide for UAP or NHI.

Speaker 6 (02:04:26):
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 14 (02:04:40):
I have a name for you, go ahead, Glenn Gaffney Cia.

Speaker 18 (02:04:45):
Glenn Gaffney Cia.

Speaker 24 (02:04:47):
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 18 (02:05:00):
Because with the advent of.

Speaker 24 (02:05:04):
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. What do you
think is the long game here?

Speaker 9 (02:05:16):
Well, the secret's out.

Speaker 14 (02:05:18):
I mean, how many videos have there been already?

Speaker 9 (02:05:20):
You know, videos that are leaked from within the military
and intelligence agencies and contractors and censor platforms. It's out there,
but they have the high ground. The people that don't
want us to take it seriously, dismiss it, discredit the witnesses,
come up with a cover story. I mean, it's been
out there a long time. The public senses that it's real,
and the people in authority dismiss them. It's a game

(02:05:43):
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 24 (02:05:57):
Final question, again, this one's open to anyone who'd like
to answer it. Describe your understanding of the ORG chart
or lines of control within the executive branch with respect
to these topics, and if you'd like to address that
in a skiff, feel free to say so.

Speaker 11 (02:06:17):
That could work as long as I'm legally allowed to
and you are legally around it allowed to receive it.

Speaker 9 (02:06:25):
I think these programs are in the executive branch, a
National Security Council and over on that side. That seems
to be what some of our witnesses have told us
over the years. So you can you know, Congress can
file all kinds of requests. The foyas can be filed
with the Department of Defense, Department of War now and
they can honestly say well, we don't have it because

(02:06:47):
they don't have it.

Speaker 18 (02:06:50):
Thank you.

Speaker 24 (02:06:51):
Is there anything in my remaining thirty seconds that you'd
like to share on any of these questions that I've
asked you today?

Speaker 9 (02:07:03):
I applaud the committee for trying to tackle this monster
of an issue. I really appreciate that it's actually it
might be the only bipartisan issue in Washington where everybody
can agree. I've watched multiple hearings now everyone is asking
the same kind of questions, whether right or left, and
honestly went the answers, and you know, Chairman Luna, Chairwoman Luna,

(02:07:23):
I appreciate your dedication to this, Tim 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 2 (02:07:42):
Thank you, mister Nap. Pursuit to Committee Rule nine, I'm.

Speaker 20 (02:07:44):
Sure, can I have a part ask a parliamentary question
of you?

Speaker 16 (02:07:48):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (02:07:48):
Sure?

Speaker 20 (02:07:49):
Does this subcommittee have the authority to do subpoenas task force.

Speaker 2 (02:07:54):
So the task force to answer that question has to
do it through full committee.

Speaker 9 (02:07:58):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (02:07:58):
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 18 (02:08:15):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (02:08:15):
So that's just kind of an update, but as a
task force, because we're not a full subcommittee, and there
are certain authorities that haven't been granted to us, probably
because they don't want us to have it, but there
are ways to work around it. So we're kind of
figuring that out. Pursued to Committee Rule nine, see, the
majority and minority will have an additional thirty minutes each
to ask questions of the witnesses without objection. So ordered

(02:08:39):
with that being said, if you guys want to jump
in the key, 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, Burchet? And then Crane just real quick,
mister Napp and short answers please, because of time, how
much of these alleged Russian crash re Tree documents have

(02:09:00):
already been physically out there? So I mean percentage wise
of the documents that you submitted to Congress, what was
public already and what was not newly?

Speaker 9 (02:09:08):
Maybe one percent?

Speaker 2 (02:09:09):
Okay, so the rest of it should be predominantly new information. Also,
can you just elaborate real quick? I know you had
I think mentioned a Thread three program, but also alleged
in those documents. I got through maybe half of them
last time. There 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

(02:09:30):
the Soviet government or groups to specifically investigate this by name?

Speaker 9 (02:09:34):
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.

Speaker 2 (02:09:49):
Interested 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 since or training or
have been able to recognize some of this movements real quick.
So if you guys can please roll that real quick, okay,

(02:10:33):
while this is still rolling, mister news Telli, real quick,
Yes or no? Answers, are you aware of anything in
the government United States government arsenal that can split a
health fire and missile like this and do whatever blob
thing it didn't? Then keep going nothing nothing, all right?
How about you, Chief Wigan? Wigans nothing to my knowledge? Man, okay,
And how about you, mister Borland.

Speaker 10 (02:10:54):
I prefer to answer that in the skiff.

Speaker 2 (02:10:57):
Okay, does this vide scare you guys? Yes or no?

Speaker 7 (02:11:03):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (02:11:04):
Wiggins, yes, Nat.

Speaker 9 (02:11:08):
I had a different reaction. I was really happy that
it got out. Thanks for providing that.

Speaker 2 (02:11:13):
All right, mister Morland, Yes for okay, all right? That
that is the end of my questioning. I like to
not recognize mister Crane, Thank.

Speaker 7 (02:11:26):
You, Chief.

Speaker 15 (02:11:28):
I was on a ship for a little bit. I
was a gunner's mate on the US of Scattiesburg 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, Is that correct.

Speaker 8 (02:11:43):
That's correct. On an LCS ship, the CIC is on
the bridge, so it's called ICC one.

Speaker 9 (02:11:49):
But yes, same did.

Speaker 15 (02:11:52):
Did a bunch of the other folks in the CIC
come and check out what you were looking at?

Speaker 8 (02:11:57):
Yes, we all did, tact Collection Officer, myself, the RCO
and two others that 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 15 (02:12:12):
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 Nissitli, you saw this by yourself.

Speaker 7 (02:12:24):
No, there were multiple witnesses in every case of vana.

Speaker 15 (02:12:27):
Okay, So Chief, did that spread like wildfire throughout the
ship in the next day or two what you guys
had seen.

Speaker 8 (02:12:36):
No, sir, it didn't spread throughout the ship, but it
spread throughout ICC one conversation, as you do your turnover,
we talk about it, but it didn't go further than
just the watch standards that stood watch on the bridge
and in ICC one, so it did move around there
throughout a few days.

Speaker 15 (02:12:53):
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 8 (02:13:03):
Potentially uninterested? Possibly, you know, with engineers or combat systems
like yourself, don't make their way up to the bridge
enough to get withinside of the circle of talk about
the incident.

Speaker 15 (02:13:17):
Was it hard for you to get permission from the
Navy to bring that video?

Speaker 8 (02:13:22):
I myself didn't bring the video. I just saw the video.
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,
and I wanted to talk about it.

Speaker 15 (02:13:42):
How long did that encounter take place?

Speaker 8 (02:13:44):
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 15 (02:13:59):
What speed was the object moving at.

Speaker 8 (02:14:02):
When I first witnessed off the port bridge wing? The
object moving out of the water. What I thought was
originally just a light on the water, something on the
horizon and surfacing and going into the air. I then
knew it was an air contact. But as an air
controller myself, I started thinking and going through kind of

(02:14:26):
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, slowly rising,
and then it sped up. I'm not an expert at

(02:14:49):
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 know notice visually with
my own eyes the other three objects until I went
back to my radar and also utilized sapphire to see
that in fact there were four total, and then again

(02:15:13):
when they all left after a certain amount of time,
it was nearly instantaneous.

Speaker 15 (02:15:18):
So you spotted it visually first, chief, and then went
back to your radar, did you guys find it on
spotted on radar? First?

Speaker 8 (02:15:24):
Radar first, because that was my watch station was, and.

Speaker 15 (02:15:27):
Then you went out to the port bridge wing?

Speaker 10 (02:15:29):
Is that correct? Correct?

Speaker 8 (02:15:30):
To verify what I saw in my what range was it.

Speaker 15 (02:15:33):
At, Chief, when you were able to see it visibly?

Speaker 8 (02:15:36):
I would say about seven nautical miles seven to eight
nautical miles of a light from the ship?

Speaker 12 (02:15:45):
Wow?

Speaker 15 (02:15:46):
Thank you, I yelled back.

Speaker 2 (02:15:48):
I now recognize mister Barrows, Thank you, madam Chair, Mister
Chief Wiggins.

Speaker 20 (02:15:55):
You said that it was it emerged from the ocean.

Speaker 10 (02:15:58):
Is that right?

Speaker 18 (02:15:59):
Yes, sir?

Speaker 20 (02:16:00):
And before it did, it was glowing. It was a
glowing object under the water.

Speaker 8 (02:16:05):
That part I couldn't tell because it was nighttime at
nineteen fifteen approximately, and it was also at a distance,
so it's very hard to tell the difference between something
on the horizon and something surfacing from the water. My
personal thoughts after seeing what I saw is that it
did in fact come from the water, but I don't

(02:16:28):
have visual evidence showing exactly you know that it did
in fact come from the water, but I had again,
I had to go through my process of elimination and
try to figure out was this a ship on the
horizon just showing its lights at night, but to see
its surface then it made me question, Okay, where did

(02:16:49):
this come from? If it's flying and it's not a
drone or anything like that, where was its origin? Where
did it start?

Speaker 20 (02:16:58):
Oh, mister Napp in your to and in this document,
you detail an event that happened in Russia where their
nuclear missiles were activated and we were close to a
World War three at that time, which is startling to hear.
It's also good to know that, as we have investigated

(02:17:18):
the JFK files as well, that we were learning that
there was a document that was sent between Russia. There
was an agreement between Russia and the United States that
if they were to see some unidentified objects over sensitive sites,
that they would report it to each other. Are you
familiar with that document?

Speaker 9 (02:17:40):
Yes, I'm also familiar with the rhetoric public rhetoric between
President Reagan and Gorbachev at the time too, that they
traded statements about wouldn't it be something if we were
threatened by something from way outside, how we might work together.
I know for sure that they had conversations about it,
and I know we did reach an agreement to try

(02:18:02):
to lessen the possibility that US detecting a UFO or
group of UFOs would not be mistaken for a bunch
of Russian missiles. There were exchanges of that sort that
went back and forth.

Speaker 20 (02:18:11):
Yeah, and I can imagine this is to me the
validity of this document is underscored by the fact that
Russia would not want this to be known. They absolutely
would not want to know, the public to know, or
the United States to know that there was a vulnerability
in their missile systems.

Speaker 9 (02:18:27):
Would you agree, absolutely? And you know, and we had
many similar incidents at our nuclear weapons facilities here that
have all been sort of swept under the rug. But
it's pretty scary when you take down ten missile silos
during ten 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 2 (02:18:52):
Real quick, we're going to cut to mister Ogle's he
just got back. So we're in a special kind of
lightning round. So five minutes and then we'll go back
to line of question.

Speaker 25 (02:19:00):
Thank you, madam chair. You know, at this point, I
think it's clear from from the hearing that there's advanced
technologies that are taking place.

Speaker 10 (02:19:11):
In or airspace.

Speaker 25 (02:19:13):
You know, the question is and I opposed it in
one of the previous hearings, is that ours?

Speaker 8 (02:19:17):
Is it theirs?

Speaker 10 (02:19:17):
Or is it otherworldly?

Speaker 25 (02:19:20):
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.

Speaker 26 (02:19:34):
Topic, what would you suggest, sir? One piece of evidence?
I would I would start with this hearing.

Speaker 27 (02:19:47):
In the first hearing, there is no evidence, but is
there a specific exactly but is there a specific evidence
or footage or document that that you think lends extreme
credit ability to what we're talking discussing today?

Speaker 6 (02:20:02):
I would say this new video we're seeing today is
exceptional evidence that we're dealing with something with the kinetic Yes, mister.

Speaker 8 (02:20:10):
Wigins, Sir, I'd have to say that 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 25 (02:20:33):
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

(02:20:56):
of data, some of it not real, much of it is.
But thank 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? What capabilities did those orbans have that

(02:21:18):
we quite frankly may not have.

Speaker 9 (02:21:21):
Mister Napp, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks,
what hooked me on the story was the pay per
trayl 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

(02:21:43):
General Nathan 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, you followed the
paper trail of documents that they wrote before the military

(02:22:04):
got wise and realized that Foyer really exists and change
their tune and not put things in writing. It spells
it out pretty clearly. I'll go refer back to Russia.
One incident I did not mention to represent Burlison is
there are Colonel Sokolov in that Ministry Defense program said
there were forty incidents where Russian warplanes were sent to

(02:22:26):
intercept UFOs and they were ordered to fire on them,
and for the most part, the UFOs would zip away.
Three of the pilots, though, did fire at these things.
Those three planes stalled out, crashed, Two of those pilots died,
and after that the Russians changed the standing order. If
you see a UFO, leave them alone. No country in
the world wants to say and admit that these objects

(02:22:46):
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 either. I've got
to be almost out of time.

Speaker 10 (02:22:54):
But mister Berlin, then you sir real quickly.

Speaker 11 (02:22:57):
Yeah, to be honest with you, I think boblezre 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 Blazaar 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 25 (02:23:20):
Madam Chairman, if I'm out of time, I you'll bet.

Speaker 2 (02:23:21):
Thank you very much, Representative Ogles. I'd like to go
back now on our lightning run of questioning to represented
Burchett and then burlsten Burchett always number one.

Speaker 10 (02:23:34):
As well. I should be number one in your heart,
number four thirty five on the chart.

Speaker 17 (02:23:40):
That's me, Dylan, knowing 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 11 (02:23:57):
As I said before, it's a manipulation of the public perception.
The statement scientific evidence of extraterrestrials is a true statement.
It is not the truth about what is happening and
what we have.

Speaker 17 (02:24:12):
Nidia, I like to comment on that further, mister nap Here.

Speaker 18 (02:24:16):
It plus edgy.

Speaker 9 (02:24:16):
It's splitting hairs. No proof that they're extraterrestrials. What would
that proof look like a piece of kryptonite? What would
it be? I mean, we could be talking about different
forms of non human intelligence. I think the dominant paradigm
is that they come from outer space somewhere else, and
they have some way that they can cross those vast
distances that we can't even imagine doing. But not necessarily.

(02:24:37):
That's not necessarily the answer, So asking for proof of
extraterrestrials might not be the answer at all. It's splitting hairs.
You know, we don't know where they're from. I don't
know anyone who knows the answer. For sure. They call
them aliens just as a placekeeper kind of a word.
But no one in all these programs who study this
stuff for years. People with much bigger brains than mine
knows the answer for sure.

Speaker 17 (02:24:59):
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 up ride motorcycles.

(02:25:19):
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.

Speaker 18 (02:25:31):
I doubt they could.

Speaker 9 (02:25:32):
They couldn't.

Speaker 10 (02:25:33):
They couldn't work on it.

Speaker 17 (02:25:34):
They couldn't put fuel, They wouldn't be have the capability
of putting fuel in it. I just think that that's
you know, we're just we're scratching at something that we
don't have any knowledge of, and that's why it's just
taking so Dad come along.

Speaker 10 (02:25:47):
But they do know.

Speaker 17 (02:25:49):
First one that cracks that code, it's it's over. I mean,
it's it's it's energy, it's power. It's everything. And I
worry too that in the wrong hands that they do
that they keep it from the rest of us because
they're so invested in whatever energy sources we have here.
If they're billionaire, bodies are going to profit and they

(02:26:10):
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 9 (02:26:28):
There's a price to be paid for that too. The
Russians and Chinese are trying to figure this out as well,
but they don't have the same kind of stigma. They
tell their best scientists and engineers get in there and
work on it, and they've been doing it for a
very long time. I'd have a head start on us here.
We don't have our best scientists and engineers working on
it because they've been told it's nonsense. The stigma is
very real for people like that.

Speaker 10 (02:26:49):
I agree, you'll back cheer lady.

Speaker 2 (02:26:52):
Thank you, And I like to recognize representative Burlison.

Speaker 20 (02:26:57):
Mister Nusitelli. 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 7 (02:27:19):
Absolutely.

Speaker 6 (02:27:20):
There are many many accounts of incursions of this tiger
taking place. I believe in the sixties we had a
similar incursion in New England and the same thing happened.

Speaker 7 (02:27:32):
There were these.

Speaker 6 (02:27:33):
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 fly off and
that went on for weeks.

Speaker 7 (02:27:44):
So the historical record has laid out that there's a pattern.
Our installations are visited by these craft.

Speaker 6 (02:27:52):
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 install a.

Speaker 20 (02:28:01):
So that's why we're here 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 (02:28:15):
These are people I've worked with for years, deployed with.
You know, I was in some of the weddings.

Speaker 6 (02:28:21):
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 20 (02:28:32):
Really, yeah, all seeing it at the same time.

Speaker 6 (02:28:34):
Yes, these were these encounters were playing out while we
were on duty, and we were responding and investigating in
real time as they occur.

Speaker 20 (02:28:45):
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 6 (02:28:56):
For that particular launch, we had five hundred Air Force
polease officers guarding the launch. Five hundred people. It was
that critical. Wow, but I had this thing showed up,
we wouldn't have been able to do anything to event.

Speaker 2 (02:29:09):
It's showing up real quickly. Can you just redescribe size
and whether or not you heard anything?

Speaker 6 (02:29:14):
It was pubic wise, the two square objects were at
least as large as a football field. The second encounter,
they think it was much larger than a football field.
We're talking like build flying buildings. The object I saw
was about thirty feet diameter, and to.

Speaker 2 (02:29:32):
Confirm you were not the only person that saw this.

Speaker 7 (02:29:34):
Correct.

Speaker 2 (02:29:34):
I think I was also told that there was also
reports of this in a police blotterer in the area.
Can you confirm that, yes.

Speaker 6 (02:29:41):
That's the documentation that I maintained from the original event
and turned into arrow in the FBI.

Speaker 2 (02:29:49):
Okay, do you have any more, Brosten?

Speaker 20 (02:29:52):
No, And I'm sure. I just want to reiterate to
the American people that if you're frustrated, so were we.
We're extra frustrated. We've been, you know, the two three years.
I can only imagine how frustrated mister Nap is or
or Danny Sheehan is and the amount of time that
you guys have poured into this to try to get answers.
I mean, my song is back there. He's been pouring

(02:30:14):
to try to get answers into this. We I hope
that you all see that we're committed to this and
we're gonna be scrappy about it. We may not have
the direct authority, but I can assure you Representative Luna
is about as scrappy as it gets. I wouldn't want
to scrap with her. But that being said, I think
that if if the American people want to see answers,

(02:30:36):
we need action. We've had the hearings. It's time to
take action. It's time that we pass Tim Burchett's You
a Whistleblower Act, It's time that we passed the UAP
Disclosure Act. And I think that we've had a lot
of talk about this. It's time for action.

Speaker 2 (02:30:54):
Thank you, Rosan. I would now like to yield thirty
minutes to Representative Crockett. I'll reserve. Thank you. In closing,
I want to thank our witnesses once again for their

(02:31:15):
testimony today. I now yield to Ranking Member Crockett for
closing remarks, I'll pass.

Speaker 6 (02:31:24):
No.

Speaker 3 (02:31:24):
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

(02:31:48):
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 2 (02:32:08):
Thank you. I now like to recognize myself for some
closing remarks. This is obviously something that doesn't just affect
everyone in this room. I can tell you that specifically
for where I represent in panel's county, Tampa Bay and
Florida as a whole. There's many sidings, many questions people
reporting this, but I'm not the only one. I was
also told by Representative Biggs as well as you know

(02:32:29):
are a great representative from Alaska, that these are not
isolated instances, and so it does bring give us reasoning
to provide investigative inquiry into these topics, but also to
I would also like, mister Spielberger, if you could actually
review and see if your organization would endorse the Whistleblower
Protection Act that Representative Birchett has. I can tell you

(02:32:50):
that I will be signing on to a letter as
well as I'm sure many other members of this task course,
and we hope that the ranking chairwoman are my colleague
here Representative of Crockett, as well as our Democrats that
we're here today, consider also sunning 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

(02:33:12):
have been. With that being said, with all that and
without objection, all members have five legislative days within to
submit materials and additional written questions for with the witnesses,
and which will be also awarded to those witnesses if
there are no further business. Without objection, I'd like to
now recognize Representative Burchette for a closing room.

Speaker 17 (02:33:31):
I would just like to thank the ranking member and
the chair Lady for their courage.

Speaker 10 (02:33:35):
This is a tough issue. We all catch hell for it,
and it's uh, but it's but.

Speaker 17 (02:33:42):
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 18 (02:33:48):
Thank y'all.

Speaker 2 (02:34:00):
With that objection, the Task Force stands adjourned.

Speaker 1 (02:34:11):
Wow, so let's start off with this. I think overall
it was a good hearing watching the one. The first
one back in twenty twenty two, the AOI MSG that
was an absolute mess. Then you had Grush and that
was the most explosive UFO hearing. Then the one last
year was Schellenberger and Alizondo. It was pretty lack luster.

(02:34:32):
We didn't get that much information. This was a good
hearing while we're comparing it to all the previous ones,
when we are looking at the witnesses and their background,
the questions that were asked overall were good. Okay, I'm
not saying they were all great, but that's consistent across
all hearings. I think there were a lot of really
important good takeaways. So for this analysis, this kind of

(02:34:57):
short analysis, we're gonna be some of the biggest things
that were mentioned, and then I will be doing a
more detailed video shortly so that we can just really
do a deeper divers to what's going on. But the first, okay,
the first takeaway the notes that I took, which is
like ten pages worth of notes, and yes, there will

(02:35:18):
also be a timeline index so that you know who asked.
What I think is very very important, and i'd like
to hear it from you off of your first impression
before we even get into the notes. What did you
think about this hearing? Positive negative, a nothing burger as expected.
Let me know in the comments, let me know in
the live chat. We had so many people watching this live.

(02:35:41):
We are really truly honestly watching history in the making.
And I was very, very pleased to see all of
the witnesses in their backgrouard. And you know what, I
truly think that George Knapple was a great detail to
the panel. Did he have to be there, No, because
he's not a witness, but he brought a lot of
his story accounts. And I have never seen so many

(02:36:05):
name drops in a hearing. I mean, the amount of
people that have been so deeply involved in the UFO
topic for decades were dropped, and I wrote so many
of them down, but I'll try to run through a few.
You had Daniel Sheehan, you had Jiman Mouson, You had
Robert Jacobs from Vandenberg, Robert Salas from Malstrom, who has

(02:36:25):
who was also mentioned during the AOI MSG hearing back
in twenty twenty two. There were you had Greer, you
had obviously Jeremy Corbel that were mentioned, and I know
there were a few more. I'm trying to very quickly
scatter through my notes. Maybe you caught a few other names.
Oh Greer was mentioned, Robert Bigelow. I mean truly, I

(02:36:48):
didn't obviously Bob Blazaar. I did not expect that many
people to be bam bam bam released like that. I thought,
Oh my gosh. Okay. So with that being said, let's
go over the notes in chronological order that I took,
and then just emphasizing again, I will be doing a
more concise video, hopefully later today, and if not today

(02:37:10):
then definitely tomorrow. Also, a big thank you to every
all the super chats, all the superstickers. You guys are amazing.
I really really do appreciate that. So if I go
through the notes that I took, starting off from the beginning,
I try my best to be super super concise. I
found it really surprising at the very beginning that Luna

(02:37:33):
called Sean Kirkpatrick a liar. She had mentioned that on
X and you know that's X. You know, you can
say whatever you want, but to have it in a
congressional hearing, I was really really surprised. And then later
on in the hearing she mentioned that she'd be very
happy to actually subpoena Sean Kirkpatrick as to what happened

(02:37:56):
when he was running Arrow, which he did resign back
in December of twenty twenty three, and then now it
is being run by mister John Koslowski, who wasn't mentioned
at all. If anything, he's been pretty lack lost, and
when he was appointed back I believe it was in
August or September of twenty twenty four, he didn't give

(02:38:17):
any public appearances. Hasn't been until very recently that he's
finally coming out and sharing information, like on Star Talk
with Neil de Grasse Tyson, where he was sharing some
data of unexplained encounters like the law enforcement incident where
police officers saw something very like a triangular diamond object
in the sky, freaked out and went one hundred miles

(02:38:40):
per hour in reverse because they were so scared. I
would have liked Luna to have mentioned that, because that
is not Luna Mace to have mentioned that, because that
isn't an explained case. But aside from that, everything else
that has been mentioned by Aero, I was like, oh,
we can explain this. It's actually parallax. That's what that's
uh Koslowski's go to for explaining things away. So starting off,

(02:39:04):
I was very surprised that Luna brought up Oh Kirkpatrick,
absolute liar. I did not see that coming. Then she
name drops Schumer, rounds of Rubio and McConnell pertaining to
the UAPDA pertaining to with some blower protections and so on.
These are congressmen that have been pretty vocal with their
interest in the UFO topic. And then I was surprised

(02:39:29):
that the Age of Disclosure documentary was mentioned several times.
Andre Rogan was mentioned. I did not see that coming either.
I was very surprised. And yeah, just I was surprised. There.
Then you had Congressman Crockett, the ranking chair member, give
her intro speech, and she mentioned NASA. NASA has been

(02:39:53):
a constant in all of these UFO hearings, every single
time they are brought up. And I think that was
a big reason as to why Mike Gold was a
witness during the last UFO hearing, because in all the
previous ones are like, Okay, what is NASA thing, what
is NASA doing?

Speaker 10 (02:40:10):
NASA?

Speaker 1 (02:40:11):
NASA, NASA, And here it was mentioned yet again, and
Crockett had stated that NASA hasn't found anything that what
is being seen is ET related. Which do you expect
them to. I'll let you answer that for yourself. She
also referred to that whistleblower should be protected, and I'm

(02:40:32):
disappointed that that's even being brought up today. We've had
all of these hearings, We've had a good amount of
people come forward, and yet something that we heard a
lot today was we need to protect whistleblowers, both by
the witnesses like Nusatelli and then also by congressmen like Crockett.
We need to protect them obviously, Like that's common knowledge,

(02:40:56):
common sense. Why why hasn't it been passed? That's a
huge red flag? And and I and I can't think
of an explanation as to why it hasn't been passed.
Maybe you can give you an explanation for that. Because
I'm in the dark. I think, like like many of you.

(02:41:16):
Then you had miss Titus bring up Coast to coast
see another name drop I didn't see coming, and that
was cute. But she didn't ask any questions. She was
just kind of there. And then George Knapp gave her
a shout out. She's like, He's like, oh, good to
see you, and and that was it there and we
never we never saw her again. We also had all
of the witnesses provide their uh their like their short

(02:41:40):
intro speeches, their their their testimonies, which many of them
actually just read off a document that they gave over
to Congress yesterday. So when we got the paperworker early
this morning, so they were just kind of briefing who
they are, their background, and their encounters.

Speaker 10 (02:41:59):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (02:42:00):
While we didn't get any information from Joe Spielberger until today,
I wasn't up like just the first impression, I wasn't
really sure why he was there. And I'm seeing that
in a very very nice way that there weren't a
lot of questions post to him. He's a part of

(02:42:22):
the Pogo business, which I can which is in his
document which we got, and I can provide that information
to you. It's the project a government oversight, which which
that makes sense. But I wish there were more specific,
pointed questions toward him to get a better understanding of

(02:42:43):
who he is and what he does. And yes, yes
he did touch on it, but I would have liked
more detail, and I think some of you can agree
with me on that. And he had really dark guys
just also mentioning like like like he didn't sleep last night,
maybe out of nervousness, maybe out of fear, who knows.

(02:43:06):
Also worth mentioning that new Stale dominated the microphone in
his speech. He was confident, he had good hand gestures,
he was reading at a very good, steady pace. Then
you had Alexandra Wiggins who was not as comfortable on
the microphone, which I totally understand, and he was a

(02:43:27):
bit more shaky, he had a bit more trouble reading,
but it was still decent. George Knapp killed it. I
mean he's a journalist, right like, he knows what he's doing.
And then you also had Borland. His speech was really
interesting and overall I believe he won the sympathy vote
from the viewers, both from his intro speech and a

(02:43:49):
lot of what he spoke about with his unemployment, losing
his job after becoming a whistleblower. And then he slowly
lost that sympathy vote when and he kept mentioning, I
can say that in a skiff. I can say that
in a skiff, Oh, in a skiff, if you're allowed
to hear it, and I'm allowed to say it, which
we've heard in all the previous hearings. David Grush had

(02:44:12):
mentioned that lou Elizondo Tim Galladette had mentioned that consistently
when they were witnesses, so it's not a surprise, but
still it's a little deflating of h Really, like you
and I, the average person won't be able to hear
what they have to say, and from what we know
from Tim Bershett, Nana Pelina Luna, skiffs are really hard

(02:44:33):
to organize, very difficult to organize for these guys, and
we also had that whole drama with the skiffs being
trying to be conducted with Michael Gold and luel A
Zondo with Anna Pelina Luna. The scheduling was such a mess.
So I don't know how that's going to pan out

(02:44:54):
for Borland and if he's going to get a skiff
any time soon. But these guys have now been very
public and I can expect hopefully that Borland will start
doing interviews with those interested in this topic so that
they can get further information from him, if any. After

(02:45:16):
they all gave their speeches, you had these questions asked
by the congressmen that were present, some that came late,
some that left early. First looking at Luda and for
those that are just jumping in these are just like
the surface analysis from the notes that I took from
the hearing. There will be a deeper, more in depth

(02:45:37):
video that will be filmed later on. But looking at
Luna's intro, she's a fireball. She has been since the
very beginning. You can see her genuine interest in this
topic and she always comes prepared. So she immediately goes
into asking details about Borland's encounter, what took place, what

(02:46:00):
was going on, and to please explain how it wasn't
something conventional, How how did you know it wasn't a
weather balloon. And he goes into detail on that. But
here's what was very strange about Borland. Yes, he at
the beginning he won the sympathy vote of you know,
he lost everything. He's now on unemployment for the next
three to four weeks and Deli finds a job. He

(02:46:21):
apologized to everyone watching of I didn't receive an apology
from this, but for all of those that want to
be whistleblowers or are whistleblowers, I apologize to you.

Speaker 2 (02:46:33):
I'd showed up.

Speaker 1 (02:46:34):
Okay, you know it hit the emotions maybe by design,
and it worked. It worked, But he throughout the throughout
the hearing, he mentions that he doesn't know if it
was et or ours. Well, when I say he doesn't know,

(02:46:54):
he mentioned I can answer that in a skiff. I
cannot provide that information. But from what I know, from
the information that I was given, I can tell you
that in a skiff, and he saw an equaladical equilateral triangle.
A lot of people in the comments mentioned maybe it
was a TR three B, which is a possibility as

(02:47:15):
to why he couldn't speak about it. But not once,
not once, in that whole two and a half hour hearing,
did he allude that what he saw was extraterrestrial and
or an HI.

Speaker 18 (02:47:31):
He didn't.

Speaker 1 (02:47:31):
I felt like he was kind of leaning more towards
the idea that it was terrestrial. But Mace really tried
to ask, Okay, is it foreign adversary or is it ours?

Speaker 8 (02:47:44):
Is it?

Speaker 1 (02:47:44):
Is it from the US? And he said, oh, I
can't answer that in a skiff, So you and I
are not going to be receiving any answers on that.
Then you had, mister Maskovic asked some very pointed questions.
Keep in mind that before he joined Congress he was
a lawyer, and you were really able to see that

(02:48:08):
in the way that he asked questions. They were very spitfire,
they were okay, what did you think then? What did
you think now? Which is a very lawyer type questions, right,
which is overall important to ask. And something else that
was also questioned to all of the people on the panel.

(02:48:28):
Did you believe in UFOs before your encounter? So Kelly
said yes, Wiggins said yes, George Knab said up, you know,
always been interested, followed the paper trail, and Borland had
stated I followed the science now. Spielberger didn't answer that
question if anything. Poor guy was just kind of sitting

(02:48:49):
on the sidelines, probably thinking to himself, what am I
doing here? Like, no one's asking me questions. I don't
even know what's going on. Before we continue, I would
like to ask you who do you think asked the
best questions? Uh, the best? The congressman that asked the
best questions on the panel. I'd like to hear from
you in the live chat and in the comments as well,

(02:49:11):
because I think there were some real stars out there. Obviously,
Anna Pelline Aluna, she's a chairman. She has to be
the star. She has to ask good questions. Mace asked
good questions out and to provide you a little bit
of context that this is important that would be missed
if you're not deeply involved in the topic. So Nancy

(02:49:34):
Mace stated to George Napp in particular, I really like
what you do. I've seen all your documentaries, saying with
Jeremy Corbel, she didn't have to say that she mentioned
it because during season two of UFO Revolution that was
released by TMC, which I was in, Jeremy Corbel called

(02:49:55):
out Mace, stating why didn't Mace tell the UFO hearing
last year that he was the one that had the
immaculate constellation that then gave it to Michael Schellenberger. Mace
knew that information, according according to Jeremy Corbel, but didn't
state that at all, And that was like one of

(02:50:16):
the last episodes of season two. It was just really
pointing the finger at Mace, you know, but you decided
not to share that information. It seems like Nancy Mace
watched that season, or watched it at the very least
that episode, and was trying to make it better a
nicer fall of Oh no, I really like your work.
I watch all of your stuff, and I appreciate what

(02:50:38):
you do. My guess is that it was because of
that TV show that was run by TMZ starring Jeremy Corbel,
providing context for those that weren't familiar with that. And
Mace also asks more detail about the Equilateral triangle craft

(02:50:59):
and Borland Sunds like an answer that and a skip
for you, which I wish you didn't have to say that.
I wish you could just say yes or no, but
that's not how it works. Ever, for these kinds of
hearings compared to a briefing, which are not under oath,
and you can kind of say whatever you want and

(02:51:20):
there won't be any there won't be many repercussions by
the public probably but not by Congress. And let's continue onward,
really dropping the main stuff. Okay, So one of a
really good takeaway from this is not only the witnesses
and their background and them sharing their stories in detail,

(02:51:40):
along with the reports that were released by George Knapp
that he collected from Russia back in nineteen ninety three,
but it was the videos that were shared. People are
always saying, where are the goods, where are the pictures?
Where are the videos? Give me the stuff that I want?
We finally got them. And we got two who this
time we didn't get that in the previous hearings we

(02:52:03):
did for the AOI MSG back in twenty twenty two,
and that was mess and the video sucked. Okay, it
was bad. This time they were prepared and it was
very funny because Wiggins, in one of the videos use
used some language not even that bad.

Speaker 2 (02:52:19):
We use a little bit of language.

Speaker 1 (02:52:20):
Annaponine Luna says, remove that audio quickly. Okay, we cannot
have any language of any kind. That made me giggle.
There were a few things that actually made me giggle
in this whole hearing, but that was one of them.
And what we saw was a uf was a missile
and a UFO hitting the missile, causing the missile to

(02:52:44):
break apart, and then the UFO is gone. A very
similar encounter happened to Robert Sallis at the Malstrom Air
Force Base, which that was the first thing that came
to mind when I saw that video. Can you even
think about the Vandenberg Air Force Base incident with Robert
Jacobs that was touched on by George Knapp, But it

(02:53:06):
wasn't the same because that UFO actually used a laser
to deactivate the missile. But in this video by Wiggins,
which was filmed back in twenty twenty three, which is
very very recent, it smashed the missile to bits. I
didn't expect that to come out. I thought that was
very cool. People in the comments were, oh, there's another blimp.

(02:53:28):
This was just another This was a big deal because
we saw debris come apart. I haven't seen a video
like that before. Can think of the Aguadilla incident where
the object goes into the water and breaks up into
multiple objects. That was spectacular, and then it was debunked
by arrow of oh no, this is just parallax. Okay, yeah,

(02:53:50):
thanks for that. Try to explain it better this one.
I don't know how they're going to explain it of
an object hitting a missile and then you breeze every where.
We also got another video which wasn't as big, like
as like amazing as the first one with Wiggins, but
you know, I think, I think it's a really good start.

(02:54:10):
We are really getting somewhere. And we got a little bit.
We got like a McDonald's burger, like a really thin patty,
but at least we got something. It wasn't a nothing burger.
We got a lot of good data, we got reports,
and we got video. Overall, I'm more pleased than I
expected I was going to be. I had no expectations

(02:54:32):
for this hearing. I didn't think it was going to
be great because last one was was pretty not not
very good. I'm impressed, Not saying that my expectations were high,
but I'm impressed. What do you think overall? Your overall takeaway?
There are more notes, but those are the biggest things

(02:54:53):
that I think and needed to be mentioned. I am
quickly running over my notes. When my d was played
that Wiggins had seen firsthand, the witnesses were asked, you know,
should we be afraid of this kind of technology? Everyone
said yes. Borland said yes, but want to provide more

(02:55:13):
information and was cut off by Luna. I wish she didn't.
I would have liked to heard what Borlan had to
say about that, but you know, I can only ask
for so much. Right then, you had Beggage just a
mention one more thing. Near the end, Beggage asked some
really strange questions that I don't think anyone had the
answers to, Like how much money is being spent for

(02:55:35):
black projects? Does anyone have the answer for that I
was confused, and George Knapp said, I have no idea, like, honestly,
why are you asking me this question? Nobody knows. We
don't even know how much funding Errow is getting, and
they've been asked that multiple times with a tip and

(02:55:56):
the AO and yeah, awesad been bass They got about
twenty two million dollars. But that was in the early
two thousands. We don't know what people are getting now,
what these UFO products are getting now, or even black
projects and black products are even more in the dark.
So yeah, that was strange. And then mentioned consistently were

(02:56:18):
these Russian UFO files which take it or leave it,
it's not US centric, which I thought seemed a little
out of place of we need to focus on the US,
not on other countries, especially since we cannot receive more
files or ask those people under I don't know if

(02:56:39):
you can ask them under oath. I don't know how
that works with other countries. But it was interesting. I
liked the information that we got about the paperwork from
nineteen ninety three from Russia and then trying to reverse
engineer technology, but it just seemed out of place. Maybe
it was a catalyst, Maybe it was to get people
in the US as interested in the topic of Okay,

(02:57:01):
if Russia can do it, we can do it as well.
Maybe that was the purpose behind it, but it seems
like it was just it was very heavily focused on
in this particular UFO hearing. Would what are your thoughts
on that that little detail in particular. Well, that is

(02:57:24):
it for today. Thank you everyone to watching this watch
party with me on this UFO hearing. It seems to
be one of the better ones that we have received
over the last few years. Before you head out, please
hit that like button and subscribe if you enjoy UFO
news updates, case studies, and interviews as I post daily

(02:57:45):
at ten am PST one AMST, I will see you
all very shortly for a more in depth analysis on
the UFO Hearing. Be safe and remember keep your eyes
on this guys. If you enjoy today's show, hit that

(02:58:30):
like pardon and if you're not subscribed, what are you
waiting for?

Speaker 2 (02:58:33):
His notification?

Speaker 5 (02:58:34):
Bell?

Speaker 1 (02:58:34):
As I do dat UFO news and updates crash you
waiting stories, government disclosures and breaking developments land here every
single day.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

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;}UFO Hearing Watch Party September 9 2025

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;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

UFO Hearing Watch Party September 9 2025

On Purpose with Jay Shetty