FULL House UAP hearing with analysis by Ross Coulthart — NewsNation

[0:11] Well, g'day and welcome to a special live edition of Reality Check. I'm your host Ross Coulthart [1:07] and today, of course, is the day where we have another congressional hearing into unidentified [1:14] anomalous phenomena. I'm told by friends of mine who were filming UFOs over the Capitol last night [1:22] and they'll soon be publishing their videos, that people were queuing at five o'clock in the [1:28] morning this morning to get into the congressional building where the hearing will be held. But today [1:35] is another historic hearing into the mystery that I suspect a lot of people in the US government [1:42] want to go away. A subcommittee on the House Oversight Committee known as the Task Force on [1:48] the Declassification of Federal Secrets will take evidence from five witnesses. It's entitled [1:56] Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection. And to hear to help me [2:03] through today, of course, is my friend and colleague, Megan Orada. Welcome, Megan. How are you? [2:09] Ross, I am very excited. I love being here with you. This is a big day, so I can't wait to get into it. [2:15] Well, it's going to be very interesting. I mean, there's two schools of thought on what we're going [2:20] to hear today. One is it's going to be a big fat nothing burger, a dog and pony show. And I have to [2:26] admit, I am coming into this slightly sceptical. I'm a bit wary of Congress at the moment. They promised [2:32] a lot and delivered little. But there are an impressive range of witnesses today. Chairwoman [2:41] Representative Anna Paulina Luna has promised this will be an interesting hearing. And she's done [2:47] quite a bit of media before this hearing, suggesting that this committee is prepared to start getting [2:53] tough. The witnesses today include Jeffrey Nusatelli, a former US Air Force military police officer who will [3:01] be testifying about how between 2003 and 2005, there were five UAP incidents that occurred at Vandenberg Air [3:12] Force Base, home to the National Missile Defense Project. Another witness is Chief Alexandro Wiggins, [3:22] notable because he's an active US Navy senior chief petty officer with 23 years service. So this is a guy who's [3:30] still in service, who's very bravely decided to speak out publicly about how he witnessed an extraordinary [3:36] UAP event, tic tac like objects that while he was serving aboard USS Jackson, in February of 2023. And [3:47] probably I suspect the most interesting witness of all today is a guy called Dylan Borland, a former [3:53] geospatial intelligence specialist for the US Air Force and defence contractor BAE Systems. He's an expert [4:02] in analysing video, radar and advanced electro-optical imagery. He's going to testify about how in 2012, [4:13] he witnessed a 100 foot long equilateral triangle over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. Or more [4:23] sensationally, he's indicated in his statement that he'll also be testifying about how he was exposed [4:29] to classified information from the UAP legacy crash retrieval program through a sensitive position he held [4:39] through a special access program. That's an intriguing one. I think Dylan's case is going to raise some very [4:45] interesting questions about how whistleblowers get treated by the national security state for having [4:51] the courage to come forward. And all credit to him and all the witnesses today for having the [4:56] willingness, the bravery and the patriotism to come forward. The fourth witness today is a friend of [5:04] this show and one of the, I think, most respected journalists in the sphere, George Knapp, the chief [5:11] investigative reporter for KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. He's going to testify about how he came to learn about the [5:20] US's secret crash UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program and how he learned the Russians [5:30] are also doing the same. Looking forward to that one. A lot of us have known about George's Russia [5:37] documents that he managed to sneak out of the Soviet, former Soviet Union in 1993. And I've long [5:44] wanted to hear the full story from George Knapp about his conversations with very senior Russian [5:51] officers about what they uncovered in the secret Soviet Union UAP investigation program that promises [5:59] to be a goodie. And the fifth witness is a guy called Joe Spielberger, a senior policy counsel for the [6:06] project on government oversight. Joe's going to explain what he thinks needs to be done to protect [6:12] whistleblowers and how all too often whistleblowers suffer retaliation and harassment and how if [6:21] Congress wants to restore public faith in the institutions of government, it has to protect [6:27] those witnesses who are willing to come forward to tell the truth. And frankly, at the moment, [6:33] that's just not happening. What else is happening today? Well, Joe Khalil, our News Nation congressional [6:40] correspondent has learned on the Hill that there's a possibility, a probability that there's going to [6:46] be three videos shown today and they are all craft of unknown origin. It's not quite clear how many of [6:54] them have not been seen before, but I'm told by Joe that one of them is being seen publicly for the first [7:00] time. I don't know anything about those videos. So Joe's way ahead of me on this. I'm excited to hear [7:07] more. Megan, it's very easy to be cynical and sceptical, but I guess we have to remind ourselves [7:16] that probably up until two or three years ago, the whole idea of a UAP hearing would have been [7:24] nonsensical. It would have been treated with derision by so many people. And yet, I think this is now the [7:32] fourth hearing since 2022. We've had the 17 May hearing of the Haas Permanent Select Committee on [7:41] Intelligence, where Scott Bray and Ron Moultrie. Scott Bray was the Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence [7:50] for the US Navy. Ron Moultrie was the Undersecretary of Defence for Intelligence and Security. And of course, [7:57] both those guys had their head in the sand, complete ostriches. There are no UAPs, there are [8:02] no aliens, and it's all a load of cobblers. And of course, we know that's complete nonsense, because [8:06] anybody who watches Reality Check knows that there is a government cover-up going on, and that this [8:13] whole process of congressional investigation is a long, slow, painful tooth extraction, getting to the [8:20] truth of what's really going on. We know that that hearing was followed in April 2023 by a Senate Armed [8:28] Services Committee briefing, which was closed. But it involved Q&A with the Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, [8:36] the Arrow Director, another ostrich who has his head very firmly in the sand and has revealed his hand [8:42] very overtly in recent times, along with his former Deputy Tim Phillips. Both men have come out publicly and [8:50] declaimed any proofs about UAPs, basically saying it's all stuff and nonsense. It's quite, I think, [8:58] irresponsible of public officials to come out and make statements like that. I think we're in a situation now [9:04] where the US government is formally admitting that whatever the mystery is, unidentified anomalous phenomena [9:11] are real. And I think Arrow has covered itself in ignominy and mud with the behaviour of its former [9:19] director and deputy director with their constant public posturing and their position statements, [9:25] which essentially are ridiculing the Congress for making these investigations. It's not going to work, [9:31] and judging from the size of the audience that we have on today's program and the volume of interest [9:37] in the ongoing mystery of UAPs, it's not going to go away anyway soon. So just keeping a summary of the [9:45] history, of course, on the 26th of July 2023, the House Oversight Committee subcommittee on national [9:52] security heard evidence in what I think was possibly the most dramatic hearing to date from, of all [9:59] people, David Grush, my friend and colleague who I interviewed with News Nation exclusively on TV in [10:06] June of 2023, who essentially made, I think, the very dramatic allegations that are behind today's [10:14] hearing and every other previous hearing, where he essentially alleged that there is a UAP retrieval [10:20] program and reverse engineering program that has illegally, improperly been kept secret from the [10:26] American public, and most importantly of all, from the oversight agencies of the Congress and the [10:33] oversight agencies of government. He was accompanied by Ryan Graves, a former pilot, jet fighter pilot, who [10:40] witnessed the incidents off the east coast of the USA in 2014, 2015, and now heads Americans for Safe Aerospace. [10:48] And there was also retired Navy Commander David Fravor, who witnessed the 2004 incidents off the west coast of the [10:56] USA. I think that hearing from July 2023 is going to be a hard act to follow. It's going to be [11:02] interesting to see whether today's hearing has the same momentum. Certainly, the level of audience [11:08] interest is substantial. I think also on the 13th of November 2024 is the most recent other hearing, [11:18] previous hearing, the House Oversight Committees, Joint Subcommittees on Cybersecurity, Information [11:24] Technology, Government Information, National Security, the Border and Foreign Affairs. They heard evidence [11:30] from retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Dr. Tim Gallaudet, a former DOD official and friend of mine, Lou Elizondo. [11:38] G'day, Lou. Hope you're watching. Michael Gold, former NASA Associate Administrator and journalist Michael [11:46] Schellenberger. And that was a very interesting hearing. Interestingly enough, because of the allegations of [11:54] Michael Schellenberger, which later led, of course, to the revelations of Matthew Brown and the claims of [12:03] Immaculate Constellation, more details on alleged U.S. government knowledge of retrieval and reverse [12:10] engineering programs. I think today is going to be interesting because a lot of people out there in UAP [12:18] social media commentary land, they're really not going to be happy. There was a very funny statement [12:24] from George Knapp. I've got to pull this out. George, God bless him. He always says things the best. [12:31] He said, the residents of UFO World are a tough crowd. They expect nothing less than for house staffers [12:38] to wheel in a slab with a charred alien body on it or arrange a media tour where we travel to Wright-Patterson [12:47] and kick open the doors to the Blue Room to see the crashed saucers. Well, I, for one, would love to see that. [12:55] And I think most people watching today would love that. What do you reckon, Megan? Do you reckon we're going to see [12:59] any aliens in the hearing room today? I strongly doubt it. [13:02] Lord, that would be the day, Ross. But, you know, I am a Vegas girl. I've got my Vegas Golden Knights mug. [13:09] So I am rooting for George Knapp and some Area 51 information because I grew up on that. [13:15] So I would love to see it. And I am an optimist. But unfortunately, no, I don't think a slab with a [13:21] body is coming out today. I like the way, I like George's way of saying things. Look, I think while [13:28] we've got time, because I can see, as usual, the politicians are taking their time, they're probably [13:33] having their last cups of coffee. While we're waiting for them to come into the hearing, I'm going [13:37] to do some summaries of some of the allegations that are being made by some of these witnesses. [13:42] Dylan Borland, for example, he's a former geospatial intelligence specialist for the [13:48] US Air Force in an active duty enlisted capacity from 2010 to 2013, who also worked for British [13:56] Aerospace Systems and Intrepid Solutions as a senior analyst. So he's the expert in analysing [14:02] video, radar, advanced electro-optical imagery. He is officially a federal whistleblower. He's [14:10] testified to the intelligence community inspector general and ARRO, the all domain anomaly resolution [14:16] office. And frankly, it's quite clear from his evidence in his statement that he has a very dim [14:21] view of both oversight agencies. He says he's got direct firsthand knowledge of and experience with [14:29] craft and technologies that are not ours and reportedly operating without congressional oversight. [14:35] That's a big claim. And because of his direct knowledge of the reality of certain UAP legacy [14:42] programs, he says his professional career was deliberately obstructed and that he's endured [14:48] sustained reprisals from government agencies for more than a decade. And I think this is going to be the [14:55] theme very much of today's show. It's going to focus a lot on how whistleblowers are treated [15:01] and harassed, threatened and intimidated. There are a lot of people I talk to and other investigators [15:10] talk to who are behind in the backdrops, who are working in the legacy program, who quite frankly, [15:17] would like to come forward and feel safe about speaking publicly to Congress or even privately in a [15:23] SCIF in a secure compartmented information facility to give their evidence. They just do not feel safe [15:31] at the moment. And that's why the UAP Disclosure Act... [15:35] The hearing of the Task Force on Declassification and Federal Secrets will come to an order. [15:40] Welcome, everyone. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. [15:45] Additionally, without any objection, the following members are waved onto the task force for the purpose [15:49] of questioning witnesses at today's hearing. Representative Biggs of Arizona, Representative [15:55] Baggich of Alaska, Representative Ogles of Tennessee, Representative Titus of Nevada, [16:00] and Representative Moskowitz of Florida. There are no objections. I recognize myself for the purpose [16:06] of making an opening statement. Good morning and welcome to the hearing regarding UAP disclosures. [16:13] For too long, the issue of unidentified anomalous phenomena, commonly known as UAPs, has been shrouded [16:18] in secrecy, stigma, and in some cases, outright dismissal. Today, I want to state clearly that [16:24] this is not science fiction or creating speculation. This is about national security, government [16:29] accountability, and the American people's right to the truth. I've spoken now to a number of [16:34] whistleblowers from the military to include the infamous Eglin Air Force Base incident that [16:38] occurred when myself and former Representative Matt Gaetz, as well as Representative Burchett, [16:42] followed up on a lead from multiple active duty Air Force pilot whistleblowers that alleged that the [16:46] United States Air Force was covering up UAP activity at Eglin Air Force Base. We have heard [16:52] from a number of whistleblowers, specifically military pilots, that the reason for not coming [16:55] forward publicly is out of fear that speaking out would cost them their flight status and potentially [17:00] their careers. This is unacceptable. We cannot protect our airspaces if our best-trained observers [17:06] are silenced. We cannot advance science if we refuse to ask questions. And we cannot maintain trust in [17:13] government if we keep the American people in the dark. Now, Congress has tried to fix this problem. [17:18] Congress tried to create formal channels through the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, also known [17:24] as Arrow, and the Intelligence Community Inspector General for service members and officials to make [17:29] disclosures. But the reality, the reports come in are often to brush aside, slow walked, or met with [17:35] skepticism rather than serious investigation. Recently, the former Arrow director known as Sean Kilpatrick [17:41] attacked our witnesses and members on this committee. It should be noted that he's a documented liar and [17:46] brings into question what his purpose at Arrow really was if it was not to follow up on investigations [17:51] and disclose his findings to members of Congress. A former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for [17:56] Intelligence, Chris Mellon, described a report published by Arrow that found no evidence that [18:01] any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed any sighting [18:07] of UAP represented extraterrestrial technology. As the most error-ridden and unsatisfactory government [18:15] report I can recall reading during after decades of government service. Mellon further noted that this [18:21] was a first error report submitted to Congress without the Director of National Intelligence's sign-off [18:26] and seemingly excluded input from any scholars or experts who have studied or written exclusively about [18:32] this topic as would normally be in any other case in this field. Mellon determined that this report [18:39] failed to fulfill the congressional mandate under which it was required, omitted entire agencies with [18:44] known investigations or activities related to UAPs, and omitted any discussion of efforts to hide [18:50] classified or unclassified information about UAP. Such efforts were unaddressed by the report despite the [18:57] existence of agency records and investigations concurring with them, including those at U.S. Customs and [19:04] Border Protection. If we set up offices and oversight bodies only to let them become graveyards for [19:10] testimony or, worse yet, ruses for pretending to investigate when in actuality there was no follow-up, [19:15] then we are not doing our jobs. In recent months, Congress has also been presented with evidence that [19:20] points to technologies that, to our knowledge, are beyond our current capabilities. It is our duty as elected [19:26] representatives to follow the facts wherever they lead and to ensure that those facts are not buried [19:30] under classification stamps or bureaucratic excuses. Let me be clear. Whether UAPs represent adversarial [19:36] technology, natural phenomena, or something beyond current human understanding, Congress has a [19:41] responsibility to investigate. If these objects are foreign in origin, then they pose a direct threat to [19:47] our national security. And if they represent something unknown, they demand rigorous scientific inquiry, [19:52] not ridicule, not secrecy, and not silence. The stakes are very high. Adversarial nations are not [19:57] waiting for us to catch up. They are studying these phenomena as well aggressively, as multiple [20:03] nations have also announced their own parliamentary investigations into this very topic. If we are to [20:09] continue to hide information from ourselves, we risk strategic surprise. If we continue to ignore [20:14] our pilots and service members, as well as countless government whistleblowers, we risk losing their trust. [20:19] And if we continue to shield the truth from the public, we risk eroding the very foundation of [20:24] democratic accountability. This is why this hearing matters. This is not about fueling speculation. [20:30] This is about demanding the basic transparency from the Department of Defense and the intelligence [20:34] community and other military contractors. It is about asking the questions every American has the right [20:40] to ask. What do we know? What don't we know? And why in a free society are we being told so little? [20:47] A major barrier to this committee's inquiry into UAPs has been the lack of cooperation and [20:52] transparency from the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. In preparation for previous [20:57] UAP hearings, the committee repeatedly asked the Department of Defense to allow members to view [21:02] videos and files related to UAP incidences. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense notified [21:07] the committee staff that due to the department's special access program rules, only members of the [21:12] House Armed Service Committee, as well as the Defense Subcommittee on House Appropriations, also known as HACD, [21:18] were allowed to be read in onto such programs. For a non-committee member to be allowed to view these [21:23] documents and videos, individual members must be approved by the chairman and ranking member of [21:28] both HACD and HACD. Independent staff oversight has presented a consistent problem for Congress as [21:34] well as program budgets are classified. Additionally, oversight reporting to Congress is classified and [21:39] only provided to the authorizing and appropriations committees of jurisdiction. The American people are not [21:45] fragile. They do not need to be shielded like children from reality. What they cannot tolerate [21:50] and what they will not forgive is a government that withholds the truth and punishes those who [21:54] dare to speak up. I want to close with this. Future generations will look back at this moment and ask what [22:00] we did when presented with the unknown. Did we look away, embarrassed or afraid, or did we pursue the truth [22:06] with courage? I intend to be on the side of truth, transparency, and accountability, and I hope my [22:11] colleagues on this task force will be able to do the same. To quote a few elected officials, Senator [22:17] Schumer has stated multiple credible sources allege a constitutional crisis over UFOs. Senator Rounds has [22:24] stated that these are brilliant individuals and they are not making this stuff up. And our current [22:29] Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated very high clearances and high positions within our government [22:34] in regards to these whistleblowers. Senator McConnell also described these whistleblowers as saying [22:40] incredible. And the witnesses today are not alone. In fact, they're far from it. In fact, 34 senior [22:46] military government and intelligent officials have broken their silence. This includes Senator, Senator [22:51] or now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Senator Rounds, Senator Gillibrand, General Jim Clapper, the former [22:57] Director of the Government's UAP Task Force, the former Head of Aviation Security for the White House [23:03] National Security Council, the former Secretary of Defense, and many more. Again, to quote Senator [23:09] Rubio, um, Secretary of State Rubio in an upcoming documentary known as the Age of Disclosure, [23:14] even presidents have been operating on a need-to-know basis that begins to spin out of control. And to [23:19] quote Senator Gillibrand, who also went public in this documentary, it's not acceptable to have secret [23:24] parts of this government that no one ever sees. It's time for the fundamental truths of UAP to be real [23:29] for nations, leaders, and the public. It's time for this government to exercise transparency. And with that, [23:34] I yield to Ranking Member Crockett for the opening. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. At a time of [23:41] increasing distrust in government, it is important for Congress to take action to restore the [23:47] government's credibility. Bringing transparency to an issue of great public interest is a step [23:53] toward doing just that. So I thank Chairwoman Luna for calling this bipartisan hearing to discuss [23:59] unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAP, which is today's term for what was commonly known as UFOs, [24:08] unidentified flying objects. And while some people think of flying saucers when they hear these terms, [24:14] it is vital that we focus on the real world impact of UAPs on critical infrastructure, civilian safety, [24:22] and national security. There is good reason to believe that most UAPs have origins far closer to [24:29] home. Currently, NASA has not found any evidence that any UAPs have an extraterrestrial origin. [24:37] Our adversaries are working to develop new capabilities to gain military advantages, [24:43] and those efforts are likely explanation for the mysteries that we have observed. Nevertheless, [24:51] the federal government has a responsibility to the American people to investigate [24:55] and provide transparent disclosures about every incident. The federal government is equally [25:01] obligated to protect those who report what they've seen, especially to commanding officers and [25:08] supervisors. And Congress should do everything in its power to protect whistleblowers and conduct [25:13] oversight of agencies that are failing to provide that protection. Democracy depends on transparency, [25:20] and transparency often relies on the courage of individuals willing to risk their careers, [25:26] reputations, and in some cases, their personal safety to tell the truth. So I look forward to [25:32] hearing from the witnesses today. We should welcome their accounts and acknowledge the bravery [25:37] they have shown to come before us. We must ensure that all whistleblowers feel that they can come to [25:44] Congress to tell their stories without fear of retaliation or professional consequences. [25:49] We need transparency not just to make better policy, but also to ensure that information flows between [25:56] all those who need it. There are too many tragic examples in our history where information lapses [26:03] and a lack of cross-agency coordination led to disaster. Just this year, failure to communicate [26:10] between FAA and the Department of Defense led to tragedy over the Potomac. The Biden-Harris [26:17] administration sought to eliminate some of these lapses when it established the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution [26:24] Office at the Department of Defense. Arrow can convene sources from all branches of military, [26:31] the FAA, and NASA to combine forces to create a comprehensive picture of what is happening in our skies. [26:39] Some UAP reports have perfectly normal explanations. Satellites, consumer drones, weather balloons, [26:47] even pranks. We need to track down each and every single UAP. The United States has millions of eyes [26:55] in the sky, both electronic and human. But only the combination of civilian, commercial, and military [27:02] sources can begin to create a complete picture. So we need to ensure that people can come forward and [27:09] report what they have seen to the relevant authorities. And they have to have the right to do so without [27:15] fear of retaliation. This country has a history of dedicated public servants standing up for what is [27:21] right, even in the face of potential consequences. From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate to torture programs, [27:29] whistleblowers have not only informed the public, but also empowered Congress to fulfill its constitutional [27:36] duty of oversight. Past Congresses have written laws to grant legal protection for whistleblowers, [27:43] and it is up to us to work responsibly with all sources to hold the executive branch accountable. [27:50] We are here today to listen to the stories of those who have witnessed events of interest to the American [27:57] people and to support the policies that cultivate an environment that welcomes and protects [28:02] whistleblowers. I hope this hearing will be an example of the respect and protection whistleblowers deserve [28:10] and the importance of conducting oversight of the federal government. I yield back. [28:17] I am pleased to welcome the panel of witnesses for today's hearing. I'd first like to welcome Mr. Jeffrey [28:23] Nusitelli. He's a United States Air Force veteran and a career federal employee with more than 20 years of [28:29] experience in national security, law enforcement, and public administration. Next, we have Mr. Alex [28:37] Alexandra Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins is currently serving as a Senior Chief Operations Specialist in the United [28:42] States Navy. Mr. Wiggins is testifying in his personal capacity today and not on behalf of the United [28:47] States Navy. Next, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Nevada, Representative Titus. [28:54] Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Ranking Members, for allowing me to sit with you on this panel today. [28:59] I'm honored to be able to introduce a witness here who is from my district, George Knapp, who has been the [29:07] definitive expert and reporter on this topic that you're exploring today, UAPs or UFOs. George is a [29:17] longtime friend, I would say that up front, but a very respected journalist and a recognized expert in this [29:24] field nationally and internationally. Just a little something about George. He came to Las Vegas in 1979 [29:33] and joined the KLS television station as a general assignment reporter in 1981. Since 1995, he's been the [29:42] chief investigative reporter for that channel. He also hosts a national radio show you can listen to on [29:49] Coast to Coast to Coast AM, which covers many of the paranormal topics that y'all are discussing. [29:55] Over the years, George has been, as I said, recognized for his work. He's been honored with the Peabody [30:02] Award, the DuPont Award, the Edward Murrow Award, and 27 different regional Emmys for his investigative [30:11] reporting. Indeed, he has told Nevada's story with clarity, with objectivity, and with integrity. [30:21] So I know that his testimony today is going to be of great interest and value to this committee. So thank [30:28] you very much. Next, we have Mr. Dylan Borland. Mr. Borland is United States Air Force veteran and has a long [30:35] career in federal service. And finally, I'd like to introduce Mr. Joe Spielberger, a senior policy counsel [30:42] at the Project of Government Oversight. Pursuant to Committee Rule 9-G, the witnesses will please [30:49] stand and raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony that you're [30:59] about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and the nothing but the truth of a healthy God? [31:05] Let the record show that the witnesses answered in affirmative. Thank you. You may take your seat. [31:13] We appreciate you being here today and I look forward to hearing your testimony. Let me remind the [31:17] witnesses that we have read your written statements and it will appear in full in the hearing record. [31:23] Please limit your oral statements to five minutes, but I understand you have a lot to get through, [31:26] so if it goes a little over, don't worry. As a reminder, please press the button on the [31:30] microphone in front of you so that it is on and the members can hear you. When you begin to speak, [31:36] the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow, [31:39] and when the red light comes on, your five minutes have expired and we will ask you to please wrap it up. [31:44] I now recognize Mr. Nusitelli for his opening statement. [31:48] Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Crockett, and members of the task force [31:57] for giving us the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jeffrey Nusitelli. I'm a former military [32:04] police officer with 16 years of active duty service in the U.S. Air Force. I'm here today because the [32:10] American people have both the right and the responsibility to know the truth about unidentified [32:16] aerial phenomenon. That truth remains hidden, classified and silenced by fear, retaliation, [32:23] stigma, and confusion. Today, we are here to help break that silence. Between 2003 and 2005, [32:32] five UAP incidents occurred at Vandenberg Air Force Base, home to the National Missile Defense Project, [32:39] a top national security priority. At the time, we were conducting launches deemed by the National [32:45] Reconnaissance Office as the most important in 25 years. These were historic launches. These facilities [32:53] were vital and they were repeatedly visited by UAP. Each incident was witnessed by multiple personnel, [33:02] documented, investigated, and reported up the chain of command. We sent information up, but we got no [33:09] guidance down on how to handle these events. I personally witnessed one of these events and [33:15] investigated others as they occurred. Six other service members have provided me with the information [33:21] that I will share with you today. The incursions began on October 14, 2003, when Boeing contractors [33:30] reported a massive glowing red square silently hovering over two missile defense sites. After several [33:37] minutes, it drifted further east onto the base and vanished over the hills. This event, now known as the [33:43] Vandenberg Red Square was referenced by Representative Luna at the first hearing on this topic. Official Air [33:51] Force records of this event are in possession by Arrow and the FBI. Later that night, while I was on duty, [34:01] security guards at a critical launch site reported a bright, fast-moving object over the ocean. I [34:07] responded to the incident. Chaos ensued over the radio as the object approached rapidly. I heard my friends [34:14] screaming, it's coming right at us, it's coming right for us, and now it's right here. Moments [34:21] later, I heard them say that it had shot off and was gone. When I arrived on scene, I talked to five shaken [34:28] witnesses who described a massive triangular craft larger than a football field that hovered silently for [34:34] about 45 seconds over their entry control point before shooting away at impossible speed. About a week later, [34:43] another patrol reported a light over the ocean behaving erratically. Believing it might be an [34:48] unannounced aircraft, they declared an emergency and an armed response force responded. Before the [34:56] forces could arrive, the object descended and either landed or hovered on our flight line and then took off [35:03] again at impossible speed. The witnesses to this event were threatened and intimidated afterward. They were [35:14] told to keep quiet and think about what they were reporting. After that, things did get quiet until [35:21] about 2005 when another patrol reported a massive triangular craft larger than a C-130 silently floating over [35:32] the installation. He watched it for a few minutes. He traveled west and disappeared into the night. And then [35:39] I had my own encounter again in 2005. I was off duty sitting in my backyard with two other police officers [35:47] when we noticed what first appeared to be a satellite in orbit, but it wasn't acting like a satellite. [35:52] The light was strange. It was pulsing and then it started to maneuver, dropped in elevation. At times it [35:59] would vanish from view and reappear in a different location in the sky. And eventually it reappeared 200 feet [36:06] over my house. It was a 30-foot diameter sphere of light. My friends and I watched it for a moment and [36:14] then it gently accelerated and traveled up and disappeared into the stars. These events profoundly [36:22] changed my life and the lives of my friends. We stand at a pivotal moment in history. The question is [36:28] no longer whether these events are real, but whether we have the courage to face them. True leadership [36:35] requires vision, a willingness to confront the unknown with transparency and resolve. So I ask the Congress [36:42] to help we the people enact this vision. There are three goals. Fund independent research and treat UAP [36:50] study with the same seriousness as we would any other scientific field. Two, end secrecy and over [36:57] classification. Transparency is the foundation of truth. Without it, witnesses like us are dismissed. [37:06] Three, protect the witnesses. Many stay silent out of fear for their careers, reputations, [37:13] and the safety of their families. Protect them and you will embolden others to join this cause. These [37:21] phenomenon challenge our deepest assumptions about reality, consciousness, and our place in the universe. [37:28] Exploring them can unlock transformative breakthroughs in technology, biology, and human [37:33] understanding. Let this be the moment when America chooses courage over fear, transparency over secrecy, [37:42] and progress over stagnation. Let's show the world that our nation leads not only through strength, [37:48] but through fearless pursuit of the truth. Thank you. [37:53] Thank you, Mr. Nusitelli. That was a strong statement from Jeff Nusitelli. [38:01] I now recognize Chief Wiggins for his opening statement. Please press your button. Thank you. [38:11] Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Crockett, and members of the task force and the committee. [38:19] Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Alexandre Wiggins. I'm an active duty [38:25] U.S. Navy Operations Specialist, Senior Chief Petty Officer, father of three, and dedicated American [38:31] testifying today in my personal capacity. The views I share are my own and I do not represent the [38:38] official positions of the Department of the Navy or any subordinate organization. On the evening of [38:45] February 15, 2023 at approximately 1915 PST in the Whiskey 291 warning area off the coast of Southern [38:56] California, I was serving on board USS Jackson. During that period, I moved between the Interior [39:05] Communications Center, ICC-1, and the bridge wing, correlating the sensor picture with visual [39:11] observations, part of my routine responsibilities for surface and air picture management. What I observed [39:19] and what our crew recorded was not consistent with conventional aircraft or drones as they appear [39:26] on our system. A self-luminous tic-tac-shaped object emerged from the ocean before linking up with three [39:35] other similar objects. The four then disappeared simultaneously with a high synchronized near [39:43] instantaneous acceleration. I observed no sonic boom and no conventional propulsion signatures, no exhaust plume, [39:53] no control surface articulation on the sapphire image system. Shortly after the synchronized [39:59] departure, radar tracks dropped. These observations were multi-sensor and recorded inside of ICC-1, [40:08] with time location overlay visible in our source frames that have been made public by journalists. [40:16] From my experience operating in this region over many years, and consistent with our public [40:24] characterized encounters, unidentified objects reoccur in United States operation areas off Southern [40:31] California. That fact alone does not tell us what they are, but it does argue the systematic stigma-free [40:41] reporting and for the preservation of sensor data so analysts can evaluate safe and intelligence [40:48] implications with rigor. I want to underscore three points for the task force and the committee. [40:57] Aviation and maritime safety. When crews and watchstanders observe objects that maneuver or accelerate in [41:06] ways that does not match known profiles and do not then do so near our ships and aircraft, [41:13] that is first and foremost a safety issue. Standardized checklist and training should ensure [41:21] we capture the best possible sensor data in real time, including IR settings, slant range estimates, [41:29] and bearing and range altitude snapshots, and immediate chain of custody for any recordings. Reporting without [41:37] stigma. Protection without retribution. Sailors need to know that reporting UAP encounters will not harm [41:45] their careers. Congress can help by reinforcing witness protection and by directing the relevant office [41:54] to maintain confidential destigmatized channels for service members who step forward with data. [42:01] Declassification and transparency where possible. The task force declassification mission is directly [42:08] relevant here where operational security permits releasing metadata preserved sensor excerpts or at [42:16] least technical summaries would improve public trust and accelerate outside scientific scrutiny. [42:26] That includes, when feasible, the time geo reference IR frames and radar parameters needed for [42:31] independent analysis. To be clear, I am not here to make claims beyond my lane. I am here to provide a [42:39] first-hand account of what I saw, what our systems recorded, and why it matters for safety, for [42:48] intelligence, and public confidence. My request to you is practical. Help us capture, protect, fairly [42:56] evaluate the evidence, and provide a safe pathway for those in uniform to report it. In closing, I want to [43:05] thank the committee and the task force for holding this hearing and for placing this discussion in a form [43:12] where evidence can be examined carefully and openly. I appreciate your attention and stand ready to [43:18] answer your questions. Thank you, Chief. I now recognize Mr. Knapp for his opening statement. [43:30] Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member, Ms. Crockett, and members of the task force. And Dina [43:38] Titus, I just knew we were going to get you involved in this topic at one point. Great to see you here. [43:42] I'm George Knapp, chief investigator reporter at KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. I began my pursuit of this [43:48] weird mystery way back in 1987. And for 38 years, I've always approached this as a news story. It's [43:55] 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 [44:01] alongside these witnesses today, men who have seen strange things and stepped forward to tell the world [44:09] about it. Whistleblowers and witnesses who step up are routinely insulted, belittled, or worse. They [44:16] risk their reputations, their careers, their clearances, their livelihoods, and sometimes [44:22] much more than that, even their freedom. I know that one of the goals of the task force here is [44:28] to figure out ways to protect whistleblowers and witnesses. And it's a tall order because so many of [44:33] the things that happen to witnesses like these are extra legal. They're carried out by persons unknown. [44:39] As Mr. Dave Grush, sitting up at the top of the room, knows all too well, including events in recent [44:45] days that have happened to him. I want to share a couple of things that I've learned along the way on [44:50] this long journey. And I submitted most of that in written form because I estimate that my statement [44:55] here today would take about four and a half hours. So I'm going to try to jump over and touch on the more [45:00] important salient points. I submitted the detailed written statement for the record and won't go into a [45:06] a lot of that here. But the public has been told over and over since the late 40s, there's nothing [45:12] to worry about here. These mysterious craft seen by millions of people in the skies, in the oceans, [45:18] over the land, are not real. They're not a threat. The witnesses are wrong. They're crackpots. Don't [45:25] believe it. That changed for me. What got me hooked is the paper trail, documents that were squeezed out of [45:31] the U.S. government after the FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, became the law of the land. And [45:37] those documents paint a much different picture than what the public, the press, and Congress have [45:41] been told over many years. The documents from military and intelligence personnel behind closed [45:48] doors admit that, quote, these things are real. They're not fictitious. They can fly in formation. [45:53] They're evasive. And they outperform any aircraft known to exist, including ours. The public, of course, [45:59] as I said, has been told something much different. Now, back in 1989, I reported about a guy named [46:05] Bob Lazar, who claimed that he worked at a facility dubbed S-4 out in the Nevada desert, [46:10] very near to Area 51. He said he was part of a reverse engineering program. He said there are alien [46:16] craft that will be taken apart to figure out how they operated out there. And that was a pretty tall [46:21] order. I had clearly taken a dive into the deep end of the pool there. But in the years since then, [46:25] I've interviewed dozens of other people. And I've detailed what their testimony has been in the [46:30] written statement. They include Senator Harry Reid, Senator Howard Cannon, also of Nevada, [46:35] a guy named Al O'Donnell, who was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada, which managed the Nevada [46:41] test site, which blew up hundreds of nuclear weapons. There's a guy named Dr. James Lekatsky, [46:47] who was a career scientist with the Defense Intelligence Agency, who was the guy who initiated a [46:52] program called OSAP, Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, which is, as far as [46:58] we know, the largest acknowledged UFO program ever funded by the U.S. government, which put together [47:04] an amazing pile of information that members of this committee and the world, most of which they [47:10] have never seen. The DIA still hasn't released 95 percent of what was prepared by that program [47:17] at a cost of millions and millions of dollars. The one name I do want to bring up in this section, [47:24] session, though, is Robert Bigelow. So looking into the idea of crash retrievals and reverse engineering, [47:30] while at OSAP, that program was active, the DIA's contractor, Robert Bigelow of Las Vegas, [47:36] made a bold attempt to acquire physical proof of UFO crashes. It's been widely reported and suspected [47:42] that Lockheed Martin is one of the contractors, the defense contractors, that has held this stuff, [47:47] stored it away in secrecy, and tried to figure out how it works. I have confirmed on the record [47:56] that Robert Bigelow and a trusted colleague from OSAP met with and negotiated with senior executives [48:02] at Lockheed Martin and hammered out a deal wherein Bigelow's company, Bass, would receive a quantity of [48:09] unusual material that had been stashed away and protected at a facility in California. That material was [48:15] not made here. I want to move on now to the Russia files, because that was going to be sort of the central [48:21] impetus of what I was going to talk to you about today. Back in the early 90s, [48:24] I got into Russia, met with a number of their defense officials, Ministry of Defense and others, [48:30] who confirmed for me that Russia had been doing the same thing that the United States had been doing, [48:35] that is, secretly studying UFOs while publicly saying something completely different. The documents [48:42] and interviews that I obtained and have now shared with this task force show that the USSR launched what [48:47] is almost certainly the largest UFO, UAP investigation in the world. The first phase of [48:53] that was an order was sent out to the entire USSR military empire that every unit you see anything [49:01] strange in the sky, a craft, an orb, something unusual, you had to gather all the evidence, [49:06] collect testimony from the witnesses, look for physical evidence, and all of that information went into [49:12] one program at the Ministry of Defense. Thousands and thousands of these reports came in. A lot of [49:18] them were first routed to the KGB, but then back to another program that came after this collection [49:24] effort called Thread 3. Thread 3 was an analysis program. We provided to the committee the documents [49:30] of what they were trying to do. Essentially, they were trying to build their own UFOs. They were using the [49:35] information from their observations and studies to try to figure out the technology. The guy who was in charge of [49:40] that program, Colonel Boris Sokolov told me that their goal was to basically develop technology that [49:48] would be superior to anything we had based on what they learned from UFOs. Mr. Knapp, just in the name [49:54] of time, to my understanding, did you have anything you wanted to submit for Congress? I have submitted [50:01] those documents. Would you like to play any videos? Do you have a video that you would like to play? I don't [50:06] think it's for me to play it. Yeah. Alexander's video. Okay. You can play it. He can narrate it. Okay. [50:14] We can, in the name of showing that video to everyone on Task Force, we'd like to play that video at this time. [50:19] Sure. So this is the video from the USS Roosevelt. [50:57] That took off earlier. We can get rid of the audio real quick. Mr. Wiggins and Mr. Knapp, we'll get back to [51:09] 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 [51:14] the documents, those will be able to be publicly found for everyone in the country to view. [51:18] If we could, Mr. Knapp, we'll continue on the line of questioning, but I'm going to move on to Mr. [51:22] Borland's opening statement. Good morning, members of the task force and the committee. I would like [51:29] to express my gratitude for being invited to testify to the current task force created under the People's [51:34] Chamber and the American public. As an American citizen, veteran, and intelligence community [51:40] professional, it is an honor and a privilege to serve under oath before you on behalf of our country. [51:45] I speak for myself and no former agency or company I have been previously affiliated with. [51:51] My name is Dylan Borland, a former one in one geospatial intelligence specialist for the United [51:56] States Air Force and an active duty enlisted capacity from 2010 to 2013. I've also been [52:02] employed with BAE Systems and Intrepid Solutions as a senior analyst expert in analyzing video radar and [52:09] advanced electro optical imagery for official identification of aerial order of battle, as well as [52:14] naval and ground order of battle. I'm a federal whistleblower having testified to both the ICIG and [52:21] Arrow with direct first-hand knowledge of and experience with craft and technologies that are [52:25] not ours and are reportedly operating without congressional oversight. Because of my direct [52:31] knowledge of the reality of certain legacy UAP programs, my professional career was deliberately [52:36] obstructed and I have endured sustained reprisals from government agencies for over a decade. [52:43] From 2011 to 2013, I was stationed at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, conducting 24-hour operations [52:50] via manned and unmanned aerial vehicles for Special Operations Forces and the Global War on Terror. [52:55] During the summer of 2012, my team was on standby for weather and I returned to my barracks on base [53:00] and at approximately 0130, I saw an approximately 100-foot equilateral triangle take off from near the [53:07] NASA hangar on the base. The craft interfered with my telephone, did not have any sound, and the material it [53:14] was made of appeared fluid or dynamic. I was under this triangular craft for a few minutes and then [53:21] it rapidly ascended to commercial jet level in seconds displaying zero kinetic disturbance sound [53:26] or wind displacement. Some years after that experience, I was further exposed to classified [53:31] information from the UAP legacy crash retrieval program through a sensitive position I held within [53:36] a special access program. During this time, intelligence officers approached me in fear for their own [53:41] careers, citing misconduct within these programs and similar retaliation that I was already enduring at this [53:47] time. These issues include medical malpractice committed by Veterans Affairs staff, denial of [53:54] work I performed while enlisted in the United States Air Force, forged and manipulated employment documents, [53:59] workplace harassment including colleagues being directed to not speak with me, manipulation of my [54:03] security clearance by certain agencies blocking, delaying, and ultimately removing my ability to be [54:09] employed within the IC. The retaliation I face and the retaliation against individuals I know who worked in [54:17] these programs is what convinced me in March 2023 to become a whistleblower. I came forward out of [54:22] concern for people's lives and to ensure I did everything I could to let our elected representatives [54:26] know the truth about what is really happening in the executive branch. At the end of March 2023, [54:33] I agreed to meet with Arrow following the suggestion of other federal officials believing it was what our [54:38] nation required of me. I had reservations with Arrow due to assessments they were reporting publicly at the [54:44] time as a misrepresentation of the truth. Because of these concerns, I did not share sources and methods [54:50] information in order to protect current and formal federal personnel who had first-hand exposure to [54:56] technologies of unknown origin. I did not want anyone to face further retaliation beyond what they had [55:01] already endured and unfortunately a staff member ended up getting in some trouble because of that. [55:08] After David Grush testified under oath in the summer of 2023 and provided historic disclosure, I was then [55:14] asked to go to the ICIG and did so in August 2023. It was very clear early on during my intake interview [55:21] which was video recorded under oath that the objective was to solely assess how much I know and [55:27] not move forward with an investigation with new information I provided them. The aftermath of that IG [55:33] complaint still troubles me to this day. Since my ICIG complaint, I've been prevented from resuming prior [55:39] employment and can confirm I'm still blacklisted from certain agencies within the intelligence community. [55:44] In addition, multiple agencies attempted phishing attacks to assess what I had divulged to the [55:49] Inspector General, including being asked to disclose details of my ICIG complaint during a CI [55:54] polygraph for a position unrelated to UFO UAP matters as recently as November 2024. As I sit before you [56:02] today, I and many other whistleblowers have no job prospects, no foreseeable professional future in a [56:08] nation every single one of us came forward to defend. Numerous individuals have come forward in various [56:14] ways to reveal the truth of the UAP reality as patriots and defenders of our nation, yet many feel [56:19] discarded, isolated, hopeless, separated from the country they serve. Efforts to rectify this situation [56:25] for all whistleblowers have been difficult and troubling, and to my fellow whistleblowers and [56:30] officials who know this information, I offer you my apology, something that I have never gotten, [56:37] and I'm giving it to you. I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, an oath that [56:43] demands truth and transparency for our democratic republic to function. Each day, these truths remain [56:49] hidden from our citizens. Humanity drifts further from the principles our nation was founded to uphold. [56:55] Each day, victims of crimes committed by agencies and companies maintaining this secrecy or deny [57:00] justice is another day our Constitution is shredded. In 2023, patriots provided this committee and the [57:07] executive branch with undeniable proof of the UAP reality, and I commend your continued commitment. The future of [57:14] humanity is one which we either travel to the stars or regress to the stone age with this technology. [57:20] My career has been to deliver critical information to decision makers. Your role as elected by your [57:26] representatives is to act on it. Time to act is now. Thank you. That is a very strong delivery from Dylan Borland. [57:39] Mr. Borland, thank you for your service to our country. We appreciate you, and we are sorry about how [57:57] you've been treated, and we will make sure that we try to rectify that. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Spielberger, [58:03] please your opening remarks. Chairwoman Luna, ranking member Crockett, and task force members, [58:10] thank you for the opportunity to testify here today about the importance of strengthening [58:14] whistleblower protections, especially in the context of national security. I am a senior policy [58:20] counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan independent watchdog organization that [58:26] investigates and exposes waste, corruption, abuse of power, and when the government fails to serve [58:31] the public or silences those who report wrongdoing. Whistleblowers are the first line of defense to [58:37] root out waste, fraud, abuse of power, and corruption in our government. Congress relies on whistleblowers [58:43] so that it can fully exercise its oversight and legislative authorities. It's understandable that former [58:50] presidents of both parties have often taken a hostile approach toward whistleblowers. Their disclosures [58:56] can embarrass the president and their political party or even lead to a national scandal. But whistleblowers [59:02] continue to play a vital role during both Democratic and Republican administrations. They help Congress [59:09] and the public identify and understand what government corruption looks like. Their disclosures fuel [59:15] investigations and allow us to address wrongdoing and hold those responsible to account. That's why [59:21] historically there's been a strong bipartisan consensus in Congress to support and protect [59:27] whistleblowers. Doing so protects the country and ensures our government is more responsive and [59:33] accountable to the people. National security whistleblowing in particular is a tradition going back to [59:39] the founding of our country and over time national security whistleblowers and their disclosures have [59:45] impacted some of the most fundamental issues and questions about how we wish to be governed and how our [59:51] government can better serve its people. From the role the U.S. plays around the world, the holding powerful actors [59:57] accountable, government ethics and transparency, human rights and civil liberties, executive branch [1:00:03] authority, first amendment freedoms of speech and dissent, freedom of the press, and the public's interest [1:00:09] and right to know. Despite this invaluable public service, blowing the whistle comes at great personal [1:00:16] risk. Whistleblowers risk losing their jobs, careers, livelihoods, and reputations. They can face retaliatory [1:00:23] investigations, lawsuits, and even serious criminal charges, and they can endure deep mental, emotional, [1:00:30] and psychological harm. All of that risk to speak the truth, to ensure that agencies fulfill their core [1:00:37] missions, and that they serve the best interests of the people. Those who retaliate against whistleblowers [1:00:43] don't just violate their legal rights, they inflict real harm on our government and betray the public's trust. [1:00:50] Targeting whistleblowers instead of the corruption they expose wastes agency resources and further [1:00:56] allows that corruption to continue unaddressed. It can instill a chilling effect across an agency, [1:01:02] fostering a climate of fear and distrust, quieting dissent and free speech, and deterring potential [1:01:09] whistleblowers from coming forward in the future. Whistleblowers are often some of the most dedicated and [1:01:17] principled public servants we have because of their willingness to put themselves on the line to do [1:01:22] what's right. And Congress has historically supported them again on a bipartisan basis, but unfortunately [1:01:29] whistleblowing has increasingly become more politicized with support for whistleblowers often hinging on which [1:01:36] party is in power and which party is politically inconvenienced by the misconduct being exposed. [1:01:42] But to be clear, targeting whistleblowers individually risks undermining whistleblowing period. [1:01:49] POGO advises members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to focus on the evidence, not the individual. [1:01:56] We will always need whistleblowers to achieve the government that best serves its people. [1:02:01] Because when people of conscience, integrity, and good character refuse to speak up out of fear, [1:02:07] complacency, or self-preservation, and leave corruption to fester behind closed doors, [1:02:13] that is probably the most dangerous risk of all. If we are serious about increasing government [1:02:19] transparency and restoring the public's trust, we need public servants committed to the truth. [1:02:24] Whistleblowers need safe and effective channels to make lawful disclosures. They need stronger [1:02:30] protections against retaliation. And when they do face retaliation, they need a fair shot to be made whole. [1:02:37] Congress has made strides to pass whistleblower legislation, and these laws need to be updated and [1:02:42] expanded so that whistleblowers truly receive the protections they need, retaliators are held [1:02:48] accountable, and we can achieve the type of government the people deserve. We strongly urge Congress to [1:02:54] continue its historic tradition of championing the rights and protections of all whistleblowers. [1:03:00] Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here this morning. POGO is committed to working with [1:03:04] you and the Oversight Committee to address these critical issues. I look forward to any questions. [1:03:10] Thank you, sir, very much. Additionally, without objection, the following members are waved onto [1:03:20] the task force for the purpose of questioning witnesses at today's hearing. Representative Perry [1:03:25] of Pennsylvania and Representative Grothman of Wisconsin. Sorry, what is it? Representative Biggs [1:03:32] from Arizona. I already got you, but yeah, we're good. Without objection, so ordered, I now recognize myself [1:03:38] for five minutes of questioning. Also, as my friend Mr. Moskowitz might have to go, [1:03:46] would you like to go? All right. Mr. Borland, in your testimony, you described witnessing large [1:03:53] triangular craft ball station at Langley Air Force Base in 2012. Can you explain what you observed in [1:03:59] terms of size behavior and why you're confident it was not conventional technology? Great question, [1:04:04] ma'am. So on barracks, on the base, I lived in the barracks. There was a little smoke hit outside. I was [1:04:10] there on the telephone and looking across to the flight line, and I see a white light pop up and stop about [1:04:17] 100 feet in the air. I thought it was a weather balloon. I've seen tests from there before, [1:04:22] a weeknight, you know, normal thing, not surprising. I actually finished my cigarette and I began walking [1:04:30] up towards the flight line. There is a track, and because I was on three months of night work, [1:04:35] I began, I would walk the track at night when we were weathered down. And as I began walking towards the [1:04:41] light, towards the flight line and the track, the light then flies across the base, across the flight [1:04:46] line. And as it flies to me, a triangle manifests around the light. I can't tell you if it's active [1:04:53] camouflage. I can't tell you if it appeared around the light, but I can tell you that it was a white [1:04:58] light and then it was a triangle. It stopped about 100 feet in front of me and approximately 100 feet [1:05:04] above me. My telephone got extremely hot, completely froze, dead. I remember how thick it was. It was [1:05:12] between one to two stories thick, equilateral triangle. I could never see the top of it and the edges were [1:05:18] 90 degrees. There were four lights in total, one light on each corner and a larger light in the center, [1:05:28] two to three times the size of the corner lights. But what was really odd was the outside, the best way to [1:05:35] describe it is like looking at a James Webb telescope picture where you have the colors and then the black [1:05:41] background. So the craft itself was this black metallic flake paint. But on top of the craft was this [1:05:48] gold, lava, plasma, some type of fluid going over and around the craft. I'm under this for about two [1:05:57] to three minutes. And then the center light flashes two to three times, no sound, immediately shoots up to [1:06:04] commercial jet level minimum, in my opinion. And I immediately feel static electricity all over my body. [1:06:11] And then I smell the smell of after a thunderstorm or lightning storm, that really strong summer [1:06:17] thunderstorm smell gets up to flight level. I'm trying to get my phone reset and I can only see [1:06:24] the center light at this point. If I didn't actually see it take off, I would have thought it was a star. [1:06:29] And then it hovers up there and it begins to slowly move due east out over the Atlantic Ocean. [1:06:35] I finally got my phone reset. The entire thing was about from the time I saw the light pop up [1:06:40] near the hangar until it took off out over the ocean was about 15 minutes. [1:06:46] And following up to that question, after you disclose this information to the intelligence [1:06:49] community inspector general, you're subject to phishing attempts and job blacklisting. How [1:06:55] widespread do you think this is across the intelligence community for those who raise [1:06:58] concerns regarding UAP programs? It's a difficult question to answer. I think prior to David Grosh and [1:07:05] people beginning this process of bringing people into awareness of the reality of these programs and [1:07:12] certain things people have witnessed are probably extremely widespread. I think today there's still [1:07:19] an issue, but because people are able to come before you and people are speaking out, I think it has been [1:07:26] somewhat less. I would hope though that people would because if this goes back into closed doors, this is [1:07:33] going to get really ugly. What type of behavior have you witnessed from former Arrow director Sean [1:07:38] Kilpatrick as well as his staff and relate to this information you provided to them? Did they ever try to [1:07:43] classify this information as non-human technology? Good question. The problem with this is that I know [1:07:51] what I experienced firsthand. I know other things. I think the staff at Arrow that I met with in March of [1:07:58] 2023, I think they were good people doing the job they were told to do. I did not meet with Kirkpatrick. [1:08:06] He was either not present or did not want to meet me that day. However, they did classify information [1:08:12] about the reality of this subject. And it was very concerning because in my Arrow MFR, they had [1:08:23] actually referenced a former staff member that was the one who told me to go there and they probably [1:08:30] shouldn't have done that. And real quick before my time is up and we might go to second round of [1:08:34] questioning just so you're all aware. How important, given everything that you've seen and experience, [1:08:38] is the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 in restoring both public accountability and trust? I think very [1:08:45] important. I would hope though that the seven-year window could be shrunk, my opinion, but very [1:08:51] important. The truth needs to be known. Thank you very much. I now recognize Jared Moskowitz of Florida. [1:08:59] Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for allowing me to wave on to the committee. I remember the last [1:09:09] committee when we had a bunch of former military personnel folks that either served on bases, were [1:09:17] pilots, or were in different programs experiencing knowledge. It made me recognize that the narrative [1:09:25] has changed, right? It's politically convenient for the government if you all weren't military folks [1:09:34] in suits. It would be much better if you pulled up in Winnebago's and were wearing hats. And so the [1:09:41] picture of this, because that's important for the American people on how you tell a story, what the [1:09:45] message looks like and who the messenger is. So this is now the second or third committee where we have [1:09:53] former military folks with impeccable records, with information and knowledge. And it's definitely [1:09:59] clear on a bipartisan basis that we have to protect our whistleblowers, no doubt. And in a day in which [1:10:06] it's really hard to tell what's true or not from a political standpoint. And so I don't really know [1:10:14] what is true. I don't know on this subject, but I do know when we're being lied to, and we are [1:10:20] definitely being lied to. There's just no doubt about that. Mr. Wiggins, I want to talk to you [1:10:26] I find your background and testimony compelling. When you first saw what you were looking at, [1:10:36] what were your first thoughts? My first thoughts were, I think, everything that I was told and [1:10:46] taught as a kid and a growing adult no longer was applicable. If I'm able to see something that I [1:10:53] thought defies gravity in such a way, then what else could be possible? That was my first thought. [1:10:59] So did you did you think what you were looking at was a weapons program that you were unaware of? [1:11:04] Or did you think what you were looking at was obviously some extraterrestrial piece of technology? [1:11:12] I didn't I neither one of those crossed my mind. It was just [1:11:17] How about now? What do you think it is now? I'm not the expert. I think it I want to be as skeptical as [1:11:26] everyone else and just hope to know the information. Anyone in the US government tell you what you were [1:11:29] looking at to try to dissuade you from what you thought it was? No. So no one was like, oh, you [1:11:35] know, there was some anomaly with the technology. No, no one from the government did that? No one. [1:11:41] How do you think you were treated when you reported this information or talked about, [1:11:47] you know, the Tic Tac videos is well out there. It's well reported. How were you treated? [1:11:51] I've I've had no pushback at all. I haven't haven't had anyone reach out to me or try to [1:12:01] dissuade me in either direction, militarily speaking. So I was treated fair and I appreciate [1:12:07] the Navy itself with assisting me with coming here to being able to testify. [1:12:11] That's good. So what what do you think the American people should take away from watching your video? [1:12:16] Right? Because when we watch it, obviously, right, we've never seen anything like that. [1:12:20] It defies what we know to be technologically possible. What are we supposed to think? [1:12:25] Someone's lying about something. Someone's hiding something, right? That's not normal what you looked [1:12:31] at. I think what the American people should think when seeing that video, along with others before [1:12:38] me, is that there is something out there and we should know as the people what it is. [1:12:45] Right. And so let's eliminate possibilities. So they didn't come to you and say there was a [1:12:49] technological error with what you were looking at. So we put that aside, right? They didn't say it was [1:12:53] broken. So we look at that and we see something. So it's either a weapons program being reverse [1:12:58] engineered by our governments or other governments, or it's nobody's government. It's not from here. [1:13:05] Those are it. You agree with that assessment? I agree. One or the other. [1:13:11] Mr. Borland, when you first experienced what you were looking at, what did you do next? What was your next [1:13:20] step after it had passed and you were done? I actually kind of laughed at myself and said, [1:13:28] okay, so this exists as well. Worked in enough programs, been exposed to enough that I was like, [1:13:33] okay, so this is a real thing. I went back, walked the track, talked with a couple of my friends about [1:13:40] it. I did talk with some of my coworkers, one in particular, which I thought was a joke and it [1:13:46] definitely wasn't, was like, you probably should never say this to anybody. And then what happened [1:13:51] to me happened. So. What about you, Mr. How do you pronounce your last name? [1:13:59] New Satelli. New Satelli. And sorry, I know I'm running out of time, Madam Chairman, Chairwoman. [1:14:05] So obviously your incident happened well before we could record things on cell phones and things of [1:14:12] that nature, right? How do you, what did you do when you first experienced? Because what you saw, [1:14:19] right? You saw it happen like right out of your base. Right. So, so tell me what you did after [1:14:26] you saw that. What was like your next move? And I want to hear how, what your experience was. [1:14:30] My next move, I went into my house after it left. I made sure no one had been abducted. [1:14:37] And I picked up the landline. I called the security forces command center. I reported it. I requested [1:14:44] that they give me a call back and make notifications up the chain of command. I got a call back in about 15 [1:14:50] minutes. They reported that the weather station reported no balloons or aircraft, nothing on radar, [1:14:58] no aircraft inbound or outbound. So I got that notification. And then within the following day or [1:15:04] two, me and the other witnesses wrote statements. We prepared to report. And then we filed all that [1:15:10] information. Madam Chairman, thank you for your indulgence in my questioning. And thank you for [1:15:14] continuing to lead on this subject. What do you and your friends think about it today? You all have [1:15:22] talked about it. I mean, so what do you think about your experience as a collective group? That'll be my [1:15:26] last question, Madam Chair. I mean, we, we, we've been talking about this for 20 years. We don't know what [1:15:33] we saw. What we saw changed our lives in the way we think about everything. It was incredibly profound. [1:15:43] 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. [1:15:48] It didn't look like a craft. It did look solid. And that's what we talk about. We noticed the object, [1:15:55] and this was a pattern across all the encounters. Someone would see a light. They would pay attention [1:16:00] to the light that, and then the object responds, it performs for you. And then it, they come down and [1:16:08] they investigate you. So it's almost like they're curious. So that's the thing we primarily talk [1:16:14] about. You know, why did it come after we noticed it? Maybe it noticed us after we noticed it. You're [1:16:25] welcome. I now recognize Representative Mace for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to [1:16:32] thank all of our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Borland, I'd like to start with you and ask a few [1:16:38] questions. Were there any other witnesses when you saw the Equilateral Triangle? Were there other [1:16:43] witnesses that saw the same thing? Not to my knowledge, ma'am. At that point, the only people [1:16:47] that would be awake is those, those of us that were doing operations for the GWAT and then security [1:16:52] forces. So not to my knowledge. And do you think that in your opinion that the Equilateral Triangle [1:16:58] was the U.S. government's technology? I did once upon a time, but knowing what I know now, [1:17:07] I'll have to answer that question in a skiff probably. That was good. Well, my next question [1:17:11] is you teased us. So knowing what you know now means what? I know enough to know that if you want [1:17:18] an answer to that question, go to Arrow. Okay. They have the answer. Do you think it was a foreign [1:17:22] government? I do not. No. And Arrow is supposed to be disclosing. The last time I was in a skiff with Arrow, [1:17:30] they said they were going to be doing disclosures. Had they been doing much of that? I don't have an answer [1:17:37] to you for you. Yeah. I don't know. I know what Arrow reports publicly and I know what I've been [1:17:42] through. Yeah. And some of this stuff can be, I think, debunked, right? There are sometimes there [1:17:49] are weather balloons that look kind of a little funky or drones or whatever, depending on the angle, [1:17:53] direction, speed, et cetera. Are you scared for your safety? That's a complicated question. So being here [1:18:04] today, if I say the wrong word, technically I can be charged with espionage. Espionage is a death [1:18:09] penalty. Whistleblowers have faced it. John Kariaku, for example. I am not scared for my physical safety [1:18:16] in the sense of a agency or company coming to kill me, but I have no job. My career has been tarnished. [1:18:26] You know, I'm unemployed, living off of unemployment for the next three, four weeks until that's gone. [1:18:30] So it's a complicated question. Have there been stories leaked about your life to try to discredit [1:18:36] you and the public? Aye. As of now, I don't know. We know they did that to Mr. Grush. I am aware. [1:18:43] Yes, ma'am. They leaked his medical, private medical information, horrific things. It is. [1:18:49] Okay. You said in your testimony earlier with the chairwoman, you know, other things. I guess it has [1:18:57] to be mentioned in a SCIF. It would. Other things. It would pending. I'm even legally allowed to speak [1:19:02] on and the people in the room are even legally allowed to hear it. And is that, would we need to [1:19:07] know the, like the, the compartmentalized word, like what the code word is or the name of the program, [1:19:12] the special access program or even hear it. You have to know the word, right? I would say the name of it, [1:19:18] right? I would suggest that to be asked to DNI Dabbard and work with her for that. Cause I can't give you the [1:19:24] answer on what is the requirement. This is what the U S government does, right? They compartmentalize [1:19:28] the information. We certain people know the name of the program. And if you don't know it, [1:19:33] you can't get the information. If you don't have the name, you don't know what to ask for. [1:19:36] Even when we're reviewing the budget, we go into a SCIF, we look at DOD budget and the budget of like [1:19:40] black box programs. And we don't know what we're looking at because we don't know what these programs [1:19:44] are. Is it a way for the government to hide from Congress? What's really going on where the money's [1:19:50] going? In my opinion, absolutely. Yes. You mentioned too, in your testimony earlier, [1:19:55] that you went to speak with the government and they said somebody's name, a colleague's name, [1:20:01] and you said they shouldn't have mentioned that staff person's name. What does that mean? [1:20:06] A Senate staffer who is the one who helped me get to Arrow recommended me, I go there, [1:20:10] gave me the email and the phone number because I could not find that information at all at the time. [1:20:15] In fact, I believe you guys have talked about how Arrow didn't even have a website for quite a period of [1:20:19] time. We were told they were going to do disclosures, both what they've debunked, [1:20:22] because some of it can be debunked, and then what they haven't been able to debunk. And to my [1:20:26] knowledge, it hasn't been a thing. I only have one minute left. So, Mr. Knapp, we were definitely [1:20:31] going to you, watched every documentary. You and Jeremy have done a terrific job. I usually have [1:20:37] more questions than I have answers. I think we all do. And you guys are doing a terrific job to bring [1:20:40] information to the public. Do you think that any of this is a PSYOP by the U.S. government? [1:20:45] It's entirely possible. I mean, our government and other governments have admitted that they've [1:20:52] tried to use UFOs to cover secret projects, but I think they also do some reverse engineering of [1:20:57] those claims. So, years after people start seeing UFOs over Area 51, for example, they come up with [1:21:04] a story, oh yeah, that was, we planted that story. So, I read in a major newspaper just a couple of weeks [1:21:11] ago. They planted this story. An Air Force colonel went out into the desert, went to a bar at Rachel, [1:21:17] and gave them some fake UFO photos. And that's how the whole story about Area 51 started, which is [1:21:22] preposterous. Yeah. And I didn't even get to the crash retrieval program stuff yet, Ms. Chairwoman. [1:21:29] There's just so much. Okay. Thank you so much for your time today. I wish we had more time. [1:21:34] Thank you, Madam Chair. Ross, you kind of laughed there. What do you think about that line of [1:21:37] questioning? I just think we do need more time. This is annoying. It is a dog and pony show because [1:21:43] there's just no time. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you so much to each of the witnesses [1:21:48] that have come before us today. The federal government has had a long standing over classification [1:21:56] issue in general. We all know that from the assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X, [1:22:02] to the COINTELPRO and torture programs, to now UAPs. The federal government has kept the American [1:22:09] public in the dark about issues of immense public interest. The federal government has routinely made [1:22:15] excuses for failing to provide transparency to the public, the most common of which is national [1:22:21] security concerns. Mr. Spielberger, can you provide an example of when national security was [1:22:27] inappropriately used as a pretext for classification? Congresswoman, probably one of the most infamous [1:22:36] examples of that is the 9-11 Commission that found that over classification was a key factor in the [1:22:43] failure to adequately prevent the attacks of that day. In addition to that, what lessons from these [1:22:52] oversight failures should guide Congress in approaching UAP oversight? Generally speaking, [1:23:00] we would advise this Congress to ensure that agencies adopt a general policy in favor of disclosure [1:23:11] instead of a knee-jerk needing to over classify information and documents. We should ensure that [1:23:20] when information is classified or deemed sensitive, it's only for legitimate national security and privacy [1:23:26] concerns. And we would recommend adding additional factors to the considerations of cost, value, and [1:23:34] certainly to the extent that it's critical for the public interest and the public's right to know, [1:23:41] especially when we are talking about these very serious national security concerns and implications. [1:23:49] Can you speak to how whistleblowers have historically helped Congress uncover the truth in other areas, [1:23:56] how that might apply here? Absolutely. So again, Congress has always relied on whistleblowers [1:24:05] coming forward and making disclosures in a number of different issues across different agencies, [1:24:12] anything from national security to airline safety, railway safety, environmental concerns, workplace health and [1:24:22] safety. A lot of issues coming out of COVID pandemic, for example. Whistleblowers have come forward with [1:24:30] important disclosures on just about any critical issue affecting our government and affecting the American [1:24:37] people, all of which have great implications for the rights and protections that we have and how we live our [1:24:45] lives in communities across the country. How important is it for whistleblowers to have strong protections [1:24:51] when it comes to UAP related disclosures or disclosures of other topics of excessive government secrecy? [1:25:00] It's absolutely vital. This has been one of the disappointing failures of doing this work of advocating for [1:25:09] for stronger whistleblower protections. We recognize the invaluable public service that brave whistleblowers [1:25:18] play in coming forward. Again, taking all of these risks that we've heard about just to speak the truth, [1:25:24] to get important information out in the public consciousness. But they can only do so when we have [1:25:31] safe and secure channels for reporting, when there is trust in the independence of agency watchdogs like [1:25:40] inspectors general, like the Office of Special Counsel, like the Merit Systems Protection Board that play [1:25:46] critical roles in investigating whistleblower disclosures and enforcing the protections of [1:25:51] whistleblowers. All of that is essential to allow whistleblowers to keep coming forward and playing these [1:26:00] incredibly important public roles. Thank you so much. Let me just say this. People look at Congress, [1:26:08] especially now, and they see a lack of unity. They don't see the ability for us to come together [1:26:15] really on much of anything. I will say that I do applaud the chairwoman and the work of this committee [1:26:22] because for once I feel like we are focusing on governing, which should be about transparency. The reality [1:26:29] is that we cause more harm than good when we allow a lack of transparency to fester. It allows for all [1:26:38] types of conspiracy theories instead of us actually making the investments that we need to make to get [1:26:44] the information and actually provide it to the American people. The reason that I wanted to focus on [1:26:50] making sure that we answer some questions specifically around the protections of those that are willing to [1:26:56] come forward is because the only way that we can make this government actually work for all of us [1:27:02] is if no matter where you are in this federal government, you feel as if you are safe when you [1:27:08] come forward with information of any issue. And so I do want to thank you for all of your stories. [1:27:17] The reality is that we only get five minutes and the vast majority of everything that you have to say [1:27:23] cannot be contextualized within five minutes. But I know that my colleagues are going to get to kind of pulling [1:27:30] some more of that out. But again, I really just want to thank you for your courage in this moment [1:27:35] and thank you for your service to our country. Your reaction to that, Ross? [1:27:42] Look, they're noble sentiments, but I think we've called the wrong witnesses today, to be honest. [1:27:49] Thank you, Chair Lady, and thank you, Ranking Member Crockett. I see a lot of friends out there and I see a couple enemies, [1:27:57] so I'll remember that. But it's a pleasure being here. I want to remind people, too, this thing is an ongoing deal. [1:28:06] We're not going to get this overnight. We've been fighting this battle, some of y'all, for 30 years and maybe longer. [1:28:13] I hope we keep focused on what we're trying to get to as total disclosure. We get a little wrapped up in [1:28:21] a lot of things, but the government has something and they need to turn it over to us. We pay their [1:28:28] dadgum salary, you pay our salary, and you ought to get more out of us than you do. And that's what disgusts [1:28:34] me about this whole thing. I think they're just trying to run the clock out on us, really. [1:28:38] Absolutely. They'll poke us a little and they'll make jokes to us and try to pull us off the target, [1:28:45] but I think we know where we're at and that's why they're firing at us because we are over the target. [1:28:52] My first question is, Mr. Knapp, I recently introduced the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act to help provide [1:28:59] whistleblower protection to federal personnel for disclosing the use of federal taxpayer funds to [1:29:05] investigate UFOs. I still don't want to say UAPs. How can Congress further increase whistleblower [1:29:12] protections? I think you've got to unleash the dogs and go track down the money and where it goes, [1:29:20] because a lot of this stuff has been moved out of government. As you know, it's been given to [1:29:26] private contractors who stashed it away. They've had it for so long that there's nobody left inside [1:29:31] government or very few who know where it is. And they do that to keep us from FOIA, correct? [1:29:37] Yeah, it's to keep it from FOIA. And I think that the contractors who had this stuff for a very [1:29:43] long time set their own standards about who is allowed to know what. And it's a very small group [1:29:49] that ever cracks that. I think Representative Luna has been looking at the use of classifications to [1:29:56] hide things. I'm not sure that even this committee getting security clearances that should allow you [1:30:02] to see this stuff would allow you to follow where it really goes. [1:30:05] I worry about the people that are looking at it don't even know what they're looking at. I mean, [1:30:09] it's gone through so many. I mean, since Roswell, for instance, I mean, you think there's nobody even [1:30:16] alive that was around any of that stuff. [1:30:18] Yeah, I don't think they've made much progress from the people that I've talked to. I don't think [1:30:22] they've made much progress in learning that technology might have made some. But you wonder, [1:30:26] you know, the implication is Tic Tac. Oh, yeah, that's ours. What what flew over Washington, [1:30:31] D.C. in 52? Is that ours, too? When are you going to break that out? You guys authorize tens of [1:30:36] billions, hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons systems that can't do half of what we've seen [1:30:41] U.F. UFOs do. So when do when do they break this out? If it's if it's really a classified project [1:30:47] could change the world. I don't think they've made much progress. I think they've been lying to us and [1:30:52] you and the rest of the world. And they're still doing it. Yes, sir. I agree with you. [1:30:56] How did you manage to obtain the classified Russian UAP documents? And how did you get them [1:31:02] back in the United States? Well, I met this Russian physicist who was in the United States. [1:31:07] I want to clarify that I can't even take a thing of honey home on my airplane when I fly back to [1:31:14] Tennessee. So I did something pretty dumb and I'm bitter about it. But go ahead. I did something kind [1:31:19] of dumb. I met with these officials who, you know, during that time period, Glasnost, Perestroika, [1:31:24] the Russians were trying to open up to the world. I saw it as a window of opportunity. And it was. [1:31:29] And we were able to talk these folks into providing us information that otherwise we would never have [1:31:35] seen. Some of that was classified. I found out that they only stamped the top pages of these [1:31:40] documents that were classified. So I just removed them. I removed those pages and I carried them out. [1:31:45] And if they'd caught me, I'd be in a gulag still. Yeah. We'd be saying, what happened to George [1:31:50] Knapp? Oh, yeah. What happened to the Russians that came forward to you in 1993? And were there [1:31:57] any repercussions for them? Well, there were the first thing that happened when I talked about this [1:32:02] after getting back and going through the files and things and sifting through it. The Russian [1:32:08] physicist who had helped us be introduced all these people wrote back and said there was a huge [1:32:13] eruption, that there was the real right, far autocratic forces that wanted a return of the USSR [1:32:24] had really go after these guys. They described them as traitors. Nikolai Kopranov, the physicist friend [1:32:29] of mine, said, look, if this had happened five years earlier, we would be in prison. If it had happened [1:32:34] 10 years earlier, we would have been shot. Luckily, at that point, Putin was not in power. But none of [1:32:40] those people that we talked to on that trip in 1993 would ever talk to me again. I went back in 1996, [1:32:46] and it was like I had the plague. I spoke to different people, but they were scared. And [1:32:50] eventually, the story was spun where the Ministry of Defense officials who gave us this information [1:32:57] were described as ufologists, who said there was nothing really significant to these files. They [1:33:03] didn't really find anything a big deal. And I can tell you, you'll see those files that I shared with [1:33:08] you. They did find stuff. There was an incident in October of 1982 over an ICBM base where UFOs popped [1:33:15] up, was observed over this base where the missiles are pointed at us, United States. These UFOs perform [1:33:22] incredible maneuvers. They split apart. They fuse back together. They'd appear and disappear. And right [1:33:27] at the end of this four-hour period, the launch control codes for the ICBMs lit up. Something entered [1:33:34] the correct codes. Missiles were fired up and ready to launch, and they could not shut it down. The [1:33:39] Russian officers were panicking. UFOs disappeared. The launch control system goes back to normal. [1:33:46] Colonel Sokolov and his team came in, took the thing apart, could not figure out what it was. It [1:33:50] wasn't a power surge or EMPs or some of the baloney excuses that our country has given for similar events [1:33:57] involving our nuclear missiles. They thought it was a message from wherever the UFOs were from. And [1:34:02] that's a chilling thing. I mean, that was, we were a couple of seconds away from World War III starting, [1:34:07] and the UFOs were responsible for it. I'm out of time, but real quick, who are the contractors [1:34:12] that have this material? Corporations? Well, one of them is Lockheed. And I'll tell you, I mean, [1:34:17] you know, I'm not saying Lockheed's the bad guys. They're doing what they were asked to do. [1:34:21] They have lied about this because that's what they're supposed to do. But Lockheed would be one. [1:34:25] There's a list I can give you, Congressman. Some of the big ones, the usual suspects. [1:34:30] Give it now. Thank you. You're back, Chairlady. Sorry for going over. It's all good. It's all George [1:34:34] Knapp's fault. I now recognize Ms. Boebert for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief Wiggins, [1:34:43] based on your training and operational experience, could the behavior that you witnessed a transmedium [1:34:50] object vanishing without a sound be explained by any known technology that we possess or other [1:34:57] governments possess? It cannot. And has any government agency debriefed you or any of your [1:35:05] shipmates regarding the EOIR and radar confirmed UAP encounter aboard USS Jackson? No one has, no. [1:35:16] What was that encounter like when you brought that up? If you want to briefly summarize that, when you [1:35:21] brought that to their attention and then you were not provided any follow-up, who was told and [1:35:30] how did you feel when there was no contact back to you? As far as the actual incident happening or [1:35:37] the reporting level? Yes, Chief. It was within the event happening. My duties are to report to the [1:35:46] tactical action officer on watch while we're standing watch. So tactical action officer was there. [1:35:51] I made my report. I made my report. I've not had any discussion outside of that day. There's been no [1:35:59] communication to me or requests from me to, you know, with inside of the military. But speaking of that [1:36:09] actual incident itself, once the report was made to the tactical action officer, that's when I made the [1:36:16] decision to ask the individual watch stander that was controlling SAFIRE to be able to slew into the [1:36:26] location. And that's what you see in the video itself is, is when the watch stander is slewing [1:36:34] in and kind of showing us what we're looking at. But outside of that, that's as far as the reporting [1:36:40] went that I know of. Thank you, Chief. [1:36:42] Chief, just for the sake of time, Mr. Nusatelli, has Aro, the Air Force or the FBI ever followed [1:36:48] up with you personally about the Red Square event? I did have follow up by Aro, nothing with the Air [1:36:56] Force. The Aro office updated me, I think, at least two times. They let me know that they were unable to [1:37:05] locate any records, that the records have been destroyed by the Air Force. The Air Force is [1:37:10] destroying all their police records every three years on a schedule. You were informed that this, [1:37:16] that these documents were destroyed? Well, I have a Freedom of Information Act from the Air Force [1:37:21] that states clearly that they destroy all police records on a three-year schedule. Okay, so they were [1:37:28] sitting on documentation, destroyed it, refused to question any of the lead investigators, anything [1:37:36] leading into this investigation? Yeah, basically they destroyed all the police records. So you [1:37:44] couldn't even like call the Air Force and ask them if there was a vehicle accident in that time frame. So [1:37:50] that's a big problem. We're losing data in real time. So we'll never be able to go back and try. [1:37:57] I think our federal government has a history of destroying records. Thank you. Thank you very much, [1:38:01] Mr. Nusatelli. Dr. Borland, as a geospatial intelligence officer, have you seen classified data [1:38:09] indicating UAPs operate in restricted U.S. airspace? And has that information been withheld from Congress? [1:38:17] I have not in U.S. airspace. That is intelligence oversight. So I did not have domestic authorities. [1:38:25] After filing your Inspector General complaint over retaliation inside the Pentagon's UAP office, [1:38:31] did you receive any kind of protection or just more retaliation? Within the IG or Arrow, ma'am? [1:38:38] Uh, either. Arrow, they went after the staff member and classified everything, shut that down. The IG, [1:38:47] to this day, I don't even know if my complaint's active. I know my attorney that represented me was [1:38:51] very, very, very concerned. And the best of my understanding, I was determined credible, not urgent. [1:38:58] And do you think that that experience would suggest that the internal UAP investigations may be [1:39:06] compromised? Possibly. I mean, it's so hard because this goes back to people doing the job they're told [1:39:14] to do. And very few people are going to want to give up their careers, 20, 30-year pension, give up, [1:39:19] get rid of their kids' healthcare, get rid of their house. It's possible. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much, [1:39:27] Dr. Borland. Um, Mr. Spielberger, um, do national security whistleblowers currently have any, um, [1:39:34] external appeals processes, uh, to challenge retaliation or are they just stuck relying on the [1:39:40] same agencies that they're accusing? Congresswoman, this is one of the biggest concerns that we at Pogo [1:39:49] have, um, basically around the independence of investigations and accountability for retaliation. [1:39:56] Basically, yes, national security whistleblowers have to rely on internal administrative processes [1:40:02] that go through agency inspector generals. Um, there are some, uh, differentiations, but the bottom [1:40:08] line is that they are, uh, forced to rely on protection from the same agencies and people who [1:40:15] they are alleging retaliated against them. Yes. Well, I thank you all for your bravery. We are, um, out of [1:40:20] time here. Uh, thank you so much for coming forward and we will do everything that we can to ensure that you [1:40:25] are all protected. Thank you for, um, trying to bring truth and transparency to the American people. [1:40:30] Madam Chair, I yield. I now recognize Mr. Burleson for about five minutes. [1:40:35] Thank you everyone. It takes such great courage to come forward and we acknowledge that and I hope [1:40:39] that you see that we are taking that seriously. And so very thankful for what you are doing today. [1:40:45] I'm also very thankful for previous witnesses that have come forward. Um, I see Matthew Brown in the audience. [1:40:51] He courageously stepped forward and was as a, as a witness. Um, I encourage everybody to, [1:40:57] to look and seek his, his, uh, testimony. I want to thank the people that came in our first hearing, [1:41:03] Ryan Graves, David Grush, David Fravor. And in our second hearing, um, Admiral Gallaudet, [1:41:10] Lou Elizondo and Mr. Gold and the, the many others that have come forward. We hear you and it's time that we, [1:41:18] you know, enough is enough. It's time that we take action. Look, I'm not, I'm not jumped to [1:41:22] the conclusion that I believe that there are, you know, aliens coming from another planet. Um, [1:41:28] but I'm open to that. And I think that it's my, our responsibility, especially when we're seeing [1:41:33] that we have a government that is blocking actively blocking information from us. Just last night, [1:41:39] I tried to get an amendment onto the national defense authorization act that fit in the germaneness of [1:41:46] that bill to have UAP disclosure. And conveniently it was named non germane, mostly deemed by staff, [1:41:54] not even an elected official. This is the kind of stuff that we repeatedly see last year. We were [1:42:00] blocked by someone in house administration from being able to receive a full briefing from Arrow. [1:42:08] So not, not an elected official, but someone in staff blocked us and I've had it enough is enough. [1:42:15] Um, I want to queue up a video that, that I've been given. And as before it starts, I'm going to [1:42:22] describe this was taken October 30th, 2024. This video is of an MQ nine drone tracking an orb or this [1:42:30] object off the coast of Yemen. Um, you'll see that another MQ nine, um, launched a hellfire missile [1:42:38] that you cannot see that drone. Um, [1:42:42] And so, uh, I'm not going to explain it to you. You'll see exactly what it does. [1:42:47] Oh, wow. Seems to have evaded the missile. This is when it zoomed out. You can still see it traveling. [1:43:26] So the best technology of the U S doesn't work against whatever that was. [1:43:30] So Mr. Knapp, um, do you have any, have you heard about, uh, you know, events like this occurring and what, [1:43:40] what, what information might you have? I have heard about events like this. [1:43:45] I have heard about this event. Jeremy Corbell and I talked about it in one of our episodes a while [1:43:49] back. We did not have the video though. There are, uh, servers where there's a whole bank of [1:43:55] these kinds of videos that Congress has not been allowed to see that public hasn't been allowed to [1:44:00] see occasionally. Some of that stuff gets out in the wild and it comes our way. Uh, it should be going [1:44:05] to you. Uh, you know, the public should be seeing this stuff and why you're not allowed to, I don't [1:44:09] know, but that's a hellfire missile smacking into that UFO and just bounced right off. Um, and it kept [1:44:16] going. It kept going and it looks like the debris was taken with it. Yeah. What, what the hell is that? [1:44:20] What, what? So again, I'm not going to speculate what it is, but the question is, [1:44:25] what, what, you know, why are we being blocked from, from this information consistently? Um, I want to ask [1:44:32] this just a question. How in the world, this is the document. I want to enter this in for the record [1:44:36] if it hasn't already been entered, Madam chair. Um, the, the document that you provided on thread three, [1:44:43] this is a huge file. How in the world did you smuggle this out of Russia? [1:44:47] These are the George Smith Soviet Union Russia files. [1:44:48] Carefully, uh, in your socks. You know, I don't, I don't think I want to be really specific about it [1:44:54] because I might have to go back there and get some more sometime. [1:44:56] Okay. Good answer. [1:44:58] I had to do that. Well, I, I, again, I took the top pages off that were stamped, [1:45:02] with the security, uh, uh, signature and I carried them out, uh, on my person, [1:45:07] but the rest of them, I just threw in my suitcase and threw some caviar in there [1:45:11] as a distraction as well. And, and hope for the best. Otherwise I'd be a citizen of Siberia right now. [1:45:18] And you had, um, you reported, uh, James Lekatsky came to you, um, with government possession of NHI [1:45:27] craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim? [1:45:32] Dr. Lekatsky is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA, a very trusted high [1:45:38] level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the OSAP program, as I said earlier. [1:45:45] And in, uh, you know, in full disclosure, I've co-written two books with him. [1:45:49] He dropped this on myself and our other coauthor out of the blue. And it took 14 months for us to [1:45:55] get Dobson approval for him to release two sentences on that. He said this craft we had, [1:46:03] managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail. It had no fuel, no fuel tanks. [1:46:09] They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, [1:46:14] but, uh, he would not go further. He's a by the book guy. And until he gets clearance to say more [1:46:20] 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 [1:46:26] make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least [1:46:30] one. And I don't know. I think that's enough confirmation that we've, we do have, uh, recovered [1:46:35] discs and materials. Leslie, Mr. Borland, um, in the, in the classified realm, have you been exposed to [1:46:43] undeniable confirmation of NHI technology? And then my second question is, is base systems involved [1:46:50] in any way with reverse engineering exploitation of non-human intelligence craft? [1:46:56] Yeah. We're going to have to, we're going to have to have a conversation this year for that, [1:47:00] whether I'm legally even allowed to answer that and whether you're even allowed to hear it, sir. [1:47:05] Okay. Again, you can, you can sense our frustration. And so I just want to thank you for coming forward. [1:47:12] We will continue to fight because look, this is about making sure that this government belongs to the [1:47:16] people and restoring the Republic the way it was intended to be. Um, Madam Chair, I also have, [1:47:23] further witnesses of courageous individuals. It was given to me by Dr. Steven Greer, [1:47:29] including Michael Herrera and his testimony. Um, we have Roderick Castle and his testimony, [1:47:36] Randy Anderson, his testimony, Steven Digna and, and others, three others, all saying similar things [1:47:44] to what the witnesses today have said. And I would like to enter that into the record as well. [1:47:48] No objection. Thank you. [1:47:50] I now recognize, uh, recognize representative Lee for five minutes. [1:47:53] Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think we need to make sure that we don't get distracted by sensational [1:48:01] stories, uh, only of unidentified anomalous phenomena, uh, and lose track of what the core [1:48:07] of this hearing is about. Uh, this is all a perfect example of why whistleblowers are so important [1:48:13] and why it's so important that we step up and protect them. With Trump, RFK Jr., EPA Administrator [1:48:20] Lee Zeldin and others committed to dismantling government and firing professionals who do [1:48:25] dare to speak out against the threats this administration's disastrous policies create, [1:48:30] we have to focus on protecting all whistleblowers, not only the ones who are reporting on UAP. I'd [1:48:36] like to thank the whistleblowers who have agreed to come before the committee today, uh, and speak [1:48:40] their truth. This administration's claims to care about waste, fraud, and abuse. And so often, [1:48:46] uh, it is the whistleblowers who care, uh, and who are the tip of the sword fighting against the real [1:48:52] waste, fraud, and abuse. One study found that whistleblowers expose fraud at more than [1:48:57] twice the rate of third-party auditors. So, Mr. Stilberger, what are some of the best examples [1:49:03] of whistleblowers exposing fraud and abuse in the federal government? Thank you, Congresswoman. [1:49:11] Again, whistleblowers have played such a vital role across so many different issues. One prominent [1:49:16] example, uh, goes back to the 2014, uh, VA waitlist scandal. HOGO actually played a very instrumental role [1:49:24] coordinating with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. At that time, we received [1:49:29] tips and whistleblower disclosures from over 800 different individuals talking about, uh, the VA [1:49:37] subjecting, uh, veterans to, um, uh, extensive, um, uh, wait times in order to get the basic, uh, standard [1:49:48] of care that they deserve. Um, it's certainly, uh, prolonged serious illnesses, even contributing to, [1:49:55] uh, hasten deaths. Um, and, and we were able to, um, help, uh, shed more light, uh, on, on, uh, that issue, [1:50:06] um, which I think just emphasizes, um, the importance, even outside of the national security context, [1:50:13] we are often still talking about serious issues and even life and death concerns. [1:50:18] And unfortunately, whistleblowers can, um, whistleblowing can lead to serious repercussions [1:50:24] and retaliation, especially in this vindictive and lawless administration. Mr. Philberger, in the past, [1:50:30] what kinds of retaliation have they faced and what are we seeing today under, uh, the Trump administration? [1:50:37] So we, we've certainly heard about a number of different examples of retaliation. One that I'd like to highlight that [1:50:43] Mr. Borland referenced, uh, previously is retaliation through, uh, abuse of the security clearance [1:50:50] process. Um, that can have grave implications, not just for a whistleblower, but also their ability [1:50:55] to seek legal counsel and, uh, defend themselves against retaliation. And when we look at the past [1:51:01] several months of this administration, unfortunately, we've seen a really systematic approach toward [1:51:08] dismantling the nonpartisan civil service. We've seen the mass firings. We've seen, um, [1:51:13] undermining of independent agency watchdogs, mass firings of inspectors general, undermining, uh, [1:51:19] the office of special counsel, the merit systems protection board. Again, these entities that are [1:51:24] meant to be independent and play a critical role in investigating whistleblower disclosures [1:51:30] and, uh, ensuring that their rights are, are protected. Um, thank you. In 1989, Congress passed the [1:51:37] Whistleblower Protection Act and then broadened it again in 2012 to ensure that federal workers could feel [1:51:42] free to come forward to their elected officials. And it's a good thing we did because whistleblowers [1:51:47] have played a more important role than ever since Trump has taken office. It was thanks to a whistleblower [1:51:52] that we learned that Doge allegedly put every single American's personal security information at risk [1:51:58] by bypassing safeguards and copying all this data to an unsecure server. I asked unanimous consent to [1:52:03] enter into the record a New York Times article titled, quote, Doge put critical social security data [1:52:08] at risk, whistleblower says. Good to go. Thanks. We've had whistleblowers at the National Labor [1:52:14] Relations Board reveal that Doge minions may have shipped case files outside of the agency, possibly [1:52:18] to help then co-president Elon Musk continue to exploit his workers. And last week, whistleblowers at [1:52:23] the National Institute of Health came forward to say that RFK Jr.'s vaccine and for misinformation [1:52:28] campaigns have pervaded even the highest levels of the agency. Typically, whistleblowers have an inspector [1:52:33] general they can rely on to investigate their claims and register issues with agency leadership. [1:52:37] But President Trump has fired or demoted over 20 inspectors general. If I may ask one more question, [1:52:42] Mr. Skelberger, can you explain how eroding the independence and capabilities of inspectors [1:52:46] general further endanger these whistleblowers? Absolutely. So again, whistleblowers already face [1:52:53] incredibly great challenges in coming forward under normal circumstances. And when we erode these entities [1:53:00] that are expected and required to enforce whistleblower protections, fairly investigate their [1:53:07] disclosures. It calls into question the integrity of their investigations and findings, whether they'll [1:53:14] take whistleblowers seriously when they come forward, and whether we can trust that they will use their [1:53:19] authority to enforce the protections of whistleblowers who do come forward. Essentially, whether they will [1:53:26] continue in their role as an independent watchdog or basically become a lapdog for a current or future [1:53:35] president. Thank you. And I will note, I will take no longer liberty, no more liberties. I yield back. [1:53:40] Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Crane for five minutes. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman for holding this [1:53:47] hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing in the effort of transparency here. I got to admit to the [1:53:55] witnesses that, you know, growing up, I really never believed in UFOs or any of this stuff. I always sound, [1:54:01] thought it was a little kooky and whatnot. But, you know, after hearing, you know, your testimony from [1:54:08] honorable service members, watching videos like my colleague, Mr. Burleson, just presented, you know, [1:54:15] I got to admit, I've become a believer, not that I know where these things come from, or, you know, [1:54:20] what they really are up to. But I'd like to start with asking the witnesses, Mr. Nusitelli, you were in the [1:54:29] Air Force, right? Yes. Did you believe in UFOs prior to your encounter? I've always been interested. [1:54:36] Okay. Chief Wiggins, you're in the, currently in the Navy, is that correct? Correct. Did you believe [1:54:42] in UFOs before your encounter? I did. I'm from Las Vegas and I've watched George Napa my whole life. [1:54:50] What about you, Mr. Borland? I have always been open to where facts go, so. Were you guys scared or [1:54:58] hesitant to come forward and tell your story because of fear and believing that you might be [1:55:05] reprimanded or ostracized from society because of your stories? Mr. Nusitelli? Yes, absolutely. I [1:55:14] probably would not have come forward if I didn't have documentation to prove some of my story. And I [1:55:20] also wouldn't have come forward without the people that paved the way for us in, you know, the first [1:55:25] congressional hearing. Chief, what about you? Once I got the okay from the Navy from top down, [1:55:34] that gave me a level of relief. Prior to that, I didn't have any thought left or right of that, but [1:55:41] thank the Navy to give me the go-ahead and that gave me the relief that I would not have any level [1:55:46] of reprisal or anything happen to me. Mr. Borland, how about you? Absolutely. I mean, after I went through [1:55:53] everything, it was pretty clear that I caused a major issue in the executive branch, so I did what [1:55:59] I was supposed to do. And that's why I haven't spoken publicly. That's why I'm happy to be here. [1:56:05] This is how I wanted this to be done in regards to me. Mr. Borland, why do you think that you faced [1:56:12] reprimand and discipline for your effort to come forward and be transparent about what you saw? [1:56:19] About what I saw is the reason why I got into what I know and has been disclosed to Arrow and the IG. [1:56:28] And I think that information, while it was, it was labeled an extremely sensitive national security [1:56:33] issue. Thank you. Mr. Knapp, I've watched many of your videos on Joe Rogan and other places. [1:56:42] One of the big questions I think for many of us is why do you believe that the federal government [1:56:46] refuses to be transparent about this issue? Good question. I think there's probably multiple [1:56:52] reasons. At the start, when these things first started invading our skies in large numbers, [1:56:57] we were scared. It was right after World War II, and we didn't know what they were, [1:57:01] and they didn't want to panic the public. And that was probably a good call. [1:57:04] Over time, I think the lying sort of became institutionalized. You know, flights over Washington, [1:57:11] D.C. in 1952. They're seen. They're captured on radar. Jets are chased after these objects. And [1:57:17] then we get an explanation. It was a temperature inversion. And those kind of lies have been told [1:57:22] for a long time. What was told to me by an investigator from Congress, a guy named Richard [1:57:27] D'Amato, who was sent after this story by Robert Byrd and Harry Reid, he came out to Nevada, tried to get [1:57:34] into Area 51, did get in there, looked around, talked to people, trying to get to the bottom of it. He [1:57:38] believed that this program, reverse engineering, et cetera, was inside, had been moved inside these [1:57:44] corporations. And he said, when this comes out, people are going to go to prison. And he meant [1:57:49] people who were basically misusing legitimate national security funds, tens of billions of [1:57:54] dollars, in order to keep this cover-up going. I also believe there's a legitimate reason for the [1:57:59] cover-up, in that there is undeniable connection of national security involved in this technology. [1:58:04] If we are racing for it, to master that technology against the Russians and the Chinese, which is [1:58:10] what I have been told by Senator Reid and many others, then it is a race that's critical to our [1:58:16] survival. There could be a form of disclosure, I think. Yes, it's real. It's from somewhere else, [1:58:22] without revealing all the details that would allow someone else to have an advantage in the race for [1:58:27] this technology. Thank you. Finally, I'd like to enter into the testimony. A letter I sent to the [1:58:35] DOD regarding the case of Major David Charles Grush, a UAP whistleblower who's been extremely helpful to [1:58:42] this committee. Unfortunately, due to his participation in the disclosure of UAP, he suffered reprisal like the [1:58:49] removal of his clearance, denial of promotion, and loss of medical retirement. I wrote the DOD on July 24, [1:58:55] 2025, on behalf of Major Grush, and I'm still waiting for a reply. I appreciate any help the [1:59:02] committee can offer to get a response. Thank you. I yield back. Without objection, we'll be following [1:59:07] up with the DOD after this hearing. Thank you, Representative Crane. I'd next like to recognize [1:59:12] Representative Gill for five minutes. Thank you, Chairwoman Luna for holding this [1:59:19] hearing, and I'd like to yield a minute of my time to you. Perfect. My first question is to Mr. [1:59:24] Knapp. Mr. Knapp, how do we know that the files that you obtained from the former Soviet government [1:59:29] are not BS and just given to you as a disinformation campaign against the US government? That's a good [1:59:34] question. So I shared some of them with the Senate Intelligence Committee when I first got back, [1:59:38] because that was requested by the Russians who shared some of that information with me. [1:59:42] Secondly, I gave all of that material to the DIA, through BASS, the OSAP program. Sorry for the acronyms. [1:59:49] Can you name names real quick? Sorry. At BASS or OSAP? Who did you give them to directly? [1:59:54] I gave them to Robert Bigelow and to Jim Lukaski. And they hired a whole team to go through them and [2:00:01] re-translate them and analyze it. And they created a structure of how the UFO programs in the USSR and [2:00:08] Russia were put together. They said they were real. The other person who said they were real is David Grush. [2:00:14] Noted. Thank you. Representative Gill. [2:00:18] And thank you. I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to Eric Burleson. [2:00:24] Thank you, Representative Gill. Mr. Wiggins, Chief Wiggins, in your view, [2:00:30] what mechanisms such as internal protocols, witness debriefings, or cross-agency documentation [2:00:37] should be better established in order to ensure that such a credible sighting like the one that you [2:00:43] have given are preserved and made available to oversight bodies like this? [2:00:48] Thank you, sir. As an active duty Navy member, our mission is to carry out the ship's mission or [2:01:00] the command's mission. And we, on a general basis, don't have knowledge of what to do when we see [2:01:08] things like this. We just don't. We're there to do our mission and do what's told of us, right? So, [2:01:14] I think what would be important is giving active duty members a clear way of being able to report [2:01:25] things like this to where it gets to this point. And ensuring that we have a standard level of [2:01:34] understanding that there wouldn't be any level of reprisal or anything happening. Because, you know, [2:01:38] I've been in the Navy for almost 24 years, but what about the sailors that have been in for two years [2:01:45] that experience things like this? They're not going to have the knowledge or they'll probably be a [2:01:49] little bit more fearful to speak up, being at that their career is just starting. Yeah. I just, [2:01:55] I want to commend you. You're the first witness to come forward that is currently serving, [2:01:59] and it's not, and it's recognized. So, thank you. And your testimony is unbelievable. Let me ask this [2:02:05] question. Are you familiar with the Witness Protection Act that Representative Burchett has [2:02:11] filed? I'm not too familiar, sir. Anyone on the committee familiar with it? It's fantastic. It's [2:02:18] the language that we need. It's language that will protect whistleblowers from any kind of reprisal, [2:02:26] and yet it's again and again blocked by this body in some way. Many times it's being blocked not by [2:02:36] elected officials, but by staff behind the scenes. And the other bill, the UAP Disclosure Act, [2:02:42] which was filed last year, Senator Schumer, who I cannot believe that there's a topic that he and [2:02:49] I agree on, but he and I agree on this topic. He is sponsored in the Senate. He put it on the National [2:02:55] Defense Authorization Act last year. Remarkably, I can't get it on the, it was stripped out by the [2:03:01] House last year, and I can't get it onto the bill leaving the House this year. This is really bad [2:03:07] news. Mr. Knapp, how far would that, would that doc, that bill go to actually getting the answers [2:03:13] that we need? Pretty far. I think they're still going to have roadblocks. You know, the keepers of [2:03:20] the secrets, the private companies that have been doing this job for intelligence agencies for a long [2:03:24] time are not going to cough it up. You'd have to force it out of them. And whether you can get them to [2:03:29] admit that they have it or not, I mean, they're supposed to lie about it. They've been lying [2:03:33] about it. You know, more power to you. I hope it works. I hope it passes this time. But it's a [2:03:41] it's a daunting challenge to get them to open up after lying about it for more than 75 years. [2:03:46] Yeah. And then finally, Mr. Borland, when you engaged with Arrow in 2023, you noted that their [2:03:53] public statements did not match the reality that you and others had witnessed. In your assessment, [2:03:59] what were the key limitations of Arrow? You know, I would put it to you this way. The [2:04:05] statement Arrow has made is scientific evidence of extraterrestrials. Scientific evidence requires [2:04:11] a scientific control. Extraterrestrial is an entity on another planet. The only way to scientifically [2:04:18] prove extraterrestrial is we have to go to that planet, acquire technology, bring it back and compare [2:04:24] it to what we have here. So you're saying they won't let anything out because or they won't, [2:04:29] they won't come forward unless they confirm that it it unless they go to the planet and confirm [2:04:34] where its origin is. That that would be scientific evidence. Yes. And by that statement, Arrow found [2:04:40] no scientific evidence of extraterrestrials is basically I don't want to call it a PSYOP, [2:04:45] but a misrepresentation because we do have things. But making that statement is not technically a lie. [2:04:51] It's a misrepresentation of the full truth. Thank you, Madam Chair. May I just since we're on that [2:04:58] topic real quick? How do we get to these other planets? How do we pass the Van Allen radiation belt safely? [2:05:07] Good question for you. I cannot answer that for you. I know you like to recognize Mr. Perry for five minutes. [2:05:16] Thanks, Madam Chair. Um, I think I'll start with, uh, maybe Mr. Borland. So you have a clearance, [2:05:24] right? You're in uniform. You have a clearance. When did you leave at service? What year? I left in, [2:05:29] uh, 2013, February 13. Who was the president? If you recall, 2013 would have been President Obama, [2:05:35] sir. Wasn't President Trump, right? No, sir. Okay. So you have a clearance, [2:05:39] right? You're certainly in uniform. You have a clearance. Your story, uh, you know, I think many of [2:05:43] us are kind of picturing the scene. You walk out in the flight line, having a smoke event occurs. Do [2:05:50] you have the perception, at least I do based on your story that this involves the U S government, [2:05:58] whatever you saw involves the U S government? That is 100% my opinion then and now. And was there an [2:06:08] after action was, do you do a daily debrief of the activities of the day? Was any of that recorded? [2:06:15] Was there a conversation with the command? Was there any documentation that you know of at the [2:06:20] time? Not to my knowledge. I mean, like I said, I talked about it in, uh, on the ops floor and a [2:06:25] couple of people had pulled me aside, some older enlisted and were like, you probably want to keep [2:06:28] that to yourself. So did you get the, did you get the impression that they knew what you were talking [2:06:35] about? Just didn't want you to harm your career or seem crazy or that they didn't really witness. [2:06:42] Do you know anybody else that witnessed what you saw? Again, not that night. Like I said, [2:06:46] the only people that would have been out there would have been security forces. And then those [2:06:49] of us that we're doing security forces in uniform or contract. Probably both. [2:06:54] Did you talk to them? Did anybody talk to them in an after action? [2:06:58] Not to my knowledge, sir. Is there any interest in the command to determine [2:07:02] verify what you saw? Not to my knowledge, sir. It's unfortunate. Chief Wiggins. [2:07:08] I thank you for your service gentlemen. Thank you all of you for your courage to be here. [2:07:12] Um, your story's a little bit different. Sounds like it. Well, for both of you guys, [2:07:21] and also Mr. Nusatelli, if this were sanctioned by the U S government, even though you have a [2:07:28] clearance, but it's classified above the clearance level, do you see any reason why they would allow [2:07:35] you access being present, viewing it, hearing it, you know, being around it? Like, what is this an [2:07:45] accident? Like does the U S government make these kinds of acts? They make accidents, mistakes like [2:07:51] this way. Oh, we're, we're doing this. Uh, we're doing this test of this new system. And we forgot [2:07:57] these guys were standing here. Does that sound like something that the U S government would do? [2:08:01] Uh, no, sir. Uh, some of the launches we were doing were like $5 billion projects that had taken [2:08:09] like 10 years to develop the technology. And these objects were coming right up to the launch pad. [2:08:15] So any kind of mistake, I mean, we could, we could cause a catastrophe, right? So it's very confusing [2:08:22] why these objects would be operating in, in, around our bases or during training exercise, [2:08:28] but lend us would lend you to believe that the U S government had no, had nothing to do with whatever [2:08:35] it is you saw. Correct. They wouldn't want it there because it would potentially interrupt the [2:08:40] proceedings at the time. Was there an after action? Was there a discussion by your command where [2:08:45] that was there an investigation? It's pretty significant activities that you're involved [2:08:50] in. Was there an investigation that, you know, we conducted investigations in real time, right? [2:08:55] We document all the evidence, but as far as anything from higher up, I don't know if there [2:09:00] was an investigation, no information came down on what we should, were you ever interviewed at someone [2:09:06] else's request about that incident, about the incident? I don't believe so. [2:09:11] Do you think that's, you find that odd? If something happens, you're around multimillion, [2:09:16] maybe billion dollar operations and launches of, of national security interests, very sensitive. [2:09:22] There's an anomaly in the operation. [2:09:25] The only person, uh, witnessed it, saw UAP at Vandenberg at a timeframe that was interviewed [2:09:34] was the one that witnessed the thing land. Why wouldn't, well, I don't know why I'm asking you, [2:09:40] but it seems to me that we would want to interview everybody associated, even not associated to find [2:09:44] out if they were associated. Chief Wiggins, how about you? Did anybody, was there an investigation? [2:09:49] Was there an after action? Was there documentation on the incident that you were privy to? [2:09:55] Chief Wiggins, No, sir. Not that I know of. And, uh, in my previous experience, [2:10:00] as an operations specialist, all operations that I've been a part of have been deliberate. So, [2:10:06] Chief Wiggins, Yeah. Chief Wiggins, And deliberate operations, after the operations, [2:10:11] you conduct an after action review, or that's what the army calls it. I don't know what, [2:10:15] I imagine the Navy has something similar to determine your weaknesses, your successes. Do you do [2:10:21] that in regard to this incident? Chief Wiggins, No, sir. The Navy calls it after action reports. [2:10:26] And, uh, not to my knowledge, uh, was there an after action report of this incident? [2:10:32] Chief Wiggins, It's unfortunate. Thank you, Chair. I yield. [2:10:34] Chief Wiggins, I now recognize Mr. Wiggins for five minutes. [2:10:37] Chief Wiggins, Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. [2:10:41] I'll tell you that today's testimony should alarm every American, no matter their views on UAPs. This [2:10:47] isn't simply about UAPs. It's about government integrity, responsible use of taxpayer funds, [2:10:52] and Congress's constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch. Heard evidence of critical [2:10:57] information hidden in special access programs, off limits to virtually every elected representative, [2:11:05] and certainly to the public. Credible witnesses report retaliation for speaking out. These are [2:11:11] clear attempts to silence those who are exposing the truth. We must protect the whistleblowers. [2:11:16] Decades of government disinformation have [2:11:18] eviscerated public trust. So this isn't a partisan matter. It's a constitutional matter. [2:11:24] And, uh, when you talk about the VAs, Ms. Spielberger, uh, and all the problems that they had, [2:11:30] the hub of that was Phoenix. Uh, and they went after the whistleblowers there, [2:11:35] and that was under the Obama administration. So it doesn't matter which administration, [2:11:40] which party, both parties have got to come clean, particularly on this. [2:11:44] So if the government thinks it can hide the truth and punish those who speak out, [2:11:49] Congress has to keep pushing until the facts, whatever they are, wherever they lead, come to [2:11:53] light. Let me go to you, Mr. Mr. Knapp. First, you've interviewed numerous UAP whistleblowers over [2:11:58] the years. Question is, how do you verify their claims before deciding they're credible enough to [2:12:03] report on? It's a combination of factors. First, you check their credentials. Did they really serve where [2:12:08] they said they did? And did they work where they said they did? Are there any other witnesses? Is there [2:12:13] visual proof, film footage, things of that sort? You ask the people around them that know them, [2:12:18] that used to work with them, uh, if they're credible people, that's one way. You know, [2:12:22] I think about, uh, Arrow, the organization that this body, uh, created to deal with witnesses and [2:12:28] whistleblowers. I hope I'm not taking too much of your time here, but they invited people to come [2:12:33] forward, service members who knew, uh, saw things and had experiences. And I can tell you that [2:12:39] the people that I have talked to who went through that are deeply disappointed. There was a guy [2:12:43] named Bob Jacobs, who was a Lieutenant attached to Vandenberg in 1964. His unit would, uh, would [2:12:49] record missile tests. They recorded all of them on one of those particular tests, a UFO comes out of [2:12:55] nowhere, zaps, what looks like a laser beam at what would have been a nuclear dummy, a nuclear weapon [2:13:02] and disabled it. And he is called into the commander's office, uh, two guys in suits clip that film footage [2:13:09] out that shows the UFO. And he's ordered to never talk about it. He comes forward to Arrow. He heard, [2:13:15] heeds the call thinking he's doing his duty as an American to tell that story. And they completely [2:13:20] dismissed him. They made up a story that they had tracked down the original footage and there was [2:13:25] nothing like that in it. Well, there was no original footage. It had been taken away the day [2:13:29] the footage was recorded. He's deeply disappointed. People like Bob Salas, who had worked at a nuclear [2:13:35] ICBM base who saw UFOs flying over the base and these missile silos were taken down. He went to Arrow [2:13:41] too, and was completely disregarded. It almost looks like Arrow operated as a counterintelligence [2:13:46] operation to get people to come in, tell their stories and then discredit all of them. I can't [2:13:51] imagine that any whistleblower or witness will ever go to Arrow again because of what happened under the [2:13:56] first director who's now long gone, but still seems to act as the spokesperson for that organization. [2:14:03] And I would say, I would say, Madam Chair, maybe at some point we need to [2:14:06] really dig deep into Arrow. And I would encourage us. Oh, I'd be happy to send maybe a subpoena to [2:14:12] Mr. Kilpatrick. There you go. Absolutely. We would love that, Rob. [2:14:18] Absolutely. Mr. Nucatelli. That's exactly what needs to happen. Mr. Nucatelli, you've testified that [2:14:23] official Air Force records of the Red Square incident are now held by Arrow and the FBI. Has Congress or you [2:14:30] been denied access to those records and on what grounds would they, would we be denied access, [2:14:37] you or us? No, the records are unclassified, so. Okay. In the 2003-2005 incidents you described, [2:14:47] were any physical effects, electromagnetic interference, radio anomalies, or security system [2:14:52] disruptions documented in base logs or any reports, official reports? Not to my knowledge. Mr. Wiggins, [2:15:03] has the full resolution unended footage of your incident been provided to Congress? [2:15:08] Yes. Okay. Were you or your crew ever instructed formally or informally not to document or discuss [2:15:17] the event ever? No. Mr. Borland, you've talked about manipulation of your security clearance records. [2:15:25] Can you identify which agencies or offices were responsible and whether they provided any written [2:15:30] justification? I can do that in a SCIF, sir, 100%. Because of being a part of a multi-agency special [2:15:37] access program, I cannot get those publicly. So I'd encourage us, Madam Chair, to have that SCIF, [2:15:43] that SCIF meeting if we can. And then, Mr. Borland, again for you, testify that you withheld [2:15:48] certain sources and methods from Arrow due to mistrust. Can you give us some specifics that led [2:15:55] you to believe they were misrepresenting the truth? Well, as I said already, what I said about [2:16:00] scientific methods, scientific control, extraterrestrials, I mean, I know what I've seen, [2:16:05] I know what I know, and I know it's true. So any agency that's going to go public and try and [2:16:13] manipulate the public perception of this subject in such a way that is negative when I know [2:16:19] the truth about it is why I had extreme reservations with it and also what I've been [2:16:25] through and other whistleblowers and people and then know about this subject have been through. [2:16:30] So, Madam Chair, thank you for letting me wave on. I think the key thing there [2:16:33] you talked about was manipulation of message, manipulation of narrative. That is really [2:16:40] the problem with this entire system that we've seen since you've started these wonderful hearings, [2:16:49] Madam Chair, and I thank you so much. Thank you, Representative Biggs. [2:16:54] The Chair would now like to recognize Mr. Begich for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:17:01] First question, Mr. Borland, earlier today, you mentioned that under, in a SCIF, you would be [2:17:07] able to discuss whether a member of Congress is actually legally able to access certain information. [2:17:13] Under what authority would a member of Congress be restricted from accessing information on this [2:17:18] topic, even within a SCIF? I would suggest reaching out to Director Gabbard and speaking with her about [2:17:25] that. I'm hopeful that this goes back to the executive branch and who even has authority. [2:17:30] Unfortunately, I can't give you a 100% solid answer because I don't even have that knowledge. [2:17:36] Next question to George Knapp. What is the estimated annual budget, your view, for the program for [2:17:43] investigating or reverse engineering UAP-related technology, including official, misappropriated, [2:17:49] or black budget funds? I wouldn't have a clue. I don't know any person that's ever seen it. [2:17:54] Does anyone on this panel wish to address that question? Okay, moving on. Are any of you willing [2:18:00] to name specific gatekeepers within the root cell of the UAP-SAP Federation? [2:18:05] The what? [2:18:07] You mean specific people and contractors that have dealt with this and kept the secret? [2:18:17] Specific individuals. [2:18:19] Well, one of them was named Dr. James Ryder at Lockheed. [2:18:26] True. [2:18:26] But again, to emphasize, I don't fault these contractors for doing what they were asked to [2:18:34] do by our government. They're supposed to lie if people ask about it. And the intelligence agencies [2:18:40] who gave this stuff to them, CIA, I think primarily, told them to keep it quiet. And they've done that. [2:18:46] And I suspect that they'd like an off-ramp, that they'd like some help with figuring out this technology [2:18:51] at some point. [2:18:52] They would. [2:18:53] And this is, again, available to anyone. Is there a security classification guide for UAP or NHI? [2:19:04] I remember in the 2003 or 2023 hearing, it was stated that all UAP-related material is classified [2:19:14] secret or above. [2:19:15] I have a name for you. [2:19:21] Go ahead. [2:19:21] Glenn Gaffney, CIA. [2:19:24] Glenn Gaffney, CIA. [2:19:25] Okay. Another question for you, Mr. Knapp. [2:19:28] Absolutely. [2:19:29] What is, in your view, having investigated this issue for so many years, what is the long [2:19:34] game with respect to disclosure of this information to the public? Because with the advent of essentially [2:19:43] a video camera and a high megapixel phone in everybody's pocket, at some point, this information [2:19:49] is going to be impossible to withhold from the public. What do you think is the long game here? [2:19:55] Well, the secret's out. I mean, how many videos have there been already? You know, [2:19:59] videos that are leaked from within the military and intelligence agencies and contractors and [2:20:03] sensor platforms, it's out there. But they have the high ground, the people that don't want us to [2:20:08] take it seriously, dismiss it, discredit the witnesses, come up with a cover story. I mean, [2:20:13] it's been out there a long time. The public senses that it's real and the people in authority dismiss [2:20:19] them. It's a game that's been going on a long time, and I don't think they're ever going to release [2:20:25] it. I think that there's an attitude among the people that have been involved in this for a long [2:20:30] time that the public doesn't deserve to know and that the public probably can't handle it, but they [2:20:35] can. Final question. Again, this one's open to anyone who'd like to answer it. Describe your [2:20:41] understanding of the org chart or lines of control within the executive branch with respect to these [2:20:46] topics. And if you'd like to address that in a SCIF, feel free to say so. That could work as long as I'm [2:20:57] legally allowed to and you are legally allowed to receive it. I think these programs are in the [2:21:06] executive branch, the National Security Council and over on that side. That seems to be what some of [2:21:13] our witnesses have told us over the years. So you can, you know, Congress can file all kinds of requests. [2:21:18] The FOIAs can be filed with the Department of Defense, Department of War now, and they can honestly [2:21:24] say, well, we don't have it because they don't have it. Thank you. Is there anything in my remaining 30 seconds [2:21:32] that you'd like to share on any of these questions that I've asked you today? [2:21:41] I applaud the committee for trying to tackle this monster of an issue. I really appreciate that it's [2:21:46] actually, it might be the only bipartisan issue in Washington where everybody can agree. I've [2:21:51] watched multiple hearings now. Everyone is asking the same kind of questions, whether right or left, [2:21:57] and honestly want the answers. And, you know, Chairman Luna, Chairwoman Luna, I appreciate your [2:22:03] dedication to this, Tim Burchett and the other members for sticking with it because, you know, [2:22:08] it's come up in Congress before and they had hearings and then they dropped it for 50 years. So [2:22:13] it's going to take a time, a lot of time to get to the bottom of this. And I applaud your, [2:22:18] your commitment to getting to the truth. Thank you, Mr. Knott. [2:22:21] Pursuit to Committee Rule 9c. Madam Chair, can I have a, or ask a parliamentary question of you? [2:22:27] Yeah, sure. Does this subcommittee have the authority to do subpoenas? [2:22:32] Task force. So the task force to answer that question has to do it through full committee. [2:22:37] Okay. So, and also in regards to immunity, which to Mr. Borland's point, we are going to be [2:22:43] doing a motion to ask for immunity for you and a few other people to come into a SCIF and tell us [2:22:50] what you know without being subject to the Espionage Act, etc. Thank you, ma'am. So that's just kind of [2:22:55] an update. But as a task force, because we're not a full subcommittee and there are certain authorities [2:23:01] that haven't been granted to us probably because they don't want us to have it. But there are ways [2:23:05] to work around it. So we're kind of figuring that out. Pursuant to Committee Rule 9c, the majority [2:23:10] and minority will have an additional 30 minutes each to ask questions of the witnesses without [2:23:15] objection. So ordered. With that being said, if you guys want to jump in the queue, I know [2:23:20] Representative Crane, Burleson, and likely Burchett have a few more questions. I'll just start out with [2:23:26] two, and then I'll pass the buck to Burleson. Burchett, do you have anything? Burchett and [2:23:31] then Crane. Just real quick, Mr. Knapp, and short answers, please, because of time. How much of [2:23:36] these alleged Russian crash retrieval documents have already been physically out there? So, I mean, [2:23:43] percentage wise of the documents that you submitted to Congress, what was public already and what was not [2:23:46] newly released? Maybe 1%. Okay, so the rest of it should be predominantly new information. [2:23:51] Also, can you just elaborate real quick? I know you had, I think, mentioned a Thread 3 program, [2:23:56] but also alleged in those documents, I got through maybe half of them last night. There's a lot, [2:24:00] and I don't speak Russian, contrary to what my people might allege. What does the Thread 3, [2:24:06] was there any specific programs that existed within the Soviet government or groups to specifically [2:24:12] investigate this by name real quick? It's a number. There's a number in those documents I gave you. [2:24:17] There was a larger program that actually had three sub-programs that was, Thread 3 was the [2:24:22] name I got, and then the DIA guys who looked at it figured out there was a much larger organization. [2:24:28] And it's listed in those documents? Yes. Okay, thank you. Real quick, I'd like to ask the [2:24:31] committee to replay that video that Burleson had played earlier. I want to ask every witness here, [2:24:37] specifically ones that have sensor training or have been able to recognize some of this [2:24:41] movements real quick. Please roll that real quick. What do you think about this, Ross? [2:25:01] It's a profound video. I mean, essentially, it's new. We've never seen this before. That's a hellfire [2:25:10] missile from an MQ-9 repo. Okay, while this is still rolling, Mr. Nusatelli, real quick, [2:25:14] yes or no answers. Are you aware of anything in the United States government arsenal that can split a [2:25:20] hellfire missile like this? No. And do whatever blob thing it did and then keep going? Nothing? [2:25:26] Nothing. All right, how about you, Chief Wiggins? Nothing to my knowledge, ma'am. [2:25:30] Okay, and how about you, Mr. Borland? I prefer to answer that in a skiff. [2:25:36] Okay, does this video scare you guys? Yes or no? Yes. Wiggins? Yes. Nat? I had a different [2:25:47] reaction. I was really happy that it got out. Thanks for providing that. Curiosity comes with that. [2:25:52] All right, Mr. Borland? Yes. Okay. All right, that is the end of my questioning. I'd like to now [2:26:01] recognize Mr. Crane. Ross, does that video scare you? Thank you. [2:26:05] Chief, I was on the ship for a little bit. Does that video scare you? [2:26:11] It concerns me because it raises a legitimate national security concern. I mean, this is the [2:26:16] U.S. having technology that is invulnerable to its most important missile systems. [2:26:21] Is that correct? That's correct. On an LCS ship, [2:26:24] the CIC is on the bridge, so it's called ICC-1, but yes, the same. Did a bunch of the other folks in [2:26:33] the CIC come and check out what you were looking at? Yes, we all did. Tactical Action Officer, [2:26:40] myself, the RCO, and two others that were on watch. We were all in the same space, [2:26:48] so we were all looking at the sapphire screen all at the same time. Because in the other couple [2:26:53] instances with the witnesses, you guys just saw it by yourself, is that correct? Mr. Borland, [2:26:58] you saw it by yourself? For me, yes, sir. Mr. Nessatelli, you saw this by yourself? [2:27:03] No, there were multiple witnesses in every case of them. Okay. So, Chief, did that spread like [2:27:09] wildfire throughout the ship in the next day or two, what you guys had seen? No, sir. It didn't [2:27:15] spread throughout the ship, but it spread throughout ICC-1 conversation. As you do your turnover, we talk [2:27:22] about it, but it didn't go further than just the watchstanders that stood watch on the bridge [2:27:28] and an ICC-1. So, it did move around there throughout a few days. I'm kind of surprised. [2:27:34] Stuff usually spreads around the ship pretty fast. Why do you think the rest of your fellow sailors on [2:27:40] the boat didn't hear about it? Potentially uninterested. Possibly, you know, with engineers [2:27:47] or combat systems like yourself don't make their way up to the bridge enough to get with inside of [2:27:53] the circle of talk about the incident. Was it hard for you to get permission from the Navy to bring that [2:27:59] video? I myself didn't bring the video. I just saw the video. When I saw the video, I got in touch [2:28:07] with Admiral Gallaudet. That's how I wind up knowing about the video itself when I first [2:28:12] talked to the Admiral. And you can hear my voice at the back end of the video and I was like, hey, [2:28:18] that's my voice and I wanted to talk about it. How long did that encounter take place, Chief? [2:28:23] So, the encounter itself from the time I recognized on my radar to the time after the video ends was [2:28:34] probably about five to seven minutes. What speed was the object moving at? When I first witnessed off the [2:28:43] port bridge wing, the object moving out of the water, what I thought was originally just a light [2:28:50] on the water, something on the horizon and surfacing and going into the air, I then knew it was an air [2:28:57] contact. But as an as an air controller myself, I started thinking and going through kind of like my [2:29:05] checklist in my mind, could it be a helo, but it's not blinking lights. So I then realized this is [2:29:11] something I've never seen before. So the speed itself just going from the horizon to about maybe [2:29:18] three, four thousand feet in the air was very slow, slowly rising. And then it sped up. I'm not an [2:29:26] expert at, you know, knowing specific speeds of aircraft just by visual eye, but I would say probably [2:29:35] one to mock instantly into the rest of the formation. I didn't notice visually with my own eyes, the other [2:29:41] three objects until I went back to my radar and also utilized Sapphire to see that in fact there [2:29:48] were four total. And then again, when they all left after a certain amount of time, it was nearly [2:29:56] instantaneous. So you spotted it visually first chief and then went back to your radar. Did you guys find [2:30:01] it on spotted on radar first? Radar first, because that was my watch station was, and then you went out [2:30:07] to the port bridge wing. Is that correct? Correct. To verify what I saw in my radar. What range was it [2:30:12] at chief when you were able to see it visibly? I would say about seven nautical miles, seven to eight [2:30:20] nautical miles of a light from the ship. Wow. Thank you. I yield back. I now recognize Mr. Burleson. [2:30:30] Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Chief Wiggins, you said that it emerged from the ocean. Is that right? Yes, [2:30:38] sir. And before it did, it was glowing. It was a glowing object under the water. That part I couldn't [2:30:45] tell because it was nighttime at 1915 approximately. And it was also at a distance. So it's very hard to [2:30:54] tell the difference between something on the horizon and something surfacing from the water. [2:30:58] My, my personal thoughts after seeing what I saw is that it did in fact come from the water, [2:31:06] but I don't have visual evidence showing exactly, you know, that it did in fact come from the water. [2:31:12] But I had, again, I had to go through my process of, of, of elimination and try to figure out, [2:31:18] was this a ship on the horizon just showing its lights at night, but to see it surface, [2:31:25] then it made me question, okay, where did this come from? If it's flying, it's not a drone or anything [2:31:31] like that. Uh, where was its origin? Where did it start? Mr. Knapp in your testimony and in this [2:31:39] document, um, you did, you did detail an event that happened in Russia where their nuclear missiles were [2:31:47] activated and we were close to a world war three at that, at that time, which is startling to hear. [2:31:53] It's also good to know that, um, as we have investigated the JFK, um, files as well, [2:32:00] that we're learning that, um, that there was a document that was sent between Russia. There [2:32:05] was an agreement between Russia and the United States that if they were to see some unidentified [2:32:10] objects over sensitive sites, that they would report it to each other. Are you familiar with [2:32:15] that document? This is what David Grush told us about. Yes. I'm also, uh, familiar with the rhetoric, [2:32:22] public rhetoric between president Reagan and Gorbachev at the time too, that they traded, uh, statements [2:32:29] about wouldn't it be something if we were threatened by something from way outside, how we might, uh, [2:32:33] work together. I know for sure that they had conversations about it and I know we did reach [2:32:38] an agreement, uh, to, to try to lessen the possibility that us detecting a UFO or group of UFOs [2:32:45] would not be mistaken for a bunch of Russian missiles. There were exchanges of that sort that [2:32:49] went back and forth. Yeah. And I can imagine this is, to me, the validity of this document is, [2:32:55] is underscored by the fact that Russia would not want this to be known. They absolutely would not [2:33:01] want to know the public to know or the United States to know that there was a vulnerability [2:33:05] in their missile systems. Would you agree? Absolutely. And, um, you know, and, and we had [2:33:10] many similar incidents at our nuclear weapons facilities here that all been sort of swept under the rug, but [2:33:15] it's pretty scary. But when you take down 10 missile silos, uh, during tense times and you don't have a [2:33:21] better explanation for it than it was a special test of security mechanisms or using EMPs, which is a [2:33:29] preposterous explanation. Um, real quick, we're going to cut to Mr. Ogles. He just got back. So, [2:33:34] um, we're in a special kind of lightning round. So five minutes, and then we'll go back to our [2:33:37] line of questioning. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. You know, at this point, I think it's clear from, [2:33:44] from the hearing that there's advanced technologies that are taking place, um, our airspace. You know, [2:33:52] the question is, and I posed it in one of the previous hearings, is that ours, is it theirs, [2:33:56] or is it otherworldly? Uh, there may not be a silver bullet at the moment, but when you look back [2:34:03] through the hearing and the evidence that's been presented, you're going to point the American people, [2:34:09] the one piece of evidence to start their journey on this topic. What would you suggest, sir? [2:34:19] One piece of evidence. Um, I would, I would start with this hearing and in the first hearing, um, [2:34:29] there is no evidence, but is there a specific, exactly, but is there a specific evidence or [2:34:34] footage or document that you think lends extreme credibility to what we're talking, discussing today? [2:34:41] I would say this new video we're seeing today is exceptional evidence that we're dealing with [2:34:46] something with the kinetic. Very important. Mr. Wiggins. Sir, I'd have to say that, uh, if just [2:34:53] the average person here in America looked at absolutely everything that has come across [2:34:59] television, the internet, et cetera, uh, you can't tell yourself that a hundred percent of what's [2:35:04] being recorded is fake or false. You have to, at some point, understand that there's something else [2:35:10] out there. Well, I mean, and you bring an interesting point, you know, in the law enforcement [2:35:14] community, anytime you're, you're conducting an investigation, you're always looking at the [2:35:17] totality of the circumstances, looking at all the evidence, evidence and how they piece together. [2:35:22] And so that would be my, you know, advice to the American people that this is a journey [2:35:29] that is just beginning from a congressional perspective, but you have decades of data. [2:35:36] Some of it, not real much of it is, but thanks to chairwoman Luna, we're now presenting this to the [2:35:41] American people. And I think this latest video from Mr. Burleson is something that should get [2:35:46] every, everyone pause. Uh, when you think, when you see the three orbs that drop, was that in a [2:35:51] defensive posture or is that in an offensive posture? What capabilities did those orbs have [2:35:57] that we quite frankly may not have? Mr. Nat? As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, [2:36:04] what hooked me on the story was the paper trail, uh, these documents that shouldn't exist. We've been [2:36:09] told for decades over and over, there's nothing to it. It's not a threat. You can go about your business. [2:36:14] And then when FOIA becomes the law of the land, thousands of pages to the contrary leak out. [2:36:20] There's a, a memo by General Nathan Twining in 1947, when the country was being overflown by, [2:36:27] uh, dozens of UFOs, hundreds of UFOs, in which he said, look, this is not, uh, visionary or fictitious. [2:36:33] It's real. These things are craft. They're not ours. They outperform anything we've got. I mean, [2:36:38] if you follow the paper trail of documents that they wrote before the military got wise and realized [2:36:45] that FOIA really exists and changed their tune and not put things in writing, it spells it out pretty [2:36:50] clearly. I'll go refer back to Russia. One incident I did not mention to Representative Burleson is [2:36:58] Colonel Sokolov in that Ministry of Defense program said there were 40 incidents where Russian warplanes [2:37:04] were sent to intercept UFOs and they were ordered to fire on them. And for the most part, the UFOs [2:37:09] would zip away. Three of the pilots though did fire at these things. Those three planes stalled out, [2:37:15] crashed. Two of those pilots died. And after that, the Russians changed the standing order. If you see [2:37:20] a UFO, leave them alone. No country in the world wants to say and admit that these objects are flying [2:37:25] around in our airspace and there's nothing we can do about it. I mean, who wants to say that? The US [2:37:29] certainly doesn't. Then Russians didn't either. I've got to be almost out of time, but Mr. Berlin, [2:37:34] then you, sir, real quickly. Yeah, to be honest with you, I think Bob Lazar and not for the reasons [2:37:40] that most would talk about, mainly because Bob Lazar was immediately discredited. They said he [2:37:46] never worked where he worked. They said he never did what he did. But yet Bob Lazar showed up with [2:37:50] a bunch of friends in a video camera and was filming these test flights in the middle of the desert. [2:37:54] So clearly he knew something. Madam Chairman, if I'm out of time, I'll you bet. [2:38:00] Thank you very much, Representative Ogles. I'd like to go back now on our lightning round of questioning [2:38:04] to Representative Burchett and then Burleson. Burchett always number one. [2:38:11] That's what I should be. Number one in your heart, number 435 on the chart. That's me. [2:38:21] Dylan, knowing you testified to Arrow, are they obfuscating when they claim to have discovered no [2:38:29] evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity or technology? And are they lying to the American public? [2:38:34] As I said before, it's a manipulation of the public perception. The statement, [2:38:41] scientific evidence of extraterrestrials is a true statement. It is not the truth about what [2:38:47] is happening and what we have. [2:38:48] Any of y'all like to comment on that further? Mr. Knapp, you're getting edgy. [2:38:55] It's splitting hairs. No proof that they're extraterrestrials. What would that proof look like? [2:38:59] A piece of kryptonite? What would it be? I mean, we could be talking about different forms of [2:39:05] non-human intelligence. I think the dominant paradigm is that they come from outer space [2:39:10] somewhere else, and they have some way that they can cross those vast distances that we can't even [2:39:14] imagine doing. But that's not necessarily the answer. So asking for proof of extraterrestrials [2:39:21] might not be the answer at all. It's splitting hairs. We don't know where they're from. I don't [2:39:25] know anyone who knows the answer for sure. They call them aliens just as a placekeeper kind of a word, [2:39:30] but no one in all these programs who've studied this stuff for years, people with much bigger brains [2:39:35] than mine, knows the answer for sure. I've talked to Navy folks that some of the deep sea areas, [2:39:41] they think there might be something there that they're here, and I don't know when they got here. [2:39:45] Another point that needs to be made is every time, you know, we say we're going to back engineer or [2:39:51] whatever you want to call it, these craft, I always say like it'd be like if you took a, [2:39:56] I ride motorcycles, but if you took like an Indian or a Harley to the people that came over here on [2:40:01] the Mayflower, you know, they'd see a bright shiny object. They might polish it. You know, they might, [2:40:08] they might get it started. I doubt they could. They couldn't, they couldn't work on it. They [2:40:13] couldn't put fuel. They wouldn't be able to have the capability of putting fuel in it. I just think [2:40:18] that that's, you know, we're just, we're scratching at something that we don't have any knowledge of. [2:40:23] And that's why it's just taken so dadgum long, but they do know first one that cracks that code. [2:40:31] It's, it's over. I mean, it's, it's, it's energy, it's power, it's everything. And I worry too, [2:40:37] that in the wrong hands that they do that, um, they keep it from the rest of us because they're [2:40:42] so invested in whatever energy sources we have here that their billionaire buddies are going to profit [2:40:49] and they can't, and they can't retool because they know once it's out on the internet, it's over. [2:40:54] And so I think there's a lot of things going after it. And I think that's why the, [2:40:58] the move to discredit folks is so rapid too. I think, you know, they're just, [2:41:03] they point to them and they, they put the dogs on them and it disgusts me. [2:41:07] There's a price to be paid for that too. The Russians and Chinese are trying to figure this, [2:41:11] this out as well, but they're, they don't have the same kind of stigma. They tell their best [2:41:15] scientists and engineers get in there and work on it. And they've been doing it for a very long [2:41:19] time might have a headstart on us here. We don't have our best scientists and engineers working [2:41:24] on it because they've been told it's nonsense. The stigma is very real for people like that. [2:41:28] I agree. Great point. Go back to your lady. [2:41:31] Thank you. And I'd like to rep, uh, recognize representative Burleson. [2:41:35] Mr. Nusitelli, um, when you heard the, the testimony of Mr. Knapp talking about, um, [2:41:45] that these missiles were shut down or turned on in Russia. Um, does that, [2:41:50] does that remind you when you hear these stories, it's got to remind you of the event that happened [2:41:56] on your base? Absolutely. There are many, many, um, counts of incursions of this type of taking [2:42:04] place. I believe in the sixties, we had a similar incursion in new England and, uh, same thing [2:42:11] happened. There were these objects coming over the base at low altitude, 200 feet over the base security [2:42:16] police, and they were scrambling fighters. And then the objects would just fly off and that went [2:42:21] on for weeks. So the historical record is laid out. There's a pattern. Our installations are [2:42:28] visited by these craft. You know, they, they come in and do whatever they're doing and then they leave [2:42:35] and we don't know how to respond. We don't know how to protect the installation. So that's why we're [2:42:41] here. When you first heard, and we're having to report on the, these incidents that were being [2:42:46] witnessed by other individuals, did you, did you find, did you believe them? Did you yourself [2:42:52] believe it would be true until you saw it? These are people I've worked with for years, [2:42:56] deployed with, um, you know, I was in some of the weddings. These are people that I worked [2:43:01] with every day of my life. Uh, usually when the events were occurring, we were all together. [2:43:06] There'd be 40, 60, a hundred people on duty during these encounters. Really? Yeah. All seeing it at the [2:43:13] same time. Yes. These were, these encounters were playing out while we were on duty. Um, and, [2:43:20] and we were responding and investigating in real time as they occur. And as you said, [2:43:25] the importance of, of your operation was highly important because, um, they said it's the most [2:43:30] important in 25 years. Um, the, the, the research that you were conducting for that particular launch, [2:43:36] we had 500 air force police officers guarding the launch 500 people. It was that critical. Wow. [2:43:44] But had this thing showed up, we wouldn't have been able to do anything to prevent showing up real [2:43:49] quickly. Can you just re describe size and whether or not you heard anything? It was how big wise? [2:43:56] The two square objects were at least as large as a football field. Um, the second encounter, [2:44:02] they think it was much larger than a football field. We're talking like build flying buildings. [2:44:07] The object I saw was about 30 feet diameter. And to confirm, you were not the only person that saw [2:44:12] this. Correct. I think I was also told, um, that there was also, uh, reports of this in a police blotter [2:44:18] in the area. Can you confirm that? Yes. That's the, uh, the, the documentation that I maintained [2:44:24] from the original event and, uh, turned into arrow and the FBI. Okay. Do you have any more Burleson? [2:44:31] No, I'm, Madam chair. I just want to reiterate to the American people that, um, if you're frustrated, [2:44:37] so are we, we're extremely frustrated. We've been, you know, the two, three years, I can only imagine [2:44:42] how frustrated Mr. Knapp is or, or Danny Sheehan is, and you guys have poured into this to try to get [2:44:50] answers. I mean, he's been pouring to try to get answers into this. Um, we're, I hope that you all [2:44:57] see that we are committed to this and, um, we're going to be scrappy about it. We may not have the [2:45:02] direct authority, but, uh, I can assure you representative Luna is about as scrappy as it gets. [2:45:08] I wouldn't want to scrap with her, but that being said, I think that if, if the American people want [2:45:14] to see answers, we need to action. We've had the hearings. It's time to take action. It's time that we [2:45:21] pass Tim Burchett's UA, uh, whistleblower act. It's time that we pass the UAP disclosure act. Exactly. [2:45:28] And, um, I think that we've had a lot of talk about this. It's time for action. Thank you, Burleson. [2:45:34] Hear, hear. This has been a great hearing, a really important hearing. Very eyeopening. [2:45:41] I would now like to yield 30 minutes to representative. Wow. They're really going long. [2:45:51] Thank you. Um, in closing, I want to thank our witnesses once again for their testimony today. [2:45:55] I now yield to ranking member Crockett for closing remarks. I'll pass. [2:46:03] No, I, I just want to say thank you so much to each and every one of you, um, for being here today, [2:46:08] for staying committed to this and for your courage. Um, I truly believe that courage is contagious. [2:46:15] And right now we need more courage than ever, whether it's UAPs or whether we're dealing with [2:46:20] any other form of government where people are afraid to come out and speak their truth. Um, [2:46:26] the American people are relying on amazing public servants like you to speak up on their behalf, [2:46:33] to be the watchdog and to make sure that we are as safe as possible. Um, and so thank you so much [2:46:40] again for conducting a bipartisan hearing on such an important matter. Um, I now like to recognize [2:46:49] myself for some closing remarks. Uh, this is obviously something that doesn't just affect [2:46:53] everyone in this room. I can tell you that specifically for where I represent in Pinellas County, [2:46:58] Tampa Bay and Florida as a whole, there's many sightings and many questions, people reporting this, [2:47:02] but I'm not the only one. I was also told by representative bigs as well as, um, you know, [2:47:08] our great representative from Alaska that these are not isolated instances. And so it does bring, [2:47:14] give us reasoning to provide investigative inquiry into these topics, but also to, um, I would also [2:47:20] like Mr. Spielberger, if you could actually review and see if your organization would endorse the [2:47:25] whistleblower protection act that representative Bircha has, I can tell you that I will be signing [2:47:29] on to a letter as well as I'm sure many other members of this task force. And we hope that the [2:47:34] ranking, um, chairwoman or my co my colleague here, uh, representative Crockett, as well as the, [2:47:39] our Democrats that were here today, consider also sending onto that as we do feel that it is time to [2:47:44] ensure that our whistleblowers are given adequate protections and that people like Mr. Borland [2:47:48] are not facing retribution in the way that they have been. Um, with that being said, with all that, [2:47:54] and without objection, all members have five legislative days within to submit materials [2:47:58] and additional written questions for the witnesses and, uh, which will be also forwarded to those [2:48:02] witnesses. If there are no further business without objection, I'd like to now recognize [2:48:09] representative Burchett for closing. I would just like to thank the raking member and the chair [2:48:13] lady for their courage. This is a tough issue. We all catch hell for it. Um, and it's, uh, but it's, [2:48:21] but it's gratifying that we're here in a bipartisan nature and the way this meeting was conducted. [2:48:25] And I want to thank y'all for your courage. Thank y'all. [2:48:29] Go Tim. He often says it the best. [2:48:31] Without objection, the task force stands adjourned. [2:48:46] Well, that I think was the moment that Congress got its mojo back, Megan. I think that was a terrific [2:48:56] hearing, not least because there were amongst some nonsense, some very good questions asked, uh, really [2:49:05] terrific stuff from, uh, representative Luna, Eric Burleson. I think it's time. And I think this [2:49:14] indication came from representative Luna. It's time to start subpoenaing. My big criticism about tonight [2:49:22] is why the hell aren't we calling these firsthand witnesses that have been named this evening? [2:49:28] People, sorry, this morning, I should say it's, it's, uh, evening where I am, by the way. Um, uh, [2:49:34] people like James Lukatsky, people like Ryder, James Ryder, Lockheed Martin, people like Glenn Gaffney. [2:49:43] Let's under force of subpoena, call these people before the Congress and put them under Q and a under oath [2:49:51] and see whether they're prepared to tell the truth to the American public in open public hearing. [2:49:57] I'm very optimistic and really happy about what we just saw, Megan. [2:50:02] Yeah, absolutely. Russ. I, I agree with you. I think some of the wildest stuff that you hear is [2:50:07] the stories that these men are telling their testimonies are so similar to what people tell you [2:50:13] in your reporting every single day. I, you know, I highlighted [2:50:16] with, um, Nusatelli over the ocean pulsing, um, case and best just told you that a couple of weeks [2:50:24] ago. It's like, these are the same things that we're hearing over and over when we produce reality [2:50:28] check and you interview people. So these people don't know each other. Like, are they making it up? [2:50:33] Um, it's just so similar. Um, yeah. And I think also the, the thing that really struck with me [2:50:40] was you had, for example, Eric Burleson talked multiple times about how anonymous staffers are [2:50:49] the people who are doing the blocking. What the hell is going on when unelected people in executive [2:50:58] government are making decisions about Congress's right to do what it is constitutionally mandated to [2:51:05] do. And I think time and time again, representatives talked tonight or today about how there is a con [2:51:15] constitutional right in Congress to ask questions about how public money is being spent. And that's [2:51:23] just not happening. And I think it's terrific that you can see here that the representatives are now [2:51:29] finally taking the gloves off. Uh, I'm really excited about what what's come out of today. [2:51:36] Interestingly, uh, the, the lawyer nerd in me really appreciated what Joe Spielberger had to say. [2:51:41] And there's some detail in Joe's statement, the written statement that he tabled before the hearing [2:51:47] that I would commend people to particularly his recommendation that it needs to be legislated [2:51:53] that the case of the Navy versus Egan be overturned. It's a 1988 Supreme Court decision, which essentially [2:52:02] provides almost carte blanche power deference to agency decision making and security clearance [2:52:10] educations. And I think this is one of the biggest log jams for these committees that the very, the Fox is [2:52:18] in charge of the hen house, the defense department. We now know from all of these witnesses and all of [2:52:24] the congressmen tonight, they're all talking about how there is an obvious coverup, an overt coverup going [2:52:31] on. That's not going to be overturned until and unless the security powers that are inside the defense [2:52:38] department and the intelligence community are taken away from them in terms of the powers to adjudicate [2:52:44] what Congress is allowed to hear. The problem we have with these committees is they are always [2:52:50] going to be perceivable as a dog and pony show because the security clearances aren't there to [2:52:59] give them the ability to call say Glenn Gaffney, former CIA and say to him, okay, what do you know [2:53:07] from the office of global access inside the CIA? What do you really know about the legacy UAP [2:53:13] retrieval and reverse engineering program? They're going to be blocked even before these committees [2:53:19] get to the stage of actually asking questions in public hearing. They're being gagged by incredibly [2:53:26] anonymous staffers in government. And you can feel the frustration in Eric Burleson's voice when he's [2:53:33] talking about these anonymous staffers. I think it's time they were named and shamed. I think it's time [2:53:39] that the people responsible for doing the obstructing were publicly shamed and vilified and if necessary [2:53:49] charged with criminal contempt by Congress. So Ross, a couple things I just want to make you aware of and [2:53:56] also our viewers. I do have that new UFO video loaded so if you want me to play that again you just let me [2:54:02] know Ross. I'm here for you. And I also have Joe Cleal who is our Washington DC correspondent. He is in the [2:54:09] hallway outside the hearing right now. So we will take his camera live when we see some action coming [2:54:16] out, the Rep Luna, etc. He's going to try to grab them and talk with them. So when that has some activity, I will [2:54:23] bring it to you live. I do have a ton of viewer questions that were coming in through the chat as the hearing was live. So I'm going to hit you with them. [2:54:31] We will start with this from Devin Thomas. Ross, do you have any idea if Mr. Borland's triangle is an ARV? [2:54:43] I have no idea one way or the other. One thing I did pick up on the pedant in me as he was giving his [2:54:50] evidence, I noticed that he talked about how the craft that he saw took off from near the NASA hangar. [2:55:00] And in his original statement, he actually said that he saw it over or near the NASA hangar. And I thought [2:55:08] that was a very interesting distinction. He talked about how he saw an 100 foot equilateral triangle [2:55:17] fly from near the NASA hangar. And in his hearing, he said he heard it take off. I thought that was a [2:55:24] significant difference. And it was a significant extra detail in his statement. And I have spoken [2:55:32] to people not at the Air Force Base that he's talking about Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. [2:55:39] I've spoken to people who've been at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, I think that is. And they have seen [2:55:47] clearly under supervision of US military and clearly civilian personnel in suits, an equilateral [2:55:55] triangle taking off from Eglin Air Force Base. I do believe that the United States is operating ARV [2:56:03] vehicles. I do not believe these are all just non human intelligence technology. I do believe that [2:56:11] there is evidence that the United States is operating craft. And I think it's significant [2:56:17] what Dylan Borland has said. I just can't speak to the detail of what he knows. I can speak to the [2:56:22] detail of what I've been told by a very good source who actually saw this with his own eyes on Eglin [2:56:29] Air Force Base, a clear operation involving the deployment of an ARV. [2:56:36] I see we've got Joe Khalil in the corridor there. If we want to cross to Joe, I'd be very happy to talk to him. [2:56:43] It's obvious there's been a lot of people here since five o'clock in the morning. [2:56:47] We can't listen in to him yet. Ross, we don't have any audio, but I think I did just see [2:56:53] Rep Luna walking out. We are working on getting audio from this camera. [2:56:57] No worries. It's fine. [2:57:00] I will go to another question while we wait for that, if that's okay with you, Ross. [2:57:03] You're sure? Fire away. [2:57:04] Okay. This is from Crystal. I think this is just good to set the scene. Can you explain [2:57:11] what is Arrow and who funds them? [2:57:13] Arrow is a complete joke. Is that enough of an answer? [2:57:16] That's perfect. That's exactly what I was hoping you would say. [2:57:20] Arrow is the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, which is the name that is given by the Defense [2:57:26] Department for the office that it has established supposedly to investigate UAPs. I don't doubt for a [2:57:32] moment, by the way, that their current director, Dr. John Kozlowski, is genuine in his intention to [2:57:39] be seen to be scientifically and objectively investigating UAPs. And I know for a fact, [2:57:44] I've spoken to some of them, that there are some very good people in the Arrow office who are [2:57:49] dedicated and determined that you, the public, should get to know the truth. But what I can tell [2:57:55] you is they are aware that they are being frustrated, intensely frustrated, by the people who control [2:58:02] them, the bosses inside the office of the Secretary of Defense Intelligence, who essentially they are [2:58:08] answerable to. The Defense Department is the fox in charge of the henhouse. It is utterly ridiculous [2:58:15] that the body that we supposedly entrust to do the surveilling and the investigation into UAPs [2:58:23] is the same body that is doing the gathering and collation of data inside the Defense Department. [2:58:29] It has to be an independent body. And nothing illustrates the folly of this more than the very [2:58:36] stupid decisions that have been made by Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick and Tim Phillips, the two, [2:58:43] the director and former director of Arrow, who's basically been speaking out in public [2:58:49] and expressing, I think, contemptuous views towards the Congress in ways that I think have [2:58:54] exacerbated the Congress's attitude towards Arrow and the Defense Department. It's just absolutely [2:59:01] unbelievable to me that the former director of Arrow is publicly having a slagging match [2:59:08] with Representative Luna, the chairwoman of the subcommittee of the Congress. And she's outwardly, [2:59:14] publicly today called him flat out a liar. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick has been called a liar by the chairwoman of [2:59:24] a committee in Congress. It's breathtaking to see that kind of contempt from an elected official towards [2:59:33] a member of the executive. And it's clearly a level of the disrespect that is now held for Dr. Sean [2:59:41] Kirkpatrick and Tim Phillips by the Congress. And boy, has Representative Luna come out fighting tonight. [2:59:48] She's really taken the gloves off and made it very, very clear she has no respect at all for the [2:59:54] Pentagon's UFO investigation office. If the Pentagon thought it could intimidate, bully, harass, threaten, [3:00:02] and in some cases murder people to stop this story from getting out, it's got another thing coming. [3:00:09] Congress is coming after you guys. This is getting interesting. [3:00:13] Yep. And Ross, as you know, we have reached out to Sean Kirkpatrick many, many times and asked him to [3:00:19] come on the show with you. And funnily enough, he's always responded, but it's always been a no. He's [3:00:24] one of my fastest responders. I'll bet. No, I mean, there's an open invitation there, Dr. Kirkpatrick, [3:00:30] and I can promise you, you will have a fair opportunity for response, but I can guarantee to [3:00:36] you we will be asking you some very tough questions. Yeah, I think he knows. We will go to [3:00:44] Mr. Meowcat. Glad I could read that today. Question for Ross. Is there independent scientific [3:00:49] review of UAP data outside the Department of Defense? And if not, why has this not been established? [3:00:55] Great question. Absolutely. This is the argument. I think ultimately the decisions on the investigations [3:01:01] of UAPs have to be taken out of the control of the Defense Department. It is quite clear that we are [3:01:08] being lied to and deceived. It really is quite something to see a bipartisan position being taken [3:01:15] in the Congress, both Republican and Democratic members talking about how there is a cover up, [3:01:22] that there are lies being told by people inside the Defense Department. Oh, here we are. We're [3:01:28] getting audio from outside. I can't see Joe there, so we'll just keep on going. There's Denny Sheehan. [3:01:35] There he is. It's been quite a gathering today. I saw David Grush up the back there as well. [3:01:43] I think, oh, there's, oh, wow. There's quite a few people I know. [3:01:49] No, Ross, while you mentioned David Grush, we can see him. We do have a question on Grush from Brock. [3:01:54] Do you have any information on what happened to David Grush? And here's a picture of him [3:01:58] before the hearing as well. Look, I've spoken in detail to David Grush about what happened, [3:02:03] and I do know what happened. I noticed that Representative Luna, in an interview with [3:02:08] Chris Cuomo yesterday, talked a little bit of detail about it. It involved a weapon being pointed at [3:02:16] David Grush. At the moment, it is not clear whether the reason why that weapon was pointed at David Grush [3:02:24] involved anything to do with UAPs. It may indeed have just been some incidental gangbanger who [3:02:30] pointed a weapon at the wrong guy. I can tell you, you do not want to point a weapon at David Grush. He [3:02:36] knows how to handle himself. Anyway, that is being investigated by the police, and I sincerely hope [3:02:42] that they get to the bottom of it. As Representative Luna said to Chris Cuomo, it is a very grave situation [3:02:51] when somebody who is so intimately involved in something so sensitive at the highest levels of [3:02:56] congressional investigation into government is being threatened in any overt way. And I sincerely hope that [3:03:02] this has no connection at all to the UAP issue. Okay, I absolutely agree with you. Let's go to [3:03:10] Jessica. Skywatcher is reportedly working with Arrow. Why are people saying to fund Arrow? [3:03:18] Yes, Skywatcher has been providing data to Arrow, and I think at times they've been doing that because [3:03:23] they've been aware that they might in fact pick up black craft that are being operated by the US in [3:03:30] covert programs. We know that there are covert aerospace programs that do need to be protected, [3:03:36] and none of us want to compromise national security. And I think one of the primary imperatives of [3:03:41] Skywatcher has been to make sure that none of the data that they've collected is data on black programs, [3:03:48] black aerospace programs that the US government doesn't want revealed. I don't think there's anything [3:03:54] wrong with that. Frankly, I think it's a good idea. Maybe we could just reduce that audio from the [3:04:00] hearing a little bit because it's, I think, distracting our audience. There you go. Great. [3:04:07] But yeah, I mean, I think people are saying defund Arrow because frankly, Arrow is a bloody joke. It's a [3:04:14] pathetic, miserable excuse for a review organization that's supposedly investigating UAPs. [3:04:22] You can watch Reality Check next week. We have another major new UAP sighting that is being talked [3:04:30] about, and we go into the detail of how Arrow has completely failed to properly investigate. [3:04:37] I just don't believe Arrow is serious, and I don't believe that Congress believes Arrow is serious [3:04:41] anymore. The Defense Department, or should I say the War Department, is making itself a joke on the issue [3:04:48] of UAPs. We should laugh at them, hold them in contempt and ridicule because it's time for Pete [3:04:54] Hegseth, it's time for the President to start telling the truth about what it is that the War [3:04:59] Department really knows. All right, Existence Unknown, Ross. What tech would you speculate [3:05:06] Bigelow got from Lockheed Martin? He didn't get any tech from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin, [3:05:12] to their credit, had agreed to hand over. I know that there's been references from George Knapp tonight, [3:05:17] that there was references to material, exotic material. I'm told it was a craft, that there [3:05:24] was an intact craft, a retrieved non-human craft that Lockheed Martin had agreed to share with Robert [3:05:31] Bigelow. And it explains why the New York Times story written by Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal way [3:05:38] back in 2017 referred to a special facility being built by Robert Bigelow for the reception of these [3:05:46] extraordinary materials. They were building a facility for the storage of a craft. And what [3:05:54] happened, allegedly, was the CIA intervened, the Office of Global Access. It has been suggested that [3:06:01] Glenn Gaffney, who was named by George Knapp, was directly involved in intercepting and obstructing [3:06:06] the handing over of that material. But that's essentially why the Bigelow investigations into UAPs [3:06:14] eventually didn't really go any further. Because the CIA, say it again, the Central Intelligence [3:06:21] Agency of the United States, the external intelligence agency for the United States, [3:06:26] was actively involved in shutting down an attempt by an honorable American who's done his level best [3:06:33] as an aerospace entrepreneur to honor national security. He was trying to do his level best to [3:06:38] investigate this phenomenon independently of the Defense Department. And what did the CIA do? Why [3:06:44] the hell was the CIA involved in making this decision? We'll never know. They shut him down. [3:06:50] It's time, guys, to use the subpoena powers of Congress to call the CIA and hold these pricks to [3:06:58] account. They're lying to you. They're behaving corruptly, criminally and illegally. Call them out, [3:07:05] Congress. Representative Luna, you now have an opportunity to take on the most powerful intelligence [3:07:12] agency in the country. So let's stop talking about things and calling witnesses who I think are less [3:07:20] than important. Let's start calling some of these primary witnesses who are going to be reluctant [3:07:26] witnesses and the hell with national security classifications. This is a decisive moment for [3:07:32] Congress. Either Congress does its job and accepts that it's constitutionally mandated to ask the hard [3:07:38] questions, or we just give up and go home and accept that the UFO cover up will continue for another 50 [3:07:44] years. All right, Ross, you mentioned the witnesses. So we will go to this next question. Do you guys trust [3:07:50] that these witnesses are credible? Well, it depends which witnesses you're talking about. Look, I won't go into [3:07:58] detail, but I've had some concerns about some evidence that's been given to Congress. I've got my [3:08:03] doubts about some things that have been said. But I do know that there are witnesses in the wings that do [3:08:09] want to give evidence. People who are willing to come forward from within the legacy program, so long as [3:08:16] they have the adequate protections. We do not have those protections in place at the moment. Representative Tim [3:08:23] Burt Chet's whistleblower disclosure laws would be a very good start. And so would the UAPDA provisions in [3:08:32] the defence procurement for this financial year. The problem is, as we just heard from Eric Burleson today, [3:08:40] it's looking very likely that there's obstruction again to stop those UAP disclosure laws from going [3:08:47] through. And as we know, the whistleblower disclosure laws have been blocked in the past. It's just [3:08:53] disgraceful what's going on. We are being played. To some degree, yes, there are honourable motives by [3:08:59] the representatives that have done this hearing today. But behind the scenes, there is a dog and [3:09:04] pony show where staffers who are so willing to become lick spittles of the national security [3:09:10] establishment and get high paying jobs in corporate aerospace are only too willing to take to the [3:09:16] defence and intelligence industries coin and accept that it's their job to shut this kind of [3:09:21] investigation done. We need to call these traitors out and hold them to account. And they are traitors. [3:09:29] This is a complete breach of the spirit of the US Constitution, if not the written black and white [3:09:34] letter law. So, Russ, you mentioned this while the hearing was live. We got a question on it from Sonia. [3:09:41] Why do you believe the wrong witnesses were called? I believe the wrong witnesses were called. [3:09:46] Whilst I do honour the important witnesses that were called today, Jeff Nuttatelli, Dylan Borland, [3:09:55] Alexandro Wiggins, George Knapp, Joe Spielberger, good on them from coming forward. I particularly [3:10:02] commend Alexandro Wiggins, who was a serving member. It took a raw act of courage for a serving member to [3:10:09] come forward in particular. And I'm so sorry to hear that Dylan Borland has lost his job and been [3:10:15] suffering harassment and victimisation for his decision to speak out. That is completely wrong. [3:10:22] So, yes, I commend these people for coming forward. It's fantastic that they have given evidence. [3:10:27] But I know that Congress knows there are first person witnesses out there who want to give evidence. [3:10:32] And I know that the representatives, the chairwoman, Anna Paulina Luna, they're all very frustrated that [3:10:38] those witnesses feel too intimidated right now to feel safe about coming forward. We need to make it [3:10:45] safe for them. I noticed in the comments someone asked me earlier, is it a good idea to write to [3:10:50] your representative and demand that the whistleblower disclosure laws and the UAP disclosure laws be passed? [3:10:57] Bloody right it is. You should get onto the washstand forums and start banging the drum. [3:11:05] The wheel that squeaks gets the grease. It's the primary rule of politics. If you start squawking, [3:11:12] members of the public, and say to your congressional representatives and senators that this matters to [3:11:17] you, they will listen. And don't just send an email. Write a letter. Don't just make a phone call. [3:11:24] Write a letter. A handwritten letter saying who you are, why this matters to you, why this cares. [3:11:32] Detailing what you want to happen is how to get your representatives to listen to you. It really [3:11:38] matters. Government's very old fashioned. They like good old fashioned steam driven letters sent by the [3:11:43] mail. All right, let's go to this next question here. We'll get Sonia out of here and we will pop [3:11:50] Martha in. Who do you think should be responsible for financial support for whistleblowers, public or [3:11:56] private entities? Absolutely public entities, but of course it has to be properly independent. [3:12:03] What we've seen here is the failure of every single oversight agency. The inspectors general, [3:12:10] complete joke. They still haven't announced any findings into David Grush's allegations. [3:12:16] Um, Congress in the past has completely failed to do its job. It's allowed itself to be hamstrung [3:12:23] by bullshit legal constraints, such as the ones being cited by the, um, Jim Spielberger in his [3:12:30] address. Let's just talk about those for a moment, because I think while Jim Spielberger is, um, obviously [3:12:36] not a direct witness, I think, so Joe Spielberger, I apologize, Joe. Uh, I think some of the things [3:12:41] he's recommended are extremely important. He's called for the need to establish an independent [3:12:47] mechanism for intelligence and military whistleblowers who face additional institutional [3:12:54] hurdles to make lawful disclosures. Hey Ross, I don't want it. I don't want to interrupt you. [3:12:58] I'm going to check on something technical. So my picture will go down, but keep talking. I'll be right back. [3:13:03] No problem. He's also called for additional, um, uh, independent adjudicators to provide appropriate and [3:13:11] timely due process relief for whistleblowers who face retaliation. As I mentioned earlier, [3:13:16] he's also called for legislation to overturn the Navy versus Egan, which is this 1988 Supreme [3:13:22] Court decision, which has provided almost total carte blanche deference to agency decision-making [3:13:28] and security clearance adjudications. He's called for an amendment of the Pentagon's burden of proof [3:13:34] standard in military whistleblowers laws to align with civilian federal agencies requiring management [3:13:41] to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they would have taken the same personnel action, [3:13:48] regardless of a service member's whistleblowing. Very, very important. It's a way of avoiding [3:13:53] retaliation against whistleblowers. Um, uh, Joe Spielberg has also suggested that we provide [3:13:59] federal whistleblowers with the right to file retaliation claims directly in court and to [3:14:06] request a jury trial in order to have a better chance of obtaining fair, timely relief. These [3:14:13] are great recommendations. He wants to close loopholes in protections for federal contractors who blow the [3:14:19] whistle about waste fraud and abuse within government funded programs. And he wants to strengthen agency [3:14:27] watchdogs like the Office of Special Counsel and Merit Systems Protection Board, which play critical [3:14:33] roles to enforce whistleblowers protections by ensuring... Let's do this way so he's not, he doesn't [3:14:39] have a bathroom behind him. How about that? So there's George Knapp in the background there. Go George! [3:14:44] He's done a great job today, I have to say. There you go. Looks like we're setting George up for an [3:14:48] interview, which is great news. Just waiting to see what happens here, but I'm hoping we might be hearing [3:14:54] soon from George with his comments about today. On the topic, he's usually one of them. Okay, you ready? [3:14:59] Yeah. Okay. We're ready whenever you are, sir. I know you know the drill. Um, let's just start, [3:15:05] you know, 30,000 foot view. How do you think the hearing went today? I thought it was spectacular. I [3:15:10] mean, the fact that it happened at all is amazing. You know, Congress went 50 years without touching this, [3:15:15] no hearings at all. Now we've had several in a row and, uh, these members have, it's a steep learning curve, [3:15:21] but they've obviously educated themselves and are deeply interested in it. I, what really strikes me [3:15:26] is two years ago, we had that first hearing 2023. The difference in, in just like the caliber of [3:15:32] questions from members between then and now, you all have educated them in some sense. Yeah, [3:15:37] I think so. They've clearly done their homework. I mean, it's like, Hey, what do you think about [3:15:41] UFOs? It's this witness did what this program did what they've, they've really done their homework [3:15:46] and dug in. The video that was shown today, um, I think it's pretty remarkable. Granted, [3:15:53] we don't fully, I guess, understand what's going on in it, but what did you make of that moment and [3:15:57] the committee's reaction to it? We've been hearing about this video for a while. Jeremy Corbell and [3:16:01] I talked about it on the air a while ago. We hadn't seen it yet, but now that it's been released, [3:16:06] awesome. Somebody had to leak that and put it out and put it in the right hands. A member of Congress [3:16:11] had showed it to us in, in advance of the hearing. And it was pretty spectacular. I mean, [3:16:17] a hellfire missile hitting an unknown object, it bounces off and then, uh, the object keeps going. [3:16:23] That's some really interesting technology, whatever the hell it is. Can you explain Thread [3:16:28] 3? Um, there was a lot of discussion and, and admiration for how you were able to even get that, [3:16:33] that at all. Um, but how important is that to the larger narrative here? Thread 3 was a really big [3:16:40] Russian UFO program. Uh, there had been a 10 year stretch where the entire Russian military, [3:16:46] vast USSR military apparatus, every unit in that, uh, in that system had to identify, [3:16:52] investigate, and pass all the information of any UFO incident onto the Ministry of Defense. Thread 3 [3:16:58] grew out, out of that. It was analyzing all those cases and trying to figure out if they could duplicate [3:17:03] the technology that was flying around in their skies. It, it leads me to believe that we would [3:17:09] learn more from the Russians about what our American government knows about UFOs than we'd ever learn from [3:17:14] the, uh, American government itself. And that's what it, that's what we did. [3:17:18] Yeah. I hear it. It suggests that the superpowers in this world are trying to do the same thing. [3:17:24] They're trying to figure out that technology and see if they can replicate it. And the first country [3:17:29] that gets it wins. I've heard a lot of skeptical. Sure. Sure. I've heard a lot of skeptical people talk [3:17:37] about how, or they question, you know, if this is truly a real phenomenon, why does it only happen in [3:17:42] the United States? Not realizing that there are global reports and incidents. So by you introducing [3:17:48] that, do you think that all of a sudden now there's more of an awareness about how this is an [3:17:52] international phenomenon? Well, I hope that people will realize that we Americans are pretty self-centered [3:17:57] and we think that anything that happens in the rest of the world doesn't count, but these things have [3:18:00] been around for a long time, flying over every continent, every culture, as long as humans can recall. [3:18:07] And it is a global phenomenon. The Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Israelis, they're all [3:18:13] interested in trying to get the technology. And, you know, maybe events like this can help push us [3:18:18] toward the stigma being released. Sorry. Maybe an event like this will help reduce the stigma and get [3:18:26] more people involved, scientists, engineers who've been told for so long that there's nothing to it. [3:18:31] You know, the OSAP program under the DIA, they collected files from all over the world. They [3:18:39] created the world's largest UFO database with some 240,000 cases. I think that some intelligence agencies [3:18:46] are in use of that right now, but the vast majority of what was created with tax dollars has never been [3:18:55] released to the public. 95% of these amazing reports have never been released at all. DIA says they can't find [3:19:00] them. It's amazing. Two more questions for you and then I'm all done. What is the next immediate [3:19:05] step? I know it's a marathon. It's not a sprint here, disclosure, but what do you think comes next [3:19:10] after today? What I hope comes next is that Congress can enact some protections for whistleblowers that [3:19:17] are meaningful, that can protect them not only from retribution in their job, that can maintain their [3:19:22] security clearances, and that encourages more whistleblowers to come forward. There are people out [3:19:26] there who shared information with us off the record who'd like to be able to go on the record, [3:19:31] but they're worried for their lives. That's not a joke. They think that they would be killed if [3:19:35] they came forward and told what they had. If Congress wants real whistleblowers with hands-on [3:19:40] experience who've worked on these secret projects, have seen the technology with their own eyes, [3:19:46] they want them to testify. They're going to have to really enact some strict protections, [3:19:50] and it has to go beyond just job protection. It has to be protection for their lives. [3:19:54] And last one, can you just sort of characterize or qualify how you think today may have just moved [3:20:02] the ball forward more generally on just those? Well, look, you had really credible witnesses. They're [3:20:08] not trying to sell a book. They're not trying to get a movie. They're telling what really happened to [3:20:14] them, and it takes courage to come forward under oath before Congress, basically in front of the whole [3:20:20] world and tell the story. You know they're going to get crap. You know what UFO world is like, Joe. [3:20:24] They're going to get ripped to shreds, and some of them were already being ripped to shreds as soon [3:20:28] as their names came out. So I hope that those guys, being willing to put it all on the line, [3:20:33] speak to Congress about what they had seen and what they know, will encourage others to follow in [3:20:38] their place. All right. Well, I just want to say, Megan, how important I think it is, [3:20:49] the contribution that George Knapp has made and continues to make to this whole disclosure issue. [3:20:55] It's 39 years I think he's been doing this, and I take my head off to the guy. I've been doing this [3:21:01] for seven years, and frankly, it's taken years off my life. But George has been phenomenal with the work [3:21:08] that he's done, and I think the witness evidence that he gave today was, I think, some of the best. [3:21:16] He actually has an ability to encapsulate the issue really well, and I think he also brought [3:21:23] a great deal of acquired knowledge, wisdom, and experience that really showed in today's hearing. [3:21:29] Yeah, I absolutely agree. He's a legend in this space, and he has a lot of knowledge. So [3:21:36] it was kind of discouraging, and we had a question about this earlier. At the very beginning of the [3:21:40] hearing, Luna kind of cut him off. He did get time, a lot of time, at the end. But why do you think [3:21:48] his testimony at the very beginning was, his opening statements were cut off? [3:21:51] I think it's because he just got on a bit. I mean, I think George had so much to talk about, [3:21:57] and I think he was on a four or five minute time schedule, and maybe she just realized it was just [3:22:02] getting to the end of his time. But also, I think maybe it's time for Congress to review the way in [3:22:08] which they do these hearings. I would far rather have less representatives asking more well-researched [3:22:16] questions than the kind of scattergun approach that we have. It's almost like what you want to hear is a [3:22:24] development of a series of questions, maybe over 10 minutes over a witness or 15 minutes with a [3:22:30] witness, rather than this sort of to and fro. I can understand it's the tradition in the way Congress [3:22:36] operates. But what I'd love to see more of, you could tell who'd done their research tonight when, [3:22:42] say, Eric Burleson or Representative Luna basically asked questions that were clearly well-informed. I [3:22:50] sensed the deft hand of David Grush between some of the questions that Eric Burleson asked. It really [3:22:58] made a difference. You could see that they were well-informed. And, you know, where the blows were [3:23:04] landed was when witnesses were asked good questions and there were good follow-up questions. That's what [3:23:10] needs to happen. And maybe they need to look at the way in which they'd structure these committee hearings. [3:23:15] Because I generally, though, have to say I'm very impressed with what we saw today. I think it was [3:23:23] better than I expected. It wasn't a dog and pony show. There were legitimate questions developed. It [3:23:31] was fantastic. They went an extra half an hour. I could have gone another half an hour or another hour, [3:23:36] frankly. But I think the big thing, and this is something that Representative Luna indicated, [3:23:42] it's time to start subpoenaing involuntary witnesses. Let's call these reluctant witnesses. [3:23:52] Let's call Admiral Tom Wilson. Let's call James Lekatsky, who's an honorable man who's doing his [3:23:59] level best to honor national security laws. Let's call these witnesses like Glenn Gaffney, [3:24:05] James Ryder. Let's put them before the Congress and see what they say when they are put under oath and [3:24:12] reminded that if they lie to Congress, they can go to jail for a very, very long time. I'd like to see [3:24:19] the heads of aerospace companies like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin called. I'd like to see [3:24:27] Jake Barber called. I'd like to see David Grush recalled. Frankly, there's so many other witnesses who [3:24:35] should be allowed to be called. But part of the problem is, and this is the frustration, [3:24:40] that you could feel from Eric Burleson. There are staffers. This is the outrage. There are staffers [3:24:47] behind the scenes dictating who will speak and what they will say. Well, who the bloody hell are [3:24:55] they? Call them out. Ross, I will end on one final question. If you were called to testify after all that [3:25:03] you know now, what do we see up there? Who would I see up there? Would we see you up there? Oh, look, [3:25:10] I'd be happy to testify. But frankly, I think journos shouldn't be the story. I take my head off to [3:25:15] George. I think he's earned it after 39 years. Frankly, there's an old saying that journos should [3:25:21] never be the story. It should always be the talent, the interviewee who's the focus. And I'd like to see [3:25:27] the direct first-hand witnesses from the legacy program, people I know, good, honorable, patriotic [3:25:35] Americans, people who care for their country and who are frustrated that the public is being lied to. [3:25:42] I want to see those people being called. They care for their country. They love their country. They think [3:25:49] that there is technology, scientific discoveries, discoveries about humanity that are being held [3:25:55] back, energy breakthroughs, propulsion breakthroughs, technological breakthroughs that could benefit [3:26:01] all of humankind, that are being held back by a bunch of self-interested A-type blokes who think [3:26:08] that they know the public good. They don't, and it's time they were held to account. [3:26:15] Ross, I just want to thank you so much for your time today. I know it is a very, [3:26:18] very early morning hours for you. Your commitment to this issue is unmatched and we appreciate you [3:26:24] over here at NewsNation and Reality Check. It's 3.15 and up for Cuomo in another two hours, [3:26:31] so I think I might just stay awake and have a cup of tea. Thanks very much, Megan, and thank you to [3:26:36] everyone here for joining us tonight. Apparently, we've had good numbers. People have been watching [3:26:41] and staying with us. I really appreciate it. We've been going now for nearly three and a half hours, [3:26:46] which is a bit of a record for Reality Check. And just a reminder, we do have an email where you [3:26:52] can send us questions and we will be doing Q&A this week. You can contact me and ask questions at [3:26:59] realitycheckatnewsnationnow.com. Thank you so much for joining us for this special live UAP hearing [3:27:08] edition of Reality Check. And thank you very much to Megan Arada, NewsNation, Andy Gibson and everyone [3:27:15] else there, Mike in social media, for helping us with today's show. All the best.