House holds hearing on UFO transparency and whistleblower protection

[0:01] Good morning and welcome to the hearing regarding UAP disclosures. For too long, the issue of [0:07] unidentified anomalous phenomena, commonly known as UAPs, has been shrouded in secrecy, [0:12] stigma, and in some cases, outright dismissal. Today, I want to state clearly that this is not [0:17] science fiction or creating speculation. This is about national security, government accountability, [0:22] and the American people's right to the truth. I have spoken now to a number of whistleblowers [0:27] from the military to include the infamous Eglin Air Force Base incident that occurred when myself [0:31] and former Representative Matt Gaetz, as well as Representative Burchett, followed up on a lead [0:35] from multiple active-duty Air Force pilot whistleblowers that alleged that the United [0:39] States Air Force was covering up UAP activity at Eglin Air Force Base. We have heard from a [0:44] number of whistleblowers, specifically military pilots, that the reason for not coming forward [0:48] publicly is out of fear that speaking out would cost them their flight status and potentially [0:52] their careers. This is unacceptable. We cannot protect our airspaces if our best-trained [0:58] observers are silenced. We cannot advance science if we refuse to [1:02] ask questions. And we cannot maintain trust in government if we keep the American people in the [1:07] dark. Now, Congress has tried to fix this problem. Congress tried to create formal channels through [1:13] the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, also known as AERO, and the Intelligence Community [1:18] Inspector General for service members and officials to make disclosures. But the reality, [1:24] the reports come in are often to brush aside, slow-walked, or met with skepticism rather than [1:29] serious investigation. Recently, the former AERO director, known as Sean Kilpatrick, [1:34] attacked our witnesses and members on this committee. It should be noted that he's a [1:38] documented liar and brings into question what his purpose at AERO really was if it was not [1:42] to follow up on investigations and disclose his findings to members of Congress. A former [1:47] Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Chris Mellon, described a report [1:51] published by AERO that found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, [1:57] or official review panel has confirmed any citing of UAP-represented extraterrestrial technology. [2:03] As the most, [2:05] AERO written an unsatisfactory government report I can recall reading during after decades of [2:10] government service. Mellon further noted that this was a first AERO report submitted to Congress [2:16] without the Director of National Intelligence's sign-off and seemingly excluded input from any [2:21] scholars or experts who have studied or written extensively about this topic, [2:27] as would normally be in any other case in this field. Mellon determined that this report failed [2:32] to fulfill the congressional mandate under which it was required, omitted entire [2:36] agencies with known investigations or activities related to UAPs, and omitted any discussion of [2:41] efforts to hide classified or unclassified information about UAP. Such efforts were [2:47] unaddressed by the report despite the existence of agency records and investigations concurring [2:53] with them, including those at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If we set up offices and [3:00] oversight bodies only to let them become graveyards for testimony or, worse yet, ruses for pretending to [3:06] investigate, [3:06] when in actuality there was no follow-up, then we are not doing our jobs. In recent months, [3:10] Congress has also been presented with evidence that points to technologies that to our knowledge [3:14] are beyond our current capabilities. It is our duty as elected representatives to follow the [3:20] facts wherever they lead and to ensure that those facts are not buried under classification stamps [3:24] or bureaucratic excuses. Let me be clear, whether UAPs represent adversarial technology, natural [3:30] phenomena, or something beyond current human understanding, Congress has a responsibility [3:34] to investigate. If these objects are foreign in origin, [3:37] then they pose a direct threat to our national security, and if they represent something [3:42] unknown, they demand rigorous scientific inquiry, not ridicule, not secrecy, and not silence. [3:47] The stakes are very high. Adversarial nations are not waiting for us to catch up. They are [3:51] studying these phenomena as well aggressively, as multiple nations have also announced their [3:57] own parliamentary investigations into this very topic. If we are to continue to hide [4:02] information from ourselves, we risk strategic surprise. If we continue to ignore pilots and service members, as well as [4:08] countless government whistleblowers, we risk losing their trust. And if we continue to shield the truth [4:13] from the public, we risk eroding the very foundation of democratic accountability. This is why this [4:19] hearing matters. This is not about fueling speculation. This is about demanding the basic [4:24] transparency from the Department of Defense and the intelligence community and other military [4:28] contractors. It is about asking the questions every American has the right to ask. What do we [4:34] know? What don't we know? And why in a free society are we being told so little? [4:40] The major barrier to this committee's inquiry into UAPs has been the lack of cooperation and transparency from the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. [4:49] In preparation for previous UAP hearings, the committee repeatedly asked the Department [4:53] of Defense to allow members to view videos and files related to UAP incidences. Unfortunately, [4:59] the Department of Defense notified the committee staff that due to the department's special [5:02] access program rules, only members of the House Armed Service Committee, as well as [5:07] the Defense Subcommittee on House Appropriations, also known as HACD, were allowed to view videos [5:10] of such programs. For a non-committee member to be allowed to view these documents and [5:16] videos, individual members must be approved by the chairman and ranking member of both [5:20] HACC and HACD. Independent SAP oversight has presented a consistent problem for Congress, [5:26] as well as program budgets are classified. Additionally, oversight reporting to Congress [5:31] is classified and only provided to the Authorizing and Appropriations Committees of Jurisdiction. [5:37] The American people are not fragile. They do not need to be shielded like children from [5:41] reality. [5:42] What they cannot tolerate, and what they will not forgive, is a government that withholds [5:45] the truth and punishes those who dare to speak up. [5:48] I want to close with this. Future generations will look back at this moment and ask what [5:53] we did when presented with the unknown. Did we look away, embarrassed or afraid, or did [5:57] we pursue the truth with courage? I intend to be on the side of truth, transparency and [6:03] accountability and I hope my colleagues on this task force will be able to do the same. [6:08] To quote a few elected officials, Senator Schumer has stated, multiple credible sources [6:12] allege a constitutional crisis over UFOs. Senator Rounds has stated that these are brilliant [6:18] individuals and they are not making this stuff up. [6:21] And our current Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has stated very high clearances and [6:25] high positions within our government in regards to these whistleblowers. Senator McConnell [6:30] also described these whistleblowers as staying incredible. And the witnesses today are not [6:35] alone. In fact, they're far from it. [6:37] In fact, 34 senior military government and intelligence officials have broken their silence. This includes Senator [6:43] Schumer, now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Senator Rounds, Senator Gillibrand, General [6:48] Jim Clapper, the former director of the government's UAP task force, the former head of aviation [6:54] security for the White House National Security Council, the former Secretary of Defense and [6:59] many more. [7:00] Again, to quote Secretary of State Rubio in an upcoming documentary known as the Age of [7:05] Disclosure, even presidents have been operating on a need to know basis that begins to spin [7:10] out of control. And to quote Senator Gillibrand, [7:13] who also went public in this documentary, it's not acceptable to have secret parts [7:17] of this government that no one ever sees. It's time for the fundamental truths of UAP [7:21] to be revealed to our nations, leaders and the public. It's time for the U.S. government [7:25] to exercise transparency. And with that, I yield to Ranking Member Crockett for the opening [7:29] statement. [7:30] Thank you so much, Madam Chair. At a time of increasing distrust in government, it is [7:36] important for Congress to take action to restore the government's credibility. Bringing transparency [7:42] to an issue of great public interest is an important part of the U.S. government's [7:44] mission. And I thank Chairwoman Luna for calling this bipartisan hearing to discuss [7:51] unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAP, which is today's term for what was commonly [7:58] known as UFOs, unidentified flying objects. While some people think of flying saucers [8:05] when they hear these terms, it is vital that we focus on the real-world impact of UAPs [8:12] on critical infrastructure, civilian safety, and the security of our nation's security. [8:13] Thank you for your time, and I hope you have a great afternoon. [8:14] safety and national security. There is good reason to believe that most UAPs have origins far closer [8:21] to home. Currently, NASA has not found any evidence that any UAPs have an extraterrestrial [8:28] origin. Our adversaries are working to develop new capabilities to gain military advantages, [8:35] and those efforts are likely explanation for the mysteries that we have observed. [8:42] Nevertheless, the federal government has a responsibility to the American people to [8:47] investigate and provide transparent disclosures about every incident. The federal government [8:53] is equally obligated to protect those who report what they've seen, especially to commanding [8:59] officers and supervisors. And Congress should do everything in its power to protect whistleblowers [9:05] and conduct oversight of agencies that are failing to provide that protection. Democracy [9:11] depends on transparency. [9:12] And transparency often relies on the courage of individuals willing to risk their careers, [9:19] reputations, and in some cases, their personal safety to tell the truth. [9:23] So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. We should welcome their accounts and [9:28] acknowledge the bravery they have shown to come before us. We must ensure that all whistleblowers [9:35] feel that they can come to Congress to tell their stories without fear of retaliation [9:40] or professional consequences. [9:42] We need transparency, not just to make better policy, but also to ensure that information [9:48] flows between all those who need it. [9:51] There are too many tragic examples in our history where information lapses and a lack [9:57] of cross-agency coordination led to disaster. Just this year, failure to communicate between [10:03] FAA and the Department of Defense led to tragedy over the Potomac. The Biden-Harris administration [10:10] sought to eliminate some of these lapses when it established that the Department of Defense [10:11] would not be able to communicate between the FAA and the Department of Defense. The Biden-Harris [10:12] administration sought to eliminate some of these lapses when it established that the Department [10:13] of Defense would not be able to communicate between the FAA and the Department of Defense [10:14] when it established that the Department of Defense would not be able to communicate between [10:15] the Department of Defense and the Department of Defense. [10:16] The Biden-Harris administration sought to eliminate those lapses or lapses that by may [10:18] have managed to smelling or [10:31] Groves and Se konuş about pointing out before making those lapses and biographies, but [10:33] had not they recurring downstream. [10:34] Now we know what the knead of the UAP is. It partnership explosion of crises involving [10:35] our petroける. [10:36] The federaway is no longer here. [10:37] We are a part of the mill fair. [10:38] Don't afraid to cross off. [10:39] Let's get through this whole battler. [10:40] Any questions? [10:41] 誰는 Zuva, Chairman Hamilton [10:42] Nobody's doing that. [10:43] single UAP the United States has millions of eyes in the sky both [10:49] electronic and human but only the combination of civilian commercial and [10:54] military sources can begin to create a complete picture so we need to ensure [11:00] that people can come forward and report what they have seen to the relevant [11:04] authorities and they have to have the right to do so without fear of [11:08] retaliation this country has a history of dedicated public servants standing up [11:13] for what is right even in the face of potential consequences from the Pentagon [11:18] Papers to Watergate to torture programs whistleblowers have not only informed [11:24] the public but also empowered Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty of [11:29] oversight past Congress's have written laws to grant legal protection for [11:35] whistleblowers and it is up to us to work responsibly [11:38] with all sources to hold the executive branch accountable we are here today to [11:44] listen to the stories of those who have witnessed events of interest to the [11:49] American people and to support the policies that cultivate an environment [11:54] that welcomes and protects whistleblowers I hope this hearing will [11:58] be an example of the respect and protection whistleblowers deserve and [12:02] the importance of conducting oversight of the federal government I yield back. [12:06] I am pleased to welcome the [12:11] of witnesses for today's hearing. I'd first like to welcome Mr. Jeffrey [12:16] Nusatelli. He's a United States Air Force veteran and a career federal employee [12:20] with more than 20 years of experience in national security, law enforcement, and [12:24] public administration. Next we have Mr. Alexander Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins [12:31] is currently serving as a senior chief operations specialist in the United [12:34] States Navy. Mr. Wiggins is testifying in his personal capacity today and not on [12:39] behalf of the United States Navy. Next I would like to recognize a gentlewoman [12:43] from Nevada, Representative Titus. Thank you very much Madam Chairman, ranking [12:49] members, for allowing me to sit with you on this panel today. I'm honored to be [12:54] able to introduce a witness here who is from my district, George Knapp, who has [12:59] been the definitive expert and reporter on this topic that you're exploring [13:04] today, UAPs or UFOs. George is a longtime [13:10] friend of the United States Navy. He's a veteran of the United States Navy. He's a [13:10] friend, I would say that up front, but a very respected journalist and a [13:15] recognized expert in this field nationally and internationally. Just a [13:20] little something about George. He came to Las Vegas in 1979 and joined KLS [13:26] television station as a general assignment reporter in 1981. Since 1995, he's been [13:34] the chief investigative reporter for that channel. He also hosts a national [13:40] radio show you can listen to on Coast to Coast AM which covers many of the [13:45] paranormal topics that y'all are discussing. Over the years, George has [13:49] been, as I said, recognized for his work. He's been honored with the Peabody Award, [13:54] the DuPont Award, the Edward Murrow Award, and 27 different regional Emmys for his [14:03] investigative reporting. Indeed, he has told Nevada's story with clarity, with [14:10] objectivity, and with integrity. I know that his testimony today is going to be of [14:18] great interest and value to this committee. Thank you very much. [14:23] Next we have Mr. Dylan Borland. Mr. Borland is a United States Air Force veteran and has [14:27] a long career in federal service. Finally, I'd like to introduce Mr. Joe Spielberger, [14:33] a senior policy counsel at the Project of Government Oversight. Pursuant to Committee [14:39] Rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand. [14:41] Please stand and raise the right hand. Do you solemnly swear and or affirm that the [14:51] testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and the nothing but [14:55] the truth to help you God? Let the record show that the witnesses answered in affirmative. [15:00] Thank you. You may take your seat. We appreciate you being here today and I look forward to [15:07] hearing your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statements [15:12] and it will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements [15:17] to five minutes, but I understand you have a lot to get through, so if it goes a little [15:20] over, don't worry about it. [15:22] As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it [15:25] is on and the members can hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you [15:29] will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow and when the red light comes [15:33] on, your five minutes have expired and we will ask you to please wrap it up. I now recognize [15:37] Mr. Nusatelli for his opening statement. [15:40] Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Crockett, and members of the [15:49] task force for giving us the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jeffrey Nusatelli. [15:55] I'm a member of the Task Force. I'm a member of the Task Force. I'm a member of the Task [15:56] Force. I'm a former military police officer with 16 years of active duty service in the [16:00] U.S. Air Force. I'm here today because the American people have both the right and the [16:05] responsibility to know the truth about unidentified aerial phenomenon. That truth remains hidden, [16:12] classified and silenced by fear, retaliation, stigma, and confusion. Today, we are here [16:19] to help break that silence. Between 2003 and 2005, five UAP incidents occurred at Vandenberg [16:27] Air Force Base. [16:28] Vandenberg Air Force Base, home to the National Missile Defense Project, a top national security [16:33] priority. At the time, we were conducting launches deemed by the National Reconnaissance [16:38] Office as the most important in 25 years. These were historic launches. These facilities [16:46] were vital and they were repeatedly visited by UAP. Each incident was witnessed by multiple [16:54] personnel, documented, investigated, and reported up the chain of command. We sent information [17:00] up. [17:01] but we got no guidance down on how to handle these events. [17:06] I personally witnessed one of these events [17:07] and investigated others as they occurred. [17:11] Six other service members have provided me [17:13] with the information that I will share with you today. [17:18] The incursions began on October 14th, 2003, [17:22] when Boeing contractors reported [17:24] a massive glowing red square silently hovering [17:27] over two missile defense sites. [17:29] After several minutes, it drifted further east [17:31] onto the base and vanished over the hills. [17:35] This event, now known as the Vandenberg Red Square, [17:37] was referenced by Representative Luna [17:40] at the first hearing on this topic. [17:43] Official Air Force records of this event [17:45] are in possession by Aero and the FBI. [17:50] Later that night, while I was on duty, [17:53] security guards at a critical launch site [17:55] reported a bright, fast-moving object over the ocean. [17:59] I responded to the incident. [18:02] Chaos ensued over the radio [18:03] as the object approached rapidly. [18:06] I heard my friend screaming, [18:07] it's coming right at us, it's coming right for us, [18:10] and now it's right here. [18:13] Moments later, I heard them say [18:14] that it had shot off and was gone. [18:17] When I arrived on scene, I talked to five shaken witnesses [18:21] who described a massive, triangular craft, [18:24] larger than a football field, that hovered silently [18:27] for about 45 seconds over their entry control point [18:30] before shooting away at impossible speed. [18:34] About a week later, another patrol reported a light [18:37] over the ocean, behaving erratically. [18:40] They said it might be an unannounced aircraft. [18:42] They declared an emergency, [18:44] and an armed response force responded. [18:47] Before the forces could arrive, [18:50] the object descended and either landed [18:52] or hovered on our flight line [18:55] and then took off again at impossible speed. [19:00] The witnesses to this event were threatened [19:04] and intimidated afterward. [19:06] They were told to keep quiet [19:08] and think about what they were reporting. [19:11] After that, things did get quiet until about 2005. [19:15] When another patrol reported a massive, triangular craft, [19:20] larger than a C-130, silently floating over the installation. [19:25] He watched it for a few minutes. [19:27] It traveled west and disappeared into the night. [19:30] And then, I had my own encounter, again in 2005. [19:35] I was off duty, sitting in my backyard [19:37] with two other police officers when we noticed [19:39] what first appeared to be a satellite in orbit, [19:42] but it wasn't acting like a satellite. [19:44] The light was strange. [19:45] It was pulsing. [19:46] And then it started to maneuver. [19:48] It dropped in elevation. [19:51] At times, it would vanish from view [19:53] and reappear in a different location in the sky. [19:56] And eventually, it reappeared 200 feet over my house. [20:00] It was a 30-foot diameter sphere of light. [20:04] My friends and I watched it for a moment, [20:06] and then it gently accelerated and traveled up [20:09] and disappeared into the stars. [20:13] These events profoundly changed my life [20:15] and the lives of my friends. [20:18] We stand at a pivotal moment in history. [20:20] The question is no longer whether these events are real, [20:23] but whether we have the courage to face them. [20:26] True leadership requires vision, [20:28] a willingness to confront the unknown [20:30] with transparency and resolve. [20:32] So I ask the Congress to help we, the people, [20:36] enact this vision. [20:38] There are three goals. [20:39] Fund independent research [20:41] and treat UAP study with the same seriousness [20:44] as we would any other scientific field. [20:48] end secrecy and over-classification. [20:51] Transparency is the foundation of truth. [20:54] Without it, witnesses like us are dismissed. [20:58] protect the witnesses. [21:01] Many stay silent out of fear for their careers, [21:04] reputations, and the safety of their families. [21:07] Protect them, and you will embolden others [21:11] to join this cause. [21:13] These phenomenon challenge our deepest assumptions [21:15] about reality, consciousness, and our place in the universe. [21:19] Exploring them can unlock transformation. [21:22] These are transformative breakthroughs in technology, [21:25] biology, and human understanding. [21:28] Let this be the moment when America chooses [21:31] courage over fear, [21:33] transparency over secrecy, [21:35] and progress over stagnation. [21:37] Let's show the world that our nation leads [21:39] not only through strength, [21:41] but through fearless pursuit of the truth. [21:43] Thank you. [21:46] Thank you, Mr. Nusatelli. [21:55] I now recognize Chief Wiggins for his opening statement. [21:57] Please press your button. Thank you. [22:04] Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, [22:06] Chair Crocket, and members of the task force [22:10] and the committee. [22:12] Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. [22:15] My name is Alexandro Wiggins. [22:17] I'm an active duty U.S. Navy operations specialist, [22:20] senior chief petty officer, father of three, [22:23] and dedicated American testifying today [22:25] in my personal capacity. [22:28] The views I share are my own, [22:30] and I do not represent the official positions [22:32] of the Department of the Navy [22:34] or any subordinate organization. [22:37] On the evening of February 15, 2023, [22:41] at approximately 1915 PST, [22:44] in the Whiskey 291 warning area [22:47] off the coast of Southern California, [22:50] I was serving on board USS Jackson. [22:54] During that period, I moved between [22:57] the Interior Communications Center, ICC-1, [23:00] and the bridge wing, correlating the sensor picture [23:03] with visual observations, [23:06] part of my routine responsibilities [23:08] for surface and air picture management. [23:11] What I observed and what our crew recorded [23:13] was not consistent with conventional [23:15] aircraft or drones as they appear on our system. [23:21] A self-luminous, tic-tac-shaped object emerged [23:24] from the ocean before linking up [23:26] with three other similar objects. [23:31] The four then disappeared simultaneously [23:33] with a high synchronized, [23:35] near instantaneous acceleration. [23:37] I observed no sonic boom [23:40] and no conventional propulsion signatures, [23:43] no exhaust plume, no control surface articulation [23:48] on the SAFIRE image system. [23:50] Shortly after the synchronized departure, [23:52] radar tracks dropped. [23:54] These observations were multi-sensor [23:57] and recorded inside of ICC-1, [23:59] with time-location overlay visible [24:04] in our source frames that have been [24:06] made public by journalists. [24:08] From my experience operating in this region [24:12] over many years, and consistent [24:14] with our public characterized encounters, [24:18] unidentified objects reoccur [24:20] in United States operation areas [24:22] off Southern California. [24:24] That fact alone does not tell us [24:27] what they are, but it does argue [24:30] the systematic stigma-free reporting [24:34] and for the preservation of sensor data [24:37] so analysts can evaluate safe [24:39] and intelligence implications with rigor. [24:44] I want to underscore three points [24:46] for the task force and the committee. [24:48] Aviation and maritime safety. [24:51] When crews and watchstanders observe objects [24:55] that maneuver or accelerate in ways [24:59] that does not match known profiles [25:01] and do so near our ships and aircraft, [25:06] that is first and foremost a safety issue. [25:10] Standardized checklist and training [25:12] should ensure we capture the best [25:14] possible sensor data in real time, [25:16] including IR settings, slant range estimates [25:20] and bearing and range altitude snapshots, [25:23] and immediate chain of custody [25:25] for any recordings. [25:29] Reporting without stigma, protection [25:31] without retribution. [25:33] Customers need to know that reporting UAP encounters [25:36] will not harm their careers. [25:38] Congress can help by reinforcing [25:42] witness protection and by directing [25:44] the relevant office to maintain confidential, [25:47] destigmatized channels for service members [25:50] who step forward with data. [25:52] Declassification and transparency [25:55] where possible. [25:56] The task force declassification mission [25:59] is directly relevant here. [26:01] Where operational security permits [26:05] releasing metadata-preserved [26:07] sensor excerpts or at least technical summaries [26:10] would improve public trust [26:13] and accelerate outside scientific scrutiny. [26:17] That includes, when feasible, [26:19] the time geo-reference IR frames [26:21] and radar parameters needed [26:23] for independent analysis. [26:26] To be clear, I am not here [26:28] to make claims beyond my lane. [26:30] I am here to provide a firsthand account [26:32] of what I saw, what our systems recorded, [26:36] and why it matters for safety, [26:40] for intelligence and public confidence. [26:42] My request to you is practical. [26:45] Help us capture, protect, [26:47] fairly evaluate the evidence, [26:49] and provide a safe pathway [26:51] for those in uniform to report it. [26:55] In closing, I want to thank the committee [26:57] and the task force for holding this hearing [26:59] and for placing this discussion in a forum [27:03] where evidence can be examined [27:05] carefully and openly. [27:07] I appreciate your attention [27:10] and stand ready to answer your questions. [27:12] Thank you. [27:13] Thank you, Chief. [27:20] I now recognize Mr. Knapp [27:21] for his opening statement. [27:22] Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, [27:26] Ranking Member, Ms. Crockett, [27:28] and members of the task force. [27:30] And Dena Titus, I just knew [27:31] we were going to get you involved [27:32] in this topic at one point. [27:33] Great to see you here. [27:35] I'm George Knapp, [27:36] Chief Investigative Reporter [27:37] at KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. [27:39] I began my pursuit of this weird mystery [27:42] way back in 1987. [27:43] And for 38 years, [27:45] I've always approached this as a news story. [27:47] It's not a matter of faith or belief to me. [27:50] It's a story. [27:51] And it's an important one. [27:52] I'm proud to be here [27:53] alongside these witnesses today, [27:55] men who have seen strange things [27:57] and stepped forward [28:00] to tell the world about it. [28:02] Whistleblowers and witnesses who step up [28:04] are routinely insulted, [28:06] belittled, or worse. [28:08] They risk their reputations, [28:10] their careers, [28:11] their clearances, [28:12] their livelihoods, [28:13] and sometimes much more than that, [28:15] even their freedom. [28:16] I know that one of the goals [28:19] of the task force here [28:20] is to figure out ways [28:21] to protect whistleblowers and witnesses. [28:23] And it's a tall order, [28:24] because so many of the things [28:26] that happen to witnesses like these [28:28] are extra legal. [28:29] They're carried out by persons unknown, [28:32] as Mr. Dave Grush, [28:33] sitting up at the top of the room, [28:35] knows all too well, [28:36] including events in recent days [28:38] that have happened to him. [28:39] I want to share a couple of things [28:40] that I've learned along the way [28:41] on this long journey. [28:43] And I submitted most of that [28:44] in written form [28:45] because I estimate that [28:46] my statement here today [28:47] would take about four and a half hours. [28:49] So I'm going to try to jump over [28:51] and touch on the more important, [28:53] salient points. [28:54] I submitted a detailed written statement [28:56] for the record, [28:57] and we'll go into a lot of that here. [28:59] But the public has been told [29:01] over and over since the late 40s, [29:03] there's nothing to worry about here. [29:05] These mysterious craft [29:07] seen by millions of people [29:09] in the skies, [29:10] in the oceans, [29:11] over the land, [29:12] are not real. [29:13] They're not a threat. [29:14] The witnesses are wrong. [29:15] They're crackpots. [29:16] Don't believe it. [29:17] That changed for me. [29:18] What got me hooked [29:19] is the paper trail. [29:20] Documents that were squeezed [29:23] out of the U.S. [29:24] government [29:25] after the FOIA, [29:26] Freedom of Information Act, [29:28] became the law of the land. [29:30] And those documents paint [29:31] a much different picture [29:32] than what the public, [29:33] the press, [29:34] and Congress have been told [29:35] over many years. [29:37] The documents from military [29:39] and intelligence personnel [29:40] behind closed doors admit that, [29:42] quote, [29:43] these things are real. [29:44] They're not fictitious. [29:45] They can fly in formation. [29:46] They're evasive. [29:47] And they outperform [29:48] any aircraft known to exist, [29:50] including ours. [29:51] The public, of course, [29:52] as I said, [29:53] has been told [29:54] that these things [29:55] are real. [29:56] They're not fictitious. [29:57] They're not fictitious. [29:58] They're not fictitious. [29:59] So, [30:00] back in 1989, [30:01] I reported about a guy [30:02] named Bob Lazar [30:03] who claimed that he worked [30:04] at a facility dubbed S4 [30:05] out in the Nevada desert, [30:06] very near to Area 51. [30:07] He said he was part [30:08] of a reverse engineering program. [30:09] He said there are alien craft [30:10] that would be taken apart [30:11] to figure out [30:12] how they operated out there. [30:13] And that was [30:14] a pretty tall order. [30:15] I had clearly taken a dive [30:16] into the deep end [30:17] of the pool there. [30:18] But in the years since then, [30:19] I've interviewed [30:20] dozens of other people. [30:21] And I've detailed [30:22] what their testimony [30:23] has been [30:24] and what they've done [30:25] in the past. [30:26] So, [30:27] I've interviewed [30:28] Senator Harry Reid, [30:29] Senator Howard Cannon, [30:30] also of Nevada, [30:31] a guy named Al O'Donnell [30:32] who was the first [30:33] general manager [30:34] of EG&G in Nevada, [30:35] which managed [30:36] the Nevada test site [30:37] which blew up [30:38] hundreds of nuclear weapons. [30:39] There's a guy named [30:40] Dr. James Lekatsky [30:41] who was a career scientist [30:42] with the Defense [30:43] Intelligence Agency [30:44] who was the guy [30:45] who initiated [30:46] a program called [30:47] OSAP, [30:48] Advanced Aerospace [30:49] Weapons Systems [30:50] Application Program, [30:51] which is, [30:52] as far as we know, [30:53] the largest acknowledged [30:54] and funded [30:55] by the U.S. [30:56] government, [30:57] which put together [30:58] an amazing pile [30:59] of information [31:00] that members [31:01] of this committee [31:02] and the world, [31:03] most of which [31:04] have never seen. [31:05] The DIA still hasn't [31:06] released 95% [31:07] of what was [31:08] prepared [31:09] by that program [31:11] at a cost [31:12] of millions [31:14] and millions [31:15] of dollars. [31:16] The one name [31:17] I do want to bring up [31:18] in this session, [31:19] though, [31:20] is Robert Bigelow. [31:21] So, [31:22] looking into [31:23] the idea [31:24] of crash retrievals [31:25] and reverse engineering, [31:26] the DIA's [31:27] contractor, [31:28] Robert Bigelow [31:29] of Las Vegas, [31:30] made a bold attempt [31:31] to acquire [31:32] physical proof [31:33] of UFO crashes. [31:34] It's been widely reported [31:35] and suspected [31:36] that Lockheed Martin [31:37] is one of the [31:38] contractors, [31:39] the defense contractors, [31:40] that has held [31:41] this stuff, [31:42] stored it away [31:43] in secrecy, [31:46] and tried to figure out [31:47] how it works. [31:48] I have confirmed [31:49] on the record [31:50] that Robert Bigelow [31:51] and a trusted colleague [31:52] from OSAP [31:53] met with [31:54] and negotiated [31:55] with senior executives [31:56] at Lockheed Martin [31:57] a deal wherein [31:58] Bigelow's company, [31:59] Bass, [32:00] would receive [32:01] a quantity [32:02] of unusual material [32:03] that had been stashed away [32:04] and protected [32:05] at a facility [32:06] in California. [32:07] That material [32:08] was not made here. [32:10] I want to move on now [32:11] to the Russia files [32:12] because that was going [32:13] to be sort of [32:14] the central impetus [32:15] of what I was going [32:16] to talk to you about today. [32:17] Back in the early 90s, [32:18] I got into Russia, [32:19] met with a number [32:21] of their defense officials, [32:22] Ministry of Defense [32:23] and others, [32:24] who confirmed for me [32:25] that Russia [32:26] had been doing [32:27] the same thing [32:28] that is secretly [32:29] studying UFOs [32:30] while publicly [32:31] saying something [32:32] completely different. [32:33] The documents [32:34] and interviews [32:35] that I obtained [32:36] and have now shared [32:37] with this task force [32:38] show that the USSR [32:39] launched what is [32:40] almost certainly [32:41] the largest UFO UAP [32:42] investigation [32:43] in the world. [32:44] The first phase [32:45] of that [32:46] was an order [32:47] was sent out [32:48] to the entire [32:49] USSR military empire [32:50] that every unit, [32:51] you see anything [32:52] strange in the sky, [32:53] a craft, [32:54] an orb, [32:55] something unusual, [32:56] you had to [32:57] gather all these things [32:58] and collect [32:59] the evidence, [33:00] collect testimony [33:01] from the witnesses, [33:02] look for physical evidence [33:03] and all of that information [33:04] went into one program [33:05] at the Ministry of Defense. [33:07] Thousands and thousands [33:08] of these reports [33:09] came in. [33:10] A lot of them [33:11] were first routed [33:12] to the KGB [33:13] but then back [33:14] to another program [33:15] that came after [33:16] this collection effort [33:17] called Thread 3. [33:18] And Thread 3 [33:19] was an analysis program [33:20] we provided [33:21] to the committee [33:22] the documents [33:23] of what they were [33:24] trying to do [33:25] and essentially [33:26] they were trying [33:27] to build their own UFOs. [33:28] They were trying [33:29] to get information [33:30] from their observations [33:31] and studies [33:32] to try to figure out [33:33] the technology. [33:35] The guy who was in charge [33:36] of that program, [33:37] Colonel Borossokolov, [33:38] told me that their goal [33:39] was to basically [33:40] develop technology [33:41] that would be superior [33:42] to anything we had [33:43] based on what they [33:44] learned from UFOs. [33:45] Mr. Knapp, [33:46] just in the name [33:47] of time, [33:48] to my understanding [33:49] did you have anything [33:50] you wanted to submit [33:51] for Congress [33:52] to see in this committee? [33:53] I have submitted [33:54] those documents. [33:55] Would you like [33:56] to play any videos? [33:57] Do you have a video [33:58] that you would like to play? [33:59] That's for me to play. [34:00] No, that was... [34:01] Yeah. [34:03] Alexander's video. [34:04] Okay. [34:05] You can play it. [34:06] He can narrate it. [34:07] Okay. [34:08] We can, [34:09] in the name of showing [34:10] that video to everyone [34:11] on the task force, [34:12] we'd like to play [34:38] that video at this time. [34:39] Sure. [34:49] That shit [34:50] took off earlier. [34:51] If we can get rid [34:57] of the audio real quick. [34:58] Mr. Wiggins [35:00] and Mr. Knapp, [35:01] we'll get back [35:02] to what that video [35:03] was in a moment, [35:04] but we just want [35:05] to make sure [35:06] that it was entered [35:07] into the record [35:08] that it was actually found [35:09] for everyone in the country [35:10] to view. [35:11] If we could, [35:12] Mr. Knapp, [35:13] we'll continue [35:14] on the line of questioning, [35:15] but I'm going to move on [35:19] to Mr. Borland's [35:20] opening statements. [35:21] Good morning, [35:22] members of the task force [35:23] and the committee. [35:24] I would like to express [35:25] my gratitude [35:26] for being invited [35:27] to testify [35:28] to the current task force [35:30] created under [35:31] the People's Chamber [35:32] and the American public. [35:33] As an American citizen, [35:34] veteran, [35:35] and intelligence [35:36] community professional, [35:37] it is an honor [35:38] and a privilege [35:39] to serve under oath [35:40] before you [35:41] that I have been [35:42] previously affiliated with. [35:43] My name is Dylan Borland, [35:44] a former 1N1 geospatial [35:46] intelligence specialist [35:47] for the United States Air Force [35:49] in an active duty [35:50] enlisted capacity [35:51] from 2010 to 2013. [35:53] I've also been employed [35:54] with BAE Systems [35:55] and Intrepid Solutions [35:56] as a senior analyst, [35:58] expert in analyzing [35:59] video, radar, [36:00] and advanced [36:01] electro-optical imagery [36:02] for official identification [36:04] of aerial order of battle [36:05] as well as naval [36:06] and ground order of battle. [36:08] I'm a federal whistleblower, [36:11] having testified [36:12] to both the ICIG [36:13] and AERO [36:14] with direct first-hand knowledge [36:15] of and experience [36:16] with craft and technologies [36:18] that are not ours [36:19] and are reportedly operating [36:20] without congressional oversight. [36:22] Because of my direct knowledge [36:23] of the reality [36:24] of certain legacy UAP programs, [36:26] my professional career [36:27] was deliberately obstructed [36:29] and I have endured [36:31] sustained reprisals [36:33] from government agencies [36:34] for over a decade. [36:35] From 2011 to 2013, [36:38] I was stationed [36:39] at Langley Air Force Base, [36:40] Virginia conducting [36:41] 24-hour operations [36:42] via Mandon Units [36:43] with the U.S. Air Force [36:44] and the U.S. Air Force. [36:45] During the summer of 2012, [36:46] my team was on standby [36:47] for weather [36:48] and I returned [36:49] to my barracks [36:50] on base [36:51] and at approximately [36:52] 0130, [36:53] I saw an approximately [36:54] 100-foot equilateral triangle [36:55] take off [36:56] from near [36:57] the NASA hangar [36:58] on the base. [36:59] The craft interfered [37:00] with my telephone, [37:02] did not have any sound [37:03] and the material [37:05] it was made of [37:06] appeared fluid [37:07] or dynamic. [37:08] I was under [37:09] this triangular craft [37:11] for a few minutes [37:12] and then it rapidly ascended [37:13] to commercial jet level [37:14] in seconds [37:15] displaying [37:16] zero kinetic disturbance, [37:17] sound [37:18] or wind displacement. [37:19] Some years after [37:21] that experience, [37:22] I was further exposed [37:23] to classified information [37:24] from the UAP Legacy [37:25] crash retrieval program [37:26] through a sensitive position [37:27] I held within [37:28] a special access program. [37:29] During this time, [37:31] intelligence officers [37:32] approached me [37:33] in fear [37:34] for their own careers [37:35] citing misconduct [37:36] within these programs [37:37] and similar retaliation [37:38] that I was already [37:39] enduring at this time. [37:40] These issues include [37:42] medical malpractice [37:43] committed by [37:44] Veterans Affairs staff, [37:45] denial of work [37:46] I performed [37:47] while enlisted [37:48] in the Air Force, [37:49] forged and manipulated [37:50] employment documents, [37:51] workplace harassment [37:52] including colleagues [37:53] being directed [37:54] to not speak with me, [37:55] manipulation of my [37:56] security clearance [37:57] by certain agencies [37:58] blocking, [37:59] delaying, [38:00] and ultimately [38:01] removing my ability [38:02] to be employed [38:03] within the IC. [38:06] The retaliation [38:07] I faced [38:08] and the retaliation [38:09] against individuals [38:10] I know who worked [38:11] in these programs [38:12] is what convinced me [38:13] in March 2023 [38:14] to become a whistleblower. [38:15] I came forward [38:16] out of concern [38:17] for people's lives [38:18] and to ensure [38:19] I did everything I could [38:20] to make sure [38:21] that what is really happening [38:22] in the executive branch. [38:24] At the end of March 2023, [38:25] I agreed to meet [38:26] with AERO [38:27] following the suggestion [38:28] of other federal officials [38:29] believing it was [38:30] what our nation [38:31] required of me. [38:32] I had reservations [38:33] with AERO [38:34] due to assessments [38:35] they were reporting publicly [38:36] at the time [38:37] as a misrepresentation [38:38] of the truth. [38:39] Because of these concerns, [38:41] I did not share [38:42] sources and methods [38:43] information [38:44] in order to protect [38:45] current and formal [38:46] federal personnel [38:47] who had firsthand [38:48] exposure [38:49] to technologies [38:50] of unknown origin. [38:51] I did not want anyone [38:52] to see [38:53] the retaliation [38:54] beyond what they had [38:55] already endured. [38:56] And unfortunately, [38:58] a staff member [38:59] ended up getting [39:00] in some trouble [39:03] because of that. [39:04] After David Grush [39:05] testified under oath [39:06] in the summer of 2023 [39:07] and provided [39:08] historic disclosure, [39:09] I was then asked [39:10] to go to the ICIG [39:11] and did so [39:12] in August 2023. [39:13] It was very clear [39:14] early on [39:15] during my intake interview, [39:16] which was video recorded [39:17] under oath, [39:18] that the objective [39:19] was to solely assess [39:20] how much I know [39:21] and not move forward [39:22] with an investigation [39:23] with new information [39:24] I provided them. [39:25] But that IG complaint [39:26] still troubles me [39:27] to this day. [39:29] Since my ICIG complaint, [39:30] I have been prevented [39:31] from resuming [39:32] prior employment [39:33] and can confirm [39:34] I am still blacklisted [39:35] from certain agencies [39:36] within the intelligence community. [39:37] In addition, [39:38] multiple agencies [39:39] attempted phishing attacks [39:40] to assess [39:41] what I had divulged [39:42] to the Inspector General, [39:43] including being asked [39:44] to disclose details [39:45] of my ICIG complaint [39:46] during a CI polygraph [39:47] or a position [39:48] unrelated to [39:49] UFO UAP matters [39:50] as recently [39:51] as November 2024. [39:54] As I sit before you today, [39:55] I and many other [39:56] whistleblowers [39:57] have come forward [39:58] in various ways [39:59] to reveal [40:00] the truth [40:01] of the UAP reality [40:02] as patriots [40:03] and defenders [40:05] of our nation. [40:06] Yet many feel [40:07] discarded, [40:08] isolated, [40:09] hopeless, [40:10] separated [40:11] from the country [40:12] they serve. [40:13] Efforts [40:14] to rectify [40:15] this situation [40:16] for all whistleblowers [40:17] have been difficult [40:18] and troubling. [40:19] And to my fellow [40:20] whistleblowers [40:21] and officials [40:22] who know this information, [40:23] I offer you [40:24] my apology, [40:26] something [40:27] that I have never gotten. [40:29] Thank you. [40:30] And I'm giving it [40:31] to you. [40:33] I swore an oath [40:34] to the Constitution [40:35] of the United States, [40:36] an oath that demands [40:37] truth and transparency [40:38] for our democratic republic [40:39] to function. [40:41] Each day these truths [40:42] remain hidden [40:43] from our citizens. [40:44] Humanity drifts further [40:45] from the principles [40:46] our nation was founded [40:47] to uphold. [40:49] Each day victims [40:50] of crimes committed [40:51] by agencies [40:52] and companies [40:53] maintaining this secrecy [40:54] are denied justice [40:55] is another day [40:57] our Constitution [40:58] is shredded. [40:59] In 2023, [41:00] patriots provided [41:01] this committee [41:02] and the executive branch [41:03] with their support [41:04] will make a difference [41:05] in the lives [41:06] of our people. [41:07] And I commend [41:08] your continued commitment. [41:09] The future of humanity [41:10] is one which we either [41:11] travel to the stars [41:13] or regress to the Stone Age [41:14] with this technology. [41:15] My career has been [41:16] to deliver critical information [41:17] to decision makers. [41:18] Your role as elected [41:19] by your representatives [41:21] is to act on it. [41:22] The time to act is now. [41:24] Thank you. [41:45] Mr. Borland, [41:46] thank you for your service [41:47] to our country [41:48] and we appreciate you. [41:49] And we are sorry [41:50] about how you've been treated [41:51] and we will make sure [41:52] that we try to rectify [41:53] that situation. [41:54] Thank you, ma'am. [41:55] Mr. Spielberger, [41:56] please raise [41:57] your opening remarks. [42:00] Chairwoman Luna, [42:01] Ranking Member Crockett, [42:02] and Task Force members, [42:03] thank you for the opportunity [42:04] to testify here today [42:05] about the importance [42:06] of strengthening [42:07] whistleblower protections, [42:08] especially in the context [42:09] of national security. [42:11] I'm a senior policy counsel [42:12] at the Project [42:13] on Government Oversight, [42:14] a nonpartisan, [42:15] independent watchdog [42:16] organization [42:17] that investigates [42:18] and exposes [42:19] waste, [42:20] corruption, [42:21] abuse of power, [42:22] and when the government [42:23] fails to serve the public [42:24] or silences those [42:25] who report wrongdoing. [42:28] Whistleblowers [42:29] are the first line [42:30] of defense [42:31] to root out waste, [42:32] fraud, [42:33] abuse of power, [42:34] and corruption [42:35] in our government. [42:36] Congress relies [42:37] on whistleblowers [42:38] so that it can fully exercise [42:39] its oversight [42:40] and legislative authorities. [42:42] It's understandable [42:43] that former presidents [42:44] of both parties [42:45] have often taken [42:46] a hostile approach [42:47] toward whistleblowers. [42:48] Their disclosures [42:49] can embarrass [42:50] the president [42:51] and their political party [42:52] or even lead [42:53] to a national scandal. [42:54] But whistleblowers [42:55] continue to play [42:56] a vital role [42:57] during both Democratic [42:58] and Republican [42:59] administrations. [43:00] They help Congress [43:01] and the public [43:02] identify [43:03] and understand [43:04] what government [43:05] corruption looks like. [43:07] Their disclosures [43:08] fuel investigations [43:09] and allow us [43:10] to address wrongdoing [43:11] and hold those [43:12] responsible to account. [43:13] That's why historically [43:14] there's been [43:15] a strong [43:16] bipartisan consensus [43:17] in Congress [43:18] to support [43:19] and protect [43:20] whistleblowers. [43:21] Doing so protects [43:22] the country [43:23] and ensures [43:24] our government [43:25] is more responsive [43:26] and accountable [43:28] to the people. [43:29] National security [43:30] whistleblowing [43:31] in particular [43:32] is the founding [43:33] of our country [43:34] and over time [43:35] national security [43:36] whistleblowers [43:37] and their disclosures [43:38] have impacted [43:39] some of the most [43:40] fundamental issues [43:41] and questions [43:42] about how we wish [43:43] to be governed [43:44] and how our government [43:45] can better serve [43:46] its people. [43:47] From the role [43:48] the US plays [43:49] around the world [43:50] to holding powerful [43:51] actors accountable, [43:52] government ethics [43:53] and transparency, [43:54] human rights [43:55] and civil liberties, [43:56] executive branch authority, [43:57] First Amendment [43:58] freedoms of speech [43:59] and dissent, [44:00] freedom of the press [44:01] and the public's interest [44:02] and right to know. [44:03] Despite this invaluable [44:05] public service [44:06] blowing the whistle [44:07] comes at great [44:08] personal risk. [44:09] Whistleblowers risk [44:10] losing their jobs [44:11] careers [44:12] livelihoods [44:13] and reputations. [44:14] They can face [44:15] retaliatory investigations [44:16] lawsuits [44:17] and even serious [44:18] criminal charges. [44:20] And they can endure [44:21] deep mental [44:22] emotional [44:23] and psychological [44:24] harm. [44:25] All of that risk [44:26] to speak the truth [44:27] to ensure [44:28] that agencies [44:29] fulfill their core missions [44:30] and that they serve [44:31] the best interests [44:32] of the people. [44:33] Those who retaliate [44:34] against whistleblowers [44:35] don't just violate [44:36] their legal rights. [44:37] They inflict [44:38] real harm [44:39] on our government [44:40] and betray [44:41] the public's trust. [44:43] Targeting whistleblowers [44:44] instead of the corruption [44:45] they expose [44:46] wastes agency [44:47] resources [44:48] and further allows [44:49] that corruption [44:50] to continue [44:51] unaddressed. [44:52] It can instill [44:53] a chilling effect [44:54] across an agency [44:55] fostering a climate [44:56] of fear [44:57] and distrust [44:58] quieting dissent [44:59] and free speech [45:00] and deterring [45:01] potential whistleblowers [45:02] from coming forward [45:03] in the future. [45:04] Whistleblowers [45:07] are often [45:08] some of the most [45:09] dedicated [45:10] and principled [45:11] public servants [45:12] we have [45:13] because of their [45:14] willingness [45:15] to put themselves [45:16] on the line [45:17] to do what's right. [45:18] And Congress [45:19] has historically [45:20] supported them [45:21] again on a [45:22] bipartisan basis [45:23] but unfortunately [45:24] whistleblowing [45:25] has increasingly [45:26] become more [45:27] politicized [45:28] with support [45:29] for whistleblowers [45:30] often hinging [45:31] on which party [45:32] is in power [45:33] and which party [45:34] is politically [45:36] inconvenienced [45:37] by the fact [45:38] that the [45:39] whistleblower [45:40] is the [45:41] most [45:42] important [45:43] person [45:44] in the [45:45] world. [45:46] So, [45:47] including [45:48] whistleblowers [45:49] individually [45:50] risks [45:51] undermining [45:52] whistleblowing [45:53] period. [45:54] POGO [45:55] advises [45:56] members of [45:57] Congress [45:58] on both [45:59] sides [46:00] of the aisle [46:01] to focus [46:02] on the evidence [46:03] not the individual. [46:04] We will [46:05] always [46:06] consider [46:07] the most [46:09] dangerous [46:10] risk [46:11] of all. [46:12] If we [46:13] are serious [46:14] about increasing [46:15] government [46:16] transparency [46:18] and restoring [46:19] the public's [46:20] trust, [46:21] we need [46:22] public servants [46:23] committed to [46:24] the truth. [46:25] Whistleblowers [46:26] need safe [46:27] and effective [46:28] channels [46:29] to make [46:30] lawful [46:31] disclosures. [46:32] They need [46:33] stronger [46:34] protections [46:35] against [46:36] retaliation [46:37] from [46:38] the [46:39] government. [46:40] We can [46:41] achieve [46:42] the type [46:43] of government [46:44] the people [46:46] deserve. [46:47] We strongly [46:48] urge Congress [46:49] to continue [46:50] its historic [46:51] tradition [46:52] of championing [46:53] the rights [46:54] and protections [46:55] of all [46:56] whistleblowers. [46:57] Thank you [46:58] again for [46:59] the opportunity [47:00] to testify [47:01] here this [47:02] morning. [47:03] POGO [47:04] is committed [47:05] to working [47:10] with [47:11] the [47:13] public [47:14] to [47:15] address [47:16] the [47:17] challenges [47:18] facing [47:19] the [47:20] public. [47:23] We [47:24] will [47:25] continue [47:26] to [47:27] work [47:28] with [47:29] the [47:30] public [47:31] to [47:32] address [47:33] the [47:35] challenges [47:36] facing [47:37] the [47:38] public. [47:39] Thank [47:40] you [47:43] again [47:44] for [47:45] taking [47:46] time [47:47] to [47:48] join [47:49] us. [47:51] Our [47:52] first [47:53] question [47:54] is for [47:55] you. [47:56] Your [47:57] name is [47:58] Zahid [47:59] and you [48:00] were [48:01] in [48:02] the [48:03] oncology [48:04] unit [48:05] of [48:06] the [48:07] U.S. [48:08] Air Force [48:09] in [48:10] japan. [48:11] Did [48:12] you [48:13] experience [48:14] before, a weeknight, you know, normal thing, not surprising. I actually finished my cigarette and [48:21] I began walking up towards the flight line. There is a track and because I was on three months of [48:27] night work, I began, I would walk the track at night when we were weathered down. And as I began [48:32] walking towards the light, towards the flight line and the track, the light then flies across the [48:38] base, across the flight line, and as it flies to me, a triangle manifests around the light. [48:44] I can't tell you if it's active camouflage. I can't tell you if it appeared around the light, [48:48] but I can tell you that it was a white light and then it was a triangle. It stopped about 100 feet [48:54] in front of me and approximately 100 feet above me. My telephone got extremely hot, completely [49:00] froze, dead. I remember how thick it was. It was between one to two stories thick, equilateral [49:07] triangle. I could never see the top of it and the edges were 90 degrees. There were four lights in [49:16] total. [49:16] One light on each corner and a larger light in the center, two to three times the size of the corner [49:22] lights. But what was really odd was the outside, the best way to describe it is like looking at a [49:29] James Webb telescope picture where you have the colors and then the black background. So the craft [49:36] itself was this black metallic flake paint, but on top of the craft was this gold, lava, plasma, [49:44] some type of fluid going over and around. [49:47] The craft. I'm under this for about two to three minutes. And then the center light flashes two to three times. No sound immediately shoots up to commercial jet level minimum, in my opinion. [50:00] And I immediately feel static electricity all over my body. And then I smell the smell of after a thunderstorm or lightning storm that really strong summer thunderstorm smell gets up to flight level. I'm trying to get my phone reset and I can only see the center light. [50:17] And I was like, oh my gosh. [50:21] Yes, I can see the center light at this point. If I didn't actually see it take off, I would have thought it was a star. [50:27] And then it hovers up there and it begins to slowly move due East out over the Atlantic Ocean. I finally got my phone reset. The entire thing was about from the time I saw the light pop up near the hangar [50:39] until it took off out over the ocean was about 15 minutes. [50:43] In following up to that question after you disclosed this information to the intelligence Community Inspector General, you're subject to phishing attempts and job blacklisting. How widespread do you think this is across all of our [50:46] infrastructure? [50:46] I don't know. [50:47] The flake and then the other stuff that we're talking about is probably a little bit different. [50:49] I don't know. [50:49] the intelligence community for those who raise concerns regarding UAP programs? [50:52] It's a difficult question to answer. I think prior to David Grush and people [50:58] beginning this process of bringing people into awareness of the reality of [51:03] these programs and certain things people have witnessed, probably extremely [51:07] widespread. I think today there's still an issue but because people are able to [51:14] come before you and people are speaking out, I think it has been somewhat less [51:20] I would hope though that people would because if this goes back into closed [51:25] doors this is gonna get really ugly. [51:27] What type of behavior have you witnessed from [51:29] former AERO director Sean Kilpatrick as well as his staff and relate to this [51:33] information you provided to them? Did they ever try to classify this [51:36] information as non-human technology? [51:39] Good question. The problem with this is is that I [51:43] know what I experienced firsthand I know other things. I think the staff at AERO [51:49] that I met with in March of 2020, [51:51] 1973, I think they were good people doing the job they were told to do. I did [51:56] not meet with Kirkpatrick. He was either not present or did not want to meet me [52:01] that day. However, they did classify information about the reality of this [52:07] subject and it was very concerning because in my AERO MFR they had actually [52:16] referenced a former staff member that was the one who told me to go there and [52:21] they probably shouldn't have done that. [52:23] And real quick before my time is up, I want to say thank you to all of the people who participated in this event. Thank you. [52:24] Thank you. [52:25] We have around 10 seconds. [52:31] The time is up and we might go to second round of questions just so you're all aware. How important given everything that you've seen and experienced is the UAP [52:32] Disclosure Act of 2025 in restoring both public accountability and trust? [52:37] I think very important. I would hope though that the seven year window could be shrunk, my opinion, but very important. The truth needs to [52:45] be known. [52:48] Thank you very much. I now recognize Jared Moskowitz of Florida. [52:56] Thank you Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for allowing me to wave on to [52:57] the committee. I remember, you know, the last committee when we had a bunch of former military [53:06] personnel folks that either served on bases, were pilots, or were in different programs [53:11] experiencing knowledge. It made me recognize that the narrative has changed, right? It's [53:20] politically convenient for the government if you all weren't military folks in suits. [53:27] It would be much better if you pulled up in Winnebago's and were wearing hats. And so the [53:34] picture of this, because that's important for the American people on how you tell a story, [53:38] what the message looks like, and who the messenger is. So this is now the second or third committee [53:44] where we have former military folks with impeccable records, with information and knowledge. [53:51] And it's definitely clear on a bipartisan basis that we have to protect our whistleblowers. [53:55] There's no doubt. And in a day in which [53:58] it's really hard to tell what's true or not from a political standpoint. And so I don't really know [54:06] what is true. I don't know on this subject. But I do know when we're being lied to. And we are [54:12] definitely being lied to. There's just no doubt about that. Mr. Wiggins, I want to talk to you. [54:19] I find your background and testimony compelling. When you first saw what you were looking at, [54:28] what were your first thoughts? [54:34] My first thoughts were, I think, everything that I was told and taught as a kid and as a growing adult [54:41] no longer was applicable. If I'm able to see something that I thought defies gravity in such a way, [54:48] then what else could be possible? That was my first thought. [54:51] So did you think what you were looking at was a weapons program that you were unaware of? [54:56] Or did you think what you were looking at was obviously some extraterrestrial piece of technology? [55:04] I didn't. [55:06] Neither one of those crossed my mind. It was just... [55:09] How about now? What do you think it is now? [55:13] I'm not the expert. I think it... I want to be as skeptical as everyone else and just hope to know the information... [55:20] Anyone in the U.S. government tell you what you were looking at to try to dissuade you from what you thought it was? [55:26] No. [55:27] So no one was like, oh, you know, there was some anomaly with the technology. No one from the government did that? [55:32] No one. [55:34] How do you think you were treated when you reported this information or talked about... [55:39] You know, the Tic Tac video is well out there. It's well reported. How were you treated? [55:45] I've had no pushback at all. [55:49] I haven't had anyone reach out to me or try to, you know, dissuade me in either direction, militarily speaking. [55:56] So I was treated fair and I appreciate the Navy itself with assisting me with coming here to being able to testify. [56:04] That's good. So what do you think the American people should take away from watching your video, right? [56:09] Because when we watch it, obviously... [56:10] Right? We've never seen anything like that. It defies what we know to be technologically possible. [56:16] What are we supposed to think? Someone's lying about something. Someone's hiding something, right? [56:22] That's not normal what you looked at. [56:23] I think what the American people should think when seeing that video, along with others before me, is that there is something out there and we should know as the people what it is. [56:37] Right. And so let's eliminate possibilities. [56:40] So they didn't come to you and say there was a technological error with what you were looking at. [56:43] So we put that aside, right? They didn't say it was broken. [56:46] So we look at that and we see something. [56:48] So it's either a weapons program being reverse engineered by our governments or other governments, or it's nobody's government and it's not from here. [56:57] Those are it. You agree with that assessment? [57:01] I agree. One or the other. [57:03] Mr. Borland, when you first experienced what you were looking at, what did you do next? [57:12] Like, what was your next step after it had passed and you were done? [57:17] I actually kind of laughed at myself and said, OK, so this exists as well, worked in enough programs, been exposed to enough that I was like, OK, so this is a real thing. [57:29] I went back, walked the track, talked with a couple of my friends about it. [57:33] I did talk with some of my coworkers, one in particular, which I thought was a joke and it definitely wasn't, was like, you probably should never say this to anybody. [57:42] And then what happened to me happened. [57:45] So what about you, Mr. [57:50] How do you pronounce your last name? [57:52] Nusatelli. [57:53] Nusatelli. [57:55] And sorry, I know I'm running out of time, Madam Chairman, Chairwoman. [57:58] So obviously your incident happened well before we could record things on cell phones and things of that nature. [58:05] Right. How do you what did you do when you first experienced because what you saw, right, you saw it happen like right out of your base. [58:16] Correct. [58:17] So tell me what you did after you saw that. [58:19] What was like your next move? [58:20] And I want to hear how what your experience was. [58:22] My next move. [58:23] I went. [58:24] I went into my house after it left. [58:27] I made sure no one had been abducted and I picked up the landline. [58:32] I called the Security Forces Command Center. [58:35] I reported it. [58:36] I requested that they give me a call back and make notifications up the chain of command. [58:41] I got a call back in about 15 minutes. [58:44] They reported that the weather station reported no balloons or aircraft, nothing on radar, no aircraft inbound or outbound. [58:53] So I got that notification. [58:54] And then within the following day or two, me and the other witnesses wrote statements. [58:59] We prepared a report and then we filed all that information. [59:03] Madam Chairman, thank you for your indulgence in my questioning. [59:06] And thank you for continuing to lead on this subject. [59:10] What do you and your friends think about it today? [59:13] You all have talked about it. [59:14] I mean, so what do you think about your experience as a collective group? [59:18] That'll be my last question. [59:20] Madam chairman. [59:20] We we've been talking about this for 20 years. [59:24] We're on a roll. [59:24] We don't know what we saw. What we saw changed our lives and the way we think about everything. [59:32] It was incredibly profound. The object I saw, I don't even know if it was an object. It was a light. It was an orb. [59:39] It didn't look like a craft, but it did look solid. And that's what we talk about. [59:45] We noticed the object, and this was a pattern across all the encounters. [59:50] Someone would see a light. They would pay attention to the light. [59:54] And then the object responds. It performs for you. [59:58] And then they come down and they investigate you, so it's almost like they're curious. [1:00:04] So that's the thing we primarily talk about. [1:00:08] You know, why did it come after we noticed it? [1:00:12] Maybe it noticed us after we noticed it. You're welcome. [1:00:18] I now recognize Representative Mace for five minutes. [1:00:22] Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. [1:00:28] Mr. Borland, I'd like to start with you. [1:00:30] I'd like to start with you and ask a few questions. [1:00:33] Were there any other witnesses when you saw the equilateral triangle? [1:00:36] Were there other witnesses that saw the same thing? [1:00:38] Not to my knowledge, ma'am. [1:00:39] At that point, the only people that would be awake is those of us that were doing operations for the GWAT and then security forces, so not to my knowledge. [1:00:47] And do you think that, in your opinion, that the equilateral triangle was the U.S. government's technology? [1:00:57] I did once upon a time, but knowing what I know now, I'll have to answer that question. [1:01:02] Probably. [1:01:03] Well, my next question is, you teased us, so knowing what you know now means what? [1:01:08] I know enough to know that if you want an answer to that question, go to Arrow. [1:01:13] They have the answer. [1:01:14] Do you think it was a foreign government? [1:01:16] I do not. No. [1:01:19] And Arrow is supposed to be disclosing. [1:01:21] The last time I was in a skiff with Arrow, they said they were going to be doing disclosures. [1:01:26] Had they been doing much of that? [1:01:28] I don't have an answer for you. [1:01:30] I don't know. [1:01:31] I know what Arrow reports publicly, and I know what I've been through. [1:01:34] Yeah. [1:01:35] And some of this stuff can be, I think, debunked, right? [1:01:40] Sometimes there are weather balloons that look kind of a little funky or drones or whatever, [1:01:44] depending on the angle, direction, speed, et cetera. [1:01:47] Are you scared for your safety? [1:01:51] That's a complicated question. [1:01:55] So being here today, if I say the wrong word, technically I can be charged with espionage. [1:02:00] Espionage is a death penalty. [1:02:02] Whistleblowers have faced it, John Cariocco, for example. [1:02:05] I am not scared for my physical safety. [1:02:08] In the sense of an agency or company coming to kill me. [1:02:13] But I have no job. [1:02:15] My career has been tarnished. [1:02:17] You know, I'm unemployed, living off of unemployment for the next three, four weeks until that's gone. [1:02:22] So it's a complicated question. [1:02:25] Have there been stories leaked about your life to try to discredit you in the public eye? [1:02:29] As of now, I don't know. [1:02:32] We know they did that to Mr. Grush. [1:02:34] I am aware. [1:02:35] Yes, ma'am. [1:02:36] They leaked his private medical information. [1:02:38] It's one of those horrific things. [1:02:40] It is. [1:02:41] Okay. [1:02:42] You said in your testimony earlier with the chairwoman you know other things. [1:02:47] I guess that has to be mentioned in a SCIF. [1:02:51] It would. [1:02:52] The other things. [1:02:53] It would pending I'm even legally allowed to speak on it and the people in the room are even legally allowed to hear it. [1:02:58] And is that, would we need to know like the compartmentalized word? [1:03:03] Like what the code word is or the name of the program, the special access program in order to even hear it? [1:03:08] I would suggest that to be asked to D&I Dabbard and work with her for that because I can't give you the answer on what is the requirement. [1:03:19] This is what the U.S. government does, right? [1:03:20] They compartmentalize the information. [1:03:22] Certain people know the name of the program and if you don't know it, you can't get the information. [1:03:26] If you don't have the name, you don't know what to ask for. [1:03:28] Even when we're reviewing the budget, we go into a SCIF, we look at DOD budget and the budget of like black box programs and we don't know what we're looking at because we don't know what these programs are. [1:03:37] Is it a way for the government to hide from Congress what's really going on, where the money is going? [1:03:42] In my opinion, absolutely, yes. [1:03:45] You mentioned too in your testimony earlier that, quote, you went to speak with the government and they said somebody's name, a colleague's name, and you said they shouldn't have mentioned that staff person's name. [1:03:56] What does that mean? [1:03:58] A Senate staffer who is the one who helped me get to Arrow recommended me I go there, gave me the email and the phone number because I could not find that information at all at the time. [1:04:07] In fact, I believe it. [1:04:08] I believe you guys have talked about how Arrow didn't even have a website for quite a period of time. [1:04:12] We were told they were going to do disclosures, both what they've debunked, because some of it can be debunked, and then what they haven't been able to debunk. [1:04:18] And to my knowledge, you know, it hasn't been a thing. [1:04:21] I only have one minute left. [1:04:22] So, Mr. Knapp, we are definitely going to you. [1:04:24] Watched every documentary. [1:04:25] You guys have done a – you and Jeremy have done a terrific job. [1:04:28] It's – I usually have more questions than I have answers. [1:04:31] I think we all do. [1:04:32] And you guys are doing a terrific job to bring information to the public. [1:04:34] Do you think that any of this is a PSYOP by the U.S. government? [1:04:37] Entirely possible. [1:04:39] I mean, they've – our government and other governments have admitted that they've tried to use UFOs to cover secret projects. [1:04:47] But I think they also do some reverse engineering of those claims. [1:04:50] So years after people start seeing UFOs over Area 51, for example, they come up with a story, oh, yeah, that was – we planted that story. [1:05:00] So I read in a major newspaper just a couple of weeks ago they planted this story. [1:05:05] An Air Force colonel went out into the desert. [1:05:07] Went to a bar at Rachel and gave them some fake UFO photos. [1:05:11] And that's how the whole story about Area 51 started, which is preposterous. [1:05:15] Yeah. [1:05:16] And I didn't even get to the crash retrieval program stuff yet, Ms. Chairwoman. [1:05:20] There's just so much. [1:05:22] Okay. [1:05:23] Thank you so much for your time today. [1:05:25] I wish we had more time. [1:05:26] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:05:27] I now recognize Ms. Crockett for five minutes. [1:05:37] Thank you so much, Madam Chair. [1:05:38] And thank you so much to each of the witnesses that have come before us today. [1:05:42] The federal government has had a longstanding over classification issue in general. [1:05:50] We all know that from the assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X to the COINTELPRO and torture programs to now UAPs. [1:06:00] The federal government has kept the American public in the dark about issues of immense public interest. [1:06:06] The federal government has routinely made excuses for failing to provide transparency to the public. [1:06:11] The most common of which is national security concerns. [1:06:15] Mr. Spielberger, can you provide an example of when national security was inappropriately used as a pretext for classification? [1:06:23] Congresswoman, probably one of the most infamous examples of that is the 9-11 Commission that found that over classification was a key factor in the failure to adequately prevent the attacks of that day. [1:06:40] In addition to that, what lessons from these oversights have you learned? [1:06:45] Well, first of all, I think it's important to note that the UAP oversight failures should guide Congress in approaching UAP oversight. [1:06:49] Generally speaking, we would advise this Congress to ensure that agencies adopt general policy in favor of disclosure instead of a knee jerk needing to over classify information and documents. [1:07:08] We should ensure that when information is classified or deemed sensitive, it's only for legitimate use. [1:07:15] Thank you. [1:07:16] Thank you. [1:07:17] Again, we will be keeping an eye on national security and privacy concerns and we would recommend adding additional factors to the considerations of cost, value, and certainly to the extent that it's critical for the public interest and the public's right to know, [1:07:32] especially when we are talking about these very serious national security concerns and implications. [1:07:39] Can you speak to how whistleblowers have historically helped Congress uncover the truth in other areas of the UAP? [1:07:47] truth in other areas, and how that might apply here. Absolutely. So again, Congress has always [1:07:55] relied on whistleblowers coming forward and making disclosures in a number of different [1:08:01] issues across different agencies, anything from national security to airline safety, railway [1:08:11] safety, environmental concerns, workplace health and safety, a lot of issues coming out of the [1:08:17] COVID pandemic, for example. Whistleblowers have come forward with important disclosures on just [1:08:25] about any critical issue affecting our government and affecting the American people, all of which [1:08:31] have grave implications for the rights and protections that we have and how we live our [1:08:38] lives in communities across the country. How important is it for whistleblowers to have [1:08:43] strong protections when it comes to UAP-related disclosures or disclosures [1:08:48] of other topics of excessive government secrecy? It's absolutely vital. This has been one of the [1:08:56] disappointing failures of doing this work of advocating for stronger whistleblower protections. [1:09:03] We recognize the invaluable public service that brave whistleblowers play in coming forward, [1:09:12] again, taking all of these risks that we've heard about just to speak the truth, to get important [1:09:17] information out in the public. [1:09:20] We know that whistleblowers can only do so when we have safe and secure channels for reporting, [1:09:27] when there is trust in the independence of agency watchdogs, like inspectors general, like the Office [1:09:35] of Special Counsel, like the Merit Systems Protection Board that play critical roles in [1:09:40] investigating whistleblower disclosures and enforcing the protections of whistleblowers. All [1:09:46] of that is essential to allow whistleblowers to be able to do what they need to do. And I think that's [1:09:48] really important. And I think that's really important. And I think that's really important. And I think that's [1:09:50] really important. And I think that's really important. And I think that's really important. And I [1:09:50] really important. And I really hope that there is a way to keep coming forward and playing these [1:09:53] incredibly important public roles. [1:09:56] Thank you so much. Let me just say this. People look at Congress, especially now and they see a lack of [1:10:04] unity. They don't see the ability for us to come together really on much of anything. I will say [1:10:11] that I do applaud the chairwoman and the work of this Committee because for once I feel like we are [1:10:17] focusing on governing. [1:10:19] Which should be about [1:10:20] transparency. The reality is that we cause more harm than good when we allow a lack of [1:10:27] transparency to fester. It allows for all types of conspiracy theories instead of us actually [1:10:34] making the investments that we need to make to get the information and actually provide it to [1:10:39] the American people. The reason that I wanted to focus on making sure that we answer some questions [1:10:45] specifically around the protections of those that are willing to come forward is because the only [1:10:51] way that we can make this government actually work for all of us is if no matter where you are [1:10:57] in this federal government, you feel as if you are safe when you come forward with information [1:11:02] of any issue. And so I do want to thank you for all of your stories. The reality is that we only [1:11:10] get five minutes and the vast majority of everything that you have to say. [1:11:16] It cannot be contextualized within five minutes, but I know that my colleagues are going to get to [1:11:22] kind of pulling some more of that out. But again, I really just want to thank you for your courage [1:11:27] in this moment and thank you for your service to our country. I now recognize Mr. Burchett from [1:11:39] Tennessee for five minutes. Thank you, Chair Lady, and thank you, Ranking Member Crockett. [1:11:46] I see a lot of friends out there and I see a couple enemies, so I'll [1:11:50] remember that. But it's a pleasure. [1:11:55] I want to remind people, too, this thing is an ongoing deal. We're not going to get this [1:11:59] overnight. We've been fighting this battle, some of y'all, for 30 years and maybe longer. I hope we [1:12:06] just keep focused on what we're trying to get to is total disclosure. We get a little wrapped up in [1:12:14] a lot of things, but the government has something and they need to turn it over to us. We pay their [1:12:20] dadgum salary, you pay our salary, and you ought to get more out of us than you do. And that's what [1:12:26] we're doing. [1:12:26] I think they're just trying to run the clock out on us, really. They'll poke us a little and [1:12:34] they'll make jokes to us and try to pull us off the target, but I think we know where we're at. [1:12:40] And that's why they're firing at us, because we are over the target. [1:12:44] My first question is, Mr. Knapp, I recently introduced the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act [1:12:51] to help provide whistleblower protection to federal personnel for disclosing the use of [1:12:56] federal taxpayer funds to investigate the UAP. [1:12:57] I still don't want to say UAPs. How can Congress further increase whistleblower protections? [1:13:05] I think you've got to unleash the dogs and go track down the money and where it goes, because a lot of this stuff has been moved out of government. [1:13:15] As you know, Rep. Burchett, it's been given to private contractors who stashed it away. They've had it for so long that there's nobody left inside government, or very few, who know where it is. [1:13:27] And they do that to keep us from FOIA, correct? [1:13:29] Yeah. [1:13:30] Yeah. [1:13:30] They do that to keep it from FOIA, and I think that the contractors who've had this stuff for a very long time set their own standards about who is allowed to know what. [1:13:39] And it's a very small group that ever cracks that. [1:13:43] I think Rep. Luna has been looking at the use of classifications to hide things. [1:13:49] I'm not sure that even this committee getting security clearances that should allow you to see this stuff would allow you to follow where it really goes. [1:13:58] I worry about the people that are looking at it. [1:14:00] The people that are looking at it don't even know what they're looking at. [1:14:02] I mean, it's gone through so many – I mean, since Roswell, for instance. [1:14:07] I mean, you think – there's nobody even alive that was around any of that stuff, so. [1:14:11] I don't think they've made much progress from the people that I've talked to. [1:14:14] I don't think they've made much progress in learning that technology. [1:14:17] Might have made some. [1:14:18] But you wonder, you know, the implication is Tic Tac. [1:14:20] Oh, yeah, that's ours. [1:14:21] What flew over Washington, D.C. in 52, is that ours, too? [1:14:25] When are you going to break that out? [1:14:26] You guys authorized tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars. [1:14:28] You guys authorized tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars. [1:14:28] You guys authorized tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars. [1:14:28] You guys authorized tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons systems [1:14:32] that can't do half of what we've seen UFOs do. [1:14:35] So when do they break this out, if it's really a classified project could change the world? [1:14:41] I don't think they've made much progress. [1:14:42] I think they've been lying to us and to you and the rest of the world, and they're still doing it. [1:14:47] Yes, sir, I agree with you. [1:14:49] How did you manage to obtain the classified Russian UAP documents, [1:14:53] and how did you get them back in the United States? [1:14:56] Well, I met this Russian physicist, [1:14:58] who was in the United States lecturing us. [1:15:00] And I want to clarify that. [1:15:01] I can't even take a thing of honey home on my airplane when I fly back to Tennessee, so. [1:15:08] I did something pretty dumb. [1:15:09] And I'm bitter about it, but go ahead. [1:15:11] I did something kind of dumb. [1:15:12] I met with these officials who, you know, during that time period, [1:15:15] Glasnost, Perestroika, the Russians were trying to open up to the world, [1:15:19] and I saw it as a window of opportunity, and it was. [1:15:22] And we were able to talk these folks into providing us information [1:15:26] that otherwise we would never have seen. [1:15:28] And some of that was classified. [1:15:29] I found out that they only stamped the top pages of these documents that were classified, [1:15:35] so I just removed them. [1:15:36] I removed those pages, and I carried them out. [1:15:38] And if they'd caught me, I'd be in a gulag still. [1:15:40] Yeah. [1:15:42] We'd be saying, what happened to George Knapp? [1:15:43] Oh, yeah. [1:15:45] What happened to the Russians that came forward to you in 1993, [1:15:49] and were there any repercussions for them? [1:15:52] Well, there were. [1:15:52] The first thing that happened, when I talked about this after getting back [1:15:55] and going through the files and things and sifting through it, [1:15:59] the Russian physicist who had helped us introduce all these people [1:16:04] wrote back and said there was a huge eruption, [1:16:06] that there was the real far autocratic forces that wanted a return of the USSR [1:16:16] had really go after these guys. [1:16:18] They described them as traitors. [1:16:20] Nikolai Kapranov, the physicist friend of mine, said, [1:16:23] look, if this had happened five years earlier, we would be in prison. [1:16:26] If it had happened 10 years earlier, we would have been shot. [1:16:29] Luckily, at that point, [1:16:30] Putin was not in power, but none of those people that we talked to on that trip in 1993 [1:16:36] would ever talk to me again. [1:16:37] I went back in 1996, and it was like I had the plague. [1:16:40] I spoke to different people, but they were scared. [1:16:43] And eventually, the story was spun where the Ministry of Defense officials who gave us [1:16:48] this information were described as ufologists who said there was nothing really significant [1:16:54] to these files. [1:16:55] They didn't really find anything a big deal. [1:16:58] And I can tell you, you'll see those files that I shared with you. [1:17:01] They did find stuff. [1:17:02] There was an incident in October of 1982 over an ICBM base where UFOs popped up, was observed [1:17:09] over this base where the missiles are pointed at us, United States. [1:17:13] These UFOs perform incredible maneuvers. [1:17:15] They split apart. [1:17:16] They fuse back together. [1:17:18] They'd appear and disappear. [1:17:19] And right at the end of this four-hour period, the launch control codes for the ICBMs lit [1:17:26] up. [1:17:27] Something entered the correct codes. [1:17:28] The missiles were fired up and ready to launch, and they could not shut it down. [1:17:32] The Russian officers were panicking. [1:17:34] The UFOs go they disappeared. [1:17:36] The launch control system goes back to normal. [1:17:39] Colonel Sokolov and his team came in, took the thing apart, could not figure out what [1:17:42] it was. [1:17:43] It wasn't a power surge or EMPs or some of the baloney excuses that our country has given [1:17:48] for similar events involving our nuclear missiles. [1:17:51] They thought it was a message from wherever the UFOs were from. [1:17:54] And that's a chilling thing. [1:17:56] I mean, that was we were a couple of seconds away from World War II. [1:17:58] World War III starting, and the UFOs were responsible for it. [1:18:01] I'm out of time, but real quick, who are the contractors that have this material, [1:18:06] the corporations? [1:18:07] Well, one of them is Lockheed. [1:18:08] And I'll tell you, I mean, you know, I'm not saying Lockheed's the bad guys. [1:18:12] They're doing what they were asked to do. [1:18:13] They have lied about this because that's what they're supposed to do. [1:18:16] But Lockheed would be one. [1:18:17] There's a list I can give you, Congressman, some of the big ones, the usual suspects. [1:18:22] OK. [1:18:23] Thank you. [1:18:24] You're back, chairlady. [1:18:25] Sorry for going over. [1:18:26] It's all good. [1:18:27] It's all George Knapp's fault. [1:18:29] I now recognize Ms. Boebert for five minutes. [1:18:33] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:18:35] Chief Wiggins, based on your training and operational experience, could the behavior [1:18:40] that you witnessed, a transmedium object vanishing without a sound, be explained by any known [1:18:47] technology that we possess or other governments possess? [1:18:51] It cannot. [1:18:52] No. [1:18:54] And has any government agency debriefed you or any of your shipmates regarding the [1:18:59] EOI? [1:19:00] No. [1:19:01] And has any of our radar confirmed UAP encounter aboard USS Jackson? [1:19:04] No one has. [1:19:06] No, ma'am. [1:19:07] What was that encounter like when you brought that up? [1:19:11] If you want to briefly summarize that, when you brought that to their attention and then [1:19:16] you were not provided any follow-up, who was told and how did you feel when there was no [1:19:24] contact back to you? [1:19:27] As far as the actual incident happening? [1:19:29] Yes, sir. [1:19:30] Or the reporting level? [1:19:31] It was within the event happening, my duties are to report to the tactical action officer on watch while we're standing watch. [1:19:41] So the tactical action officer was there. [1:19:44] I made my report. [1:19:46] I've not had any discussion outside of that day. [1:19:51] There's been no communication to me or requests from me, you know, within the side of the military. [1:19:57] But speaking of that actual incident itself, once the report was made to the tactical action officer, [1:20:07] that's when I made the decision to ask the individual watchstander that was controlling Sapphire to be able to slew into the location. [1:20:19] And that's what you see in the video itself is when the watchstander is slewing in and kind of showing us what we're looking at. [1:20:28] But outside of that, that's as far as. [1:20:31] The reporting went that I know of. [1:20:34] Thank you, Chief. [1:20:35] Just for the sake of time, Mr. [1:20:37] Nusatelli, has Aro, the Air Force or the FBI ever followed up with you personally about the Red Square event? [1:20:44] I did have follow up by Aro. [1:20:47] Nothing with the Air Force. [1:20:49] The Aro office updated me, I think, at least two times. [1:20:55] They let me know that they were unable to locate any records, that the records had been destroyed by the Air Force. [1:21:02] The Air Force. [1:21:03] The Air Force is destroying all their police records every three years on a schedule. [1:21:07] So you were informed that this that these documents were destroyed. [1:21:11] Well, I have a Freedom of Information Act from the Air Force that states clearly that they destroy all police records on a three year schedule. [1:21:19] OK, so they were sitting on documentation, destroyed it, refused to to question any of the lead investigators. [1:21:28] Anything leading into this investigation? [1:21:33] Basically, they destroyed. [1:21:34] All the police records. [1:21:36] So you couldn't even, like, call the Air Force and ask them if there was a vehicle accident in that time frame. [1:21:42] So that's a big problem. [1:21:45] We're losing data in real time, so we'll never be able to go back and track. [1:21:49] Our federal government has a history of destroying records. [1:21:53] Thank you. [1:21:53] Thank you very much, Mr. [1:21:54] Nusatelli. Dr. [1:21:55] Borland, as a geospatial intelligence officer, have you seen classified data indicating UAPs operate in restricted UAPs? [1:22:04] Have you seen any information that says UAPs have been in restricted U.S. airspace? [1:22:08] And has that information been withheld from Congress? [1:22:10] I have not in U.S. airspace. [1:22:12] That is intelligence oversight. [1:22:14] So I did not have domestic authorities. [1:22:16] After filing your inspector general complaint over retaliation inside the Pentagon's UAP office, did you receive any kind of protection or just more retaliation? [1:22:28] Within the IG or AARO, ma'am? [1:22:31] Either. [1:22:31] AARO. [1:22:32] They went after the staff member. [1:22:34] That's one of the things. [1:22:35] OK. [1:22:35] and classified everything, shut that down. [1:22:38] The IG, to this day, I don't even know if my complaint's active. [1:22:42] I know my attorney that represented me was very, very, very concerned. [1:22:46] And the best of my understanding, I was determined credible, not urgent. [1:22:51] And do you think that that experience would suggest that the internal UAP investigations may be compromised? [1:23:02] Possibly. [1:23:03] I mean, it's so hard because this goes back to people doing the job they're told to do, [1:23:07] and very few people are going to want to give up their careers, 20-, 30-year pension, [1:23:11] give up, get rid of their kids' health care, get rid of their house. [1:23:15] It's possible, yes. [1:23:18] Yes. Thank you very much, Dr. Borland. [1:23:21] Mr. Spielberger, do national security whistleblowers currently have any external appeals processes [1:23:28] to challenge retaliation, or are they just stuck relying on the same agencies that they're accusing? [1:23:35] Congresswoman, this is one of the biggest concerns [1:23:40] that we have in the U.S. [1:23:41] We at POGO have basically around the independence of investigations and accountability for retaliation. [1:23:48] Basically, yes, national security whistleblowers have to rely on internal administrative processes [1:23:54] that go through agency inspector generals. [1:23:58] There are some differentiations, but the bottom line is that they are forced to rely on protection [1:24:05] from the same agencies and people who they are alleging retaliated against them. [1:24:10] Yes. [1:24:10] Well, I thank you all for your bravery. [1:24:12] We are out of time here. [1:24:14] Thank you so much for coming forward, and we will do everything that we can to ensure that you are all protected. [1:24:18] Thank you for trying to bring truth and transparency to the American people. [1:24:22] Madam Chair, I yield. [1:24:24] I now recognize Mr. Burleson for about five minutes. [1:24:27] Thank you, everyone. [1:24:28] It takes such great courage to come forward, and we acknowledge that, [1:24:31] and I hope that you see that we are taking that seriously, [1:24:35] and so very thankful for what you are doing today. [1:24:38] I'm also very thankful for previous witnesses that have come. [1:24:41] I see Matthew Brown in the audience. [1:24:44] He courageously stepped forward and was as a witness. [1:24:48] I encourage everybody to look and seek his testimony. [1:24:52] I want to thank the people that came in our first hearing, Ryan Graves, David Grush, David Fravor, [1:24:59] and in our second hearing, Admiral Gallaudet, Lou Elizondo, and Mr. Gold, [1:25:05] and the many others that have come forward. [1:25:08] We hear you, and it's time that we, you know, [1:25:11] enough is enough. [1:25:12] It's time that we take action. [1:25:13] Look, I'm not jumped to the conclusion that I believe that there are, you know, [1:25:18] aliens coming from another planet, but I'm open to that, [1:25:22] and I think that it's our responsibility, [1:25:25] especially when we're seeing that we have a government that is blocking, [1:25:28] actively blocking information from us. [1:25:30] Just last night, I tried to get an amendment onto the National Defense Authorization Act [1:25:36] that fit in the germaneness of that bill to have UAP disclosure, [1:25:41] and conveniently, it was named non-germane, mostly deemed by staff, [1:25:47] not even an elected official. [1:25:49] This is the kind of stuff that we repeatedly see. [1:25:51] Last year, we were blocked by someone in House administration [1:25:56] from being able to receive a full briefing from Arrow. [1:26:00] So, not an elected official, but someone in staff blocked us, [1:26:05] and I've had it. [1:26:06] Enough is enough. [1:26:07] I want to cue up a video that I've been doing, [1:26:11] but given, and as before it starts, I'm going to describe. [1:26:15] This was taken October 30th of 2024. [1:26:18] This video is of an MQ-9 drone tracking an orb, [1:26:22] or this object, off the coast of Yemen. [1:26:25] You'll see that another MQ-9 launched a Hellfire missile. [1:26:31] You cannot see that drone, and so I'm not going to explain it to you. [1:26:38] You'll see exactly what it does. [1:26:39] This is when it zoomed out. [1:27:14] So, you can still see it traveling. [1:27:15] So, Mr. Knapp, do you have any, have you heard about, you know, [1:27:30] events like this occurring, and what information might you have? [1:27:35] I have heard about events like this. [1:27:37] I have heard about this event. [1:27:39] Jeremy Corbell and I talked about it in one of our episodes a while back. [1:27:42] We did not have the video, though. [1:27:44] There are servers where there's a whole bank of these kind of videos [1:27:49] that Congress has not been allowed to see, [1:27:51] that the public hasn't been allowed to see. [1:27:53] Occasionally, [1:27:53] some of that stuff gets out in the wild, and it comes our way. [1:27:56] It should be going to you. [1:27:58] You know, the public should be seeing this stuff. [1:28:00] And why you're not allowed to, I don't know. [1:28:02] But that's a Hellfire missile smacking into that UFO and just bounced right off. [1:28:08] And it kept going. [1:28:09] It kept going, and it looks like the debris was taken with it. [1:28:12] Yeah. What the hell is that? [1:28:13] What flies like that? [1:28:15] So, again, I'm not going to speculate what it is, but the question is, you know, [1:28:19] why are we being blocked from this information consistently? [1:28:23] I want to ask this, just a question. [1:28:26] How in the world, this is the document, I want to enter this in for the record [1:28:29] if it hasn't already been entered, Madam Chair. [1:28:31] The document that you provided on thread three, this is a huge file. [1:28:37] How in the world did you smuggle this out of Russia? [1:28:41] Carefully. [1:28:41] In your socks? [1:28:44] I don't think I want to be really specific about it, [1:28:46] because I might have to go back there and get some more sometime. [1:28:48] Okay. [1:28:49] No, that'd be crazy to do that. [1:28:51] Well, I, again, I took the top page. [1:28:54] I took the top pages off that were stamped with the security signature, [1:28:57] and I carried them out on my person, but the rest of them I just threw in my suitcase [1:29:02] and threw some caviar in there as a distraction as well, and hoped for the best. [1:29:07] Otherwise, I'd be a citizen of Siberia right now. [1:29:11] And you had, you reported James Lakatsky came to you with government possession [1:29:18] of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. [1:29:22] Can you testify to the veracity of that claim? [1:29:25] Dr. Lakatsky is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA, [1:29:30] a very trusted high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst [1:29:34] who inspired the OSAP program, as I said earlier. [1:29:37] And in, you know, in full disclosure, I've co-written two books with him. [1:29:42] He dropped this on myself and our other co-author out of the blue. [1:29:46] And it took 14 months for us to get DOPSA approval, for him to release two sentences on that. [1:29:52] He said, this craft, we had managed to get it out of the DIA, [1:29:55] we had managed to get inside of it, it had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. [1:30:01] They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. [1:30:04] It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. [1:30:09] He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, [1:30:13] I don't think we're going to hear much more. [1:30:15] But it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. [1:30:19] We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. [1:30:22] We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation. [1:30:25] That we do have recovered disks and materials. [1:30:29] And lastly, Mr. Borland, in the classified realm, [1:30:35] have you been exposed to undeniable confirmation of NHI technology? [1:30:39] And then my second question is, is Bay Systems involved in any way [1:30:43] with reverse engineering exploitation of non-human intelligence craft? [1:30:49] Yeah, we're going to have to have a conversation on this, Skip, for that. [1:30:52] Whether I'm legally even allowed to answer that and whether you're even allowed to hear it, sir. [1:30:58] Okay. [1:30:58] Again, you can sense our frustration. [1:31:01] And so I just want to thank you for coming forward. [1:31:04] We will continue to fight because, look, this is about making sure that this government belongs to the people [1:31:09] and restoring the republic the way it was intended to be. [1:31:13] Madam Chair, I also have further witnesses of courageous individuals. [1:31:17] It was given to me by Dr. Steven Greer, including Michael Herrera and his testimony. [1:31:24] We have Roderick Castle and his testimony. [1:31:28] Randy Anderson, his testimony, Steven Digna, and others, three others, [1:31:34] all saying similar things to what the witnesses today have said. [1:31:38] And I would like to enter that into the record as well. [1:31:40] No objection. [1:31:41] Thank you. [1:31:42] I now recognize Representative Lee for five minutes. [1:31:45] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:31:48] I think we need to make sure that we don't get distracted by sensational stories only of unidentified anomalous phenomena [1:31:57] and lose track of what the question is. [1:31:59] I want to thank the four of this hearing is about. [1:32:01] This is all a perfect example of why whistleblowers are so important [1:32:06] and why it's so important that we step up and protect them. [1:32:10] With Trump, RFK Jr., EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and others committed to dismantling government [1:32:16] and firing professionals who do dare to speak out against the threats this administration's disastrous policies create, [1:32:22] we have to focus on protecting all whistleblowers, not only the ones who are reporting on UAP. [1:32:28] I'd like to thank the whistleblowers who have agreed to come before the committee today and speak their truth. [1:32:33] This administration's claims to care about waste, fraud, and abuse, [1:32:37] and so often it is the whistleblowers who care and who are the tip of the sword fighting against the real waste, fraud, and abuse. [1:32:46] One study found that whistleblowers expose fraud at more than twice the rate of third-party auditors. [1:32:52] So, Mr. Spielberger, what are some of the best examples of whistleblowers exposing fraud and abuse in the federal government? [1:32:58] Thank you, Congresswoman. [1:33:03] Again, whistleblowers have played such a vital role across so many different issues. [1:33:07] One prominent example goes back to the 2014 VA waitlist scandal. [1:33:14] POGO actually played a very instrumental role coordinating with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. [1:33:20] At that time, we received tips and whistleblower disclosures from over 800 different individuals [1:33:27] talking about the VA subjecting whistleblowers to fraud. [1:33:31] We were able to get veterans to extensive wait times in order to get the basic standard of care that they deserve. [1:33:42] It certainly prolonged serious illnesses, even contributing to haste in deaths, [1:33:50] and we were able to help shed more light on that issue, [1:33:59] which I think just emphasizes the importance of this. [1:34:01] Thank you. [1:34:02] The importance, even outside of the national security context, [1:34:06] we are often still talking about serious issues and even life and death concerns. [1:34:12] And, unfortunately, whistleblowers can, whistleblowing can lead to serious repercussions. [1:34:17] And retaliation, especially in this vindictive and lawless administration. [1:34:21] Mr. Spielberger, in the past, what kinds of retaliation have they faced, [1:34:25] and what are we seeing today under the Trump administration? [1:34:29] So, we've certainly heard about a number of different examples [1:34:32] of retaliation. [1:34:34] One that I'd like to highlight that Mr. Borland referenced previously [1:34:38] is retaliation through abuse of the security clearance process. [1:34:43] That can have grave implications, not just for a whistleblower, [1:34:46] but also their ability to seek legal counsel and defend themselves against retaliation. [1:34:52] And when we look at the past several months of this administration, [1:34:56] unfortunately, we've seen a really systematic approach toward [1:35:00] dismantling the nonpartisan civil service. [1:35:02] We've seen the mass firings. [1:35:04] We've seen undermining of independent agency watchdogs, [1:35:08] mass firings of inspectors general, [1:35:10] undermining the Office of Special Counsel, [1:35:12] the Merit Systems Protection Board. [1:35:14] Again, these entities that are meant to be independent [1:35:18] and play a critical role in investigating whistleblower disclosures [1:35:22] and ensuring that their rights are protected. [1:35:26] Thank you. [1:35:28] In 1989, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act, [1:35:30] and then broadened it again in 2012 to ensure that federal workers [1:35:34] could feel free to come forward to their elected officials. [1:35:37] And it's a good thing we did because whistleblowers have played [1:35:40] a more important role than ever since Trump has taken office. [1:35:43] It was thanks to a whistleblower that we learned that Doge allegedly [1:35:46] put every single American's personal security information at risk [1:35:50] by bypassing safeguards and copying all this data to an unsecure server. [1:35:54] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a New York Times article [1:35:57] titled, quote, Doge put critical social security information [1:36:00] and security data at risk. [1:36:01] Whistleblower says. [1:36:03] Good to go. [1:36:04] Thanks. [1:36:05] We've had whistleblowers at the National Labor Relations Board [1:36:07] reveal that Doge minions may have shipped case files outside of the agency, [1:36:10] possibly to help then co-president Elon Musk continue to exploit his workers. [1:36:14] And last week, whistleblowers at the National Institute of Health came forward [1:36:17] to say that RFK Jr.'s vaccine misinformation campaign [1:36:20] had pervaded even the highest levels of the agency. [1:36:23] Typically, whistleblowers have an inspector general they can rely on [1:36:26] to investigate their claims and register issues with agency leadership. [1:36:29] But President Trump has fired or demoted [1:36:31] over 20 inspectors general. [1:36:33] If I may ask one more question. [1:36:35] Mr. Spielberger, can you explain how eroding the independence [1:36:37] and capabilities of inspectors general further endanger these whistleblowers? [1:36:43] Absolutely. [1:36:44] So again, whistleblowers already face incredibly great challenges [1:36:48] in coming forward under normal circumstances. [1:36:51] And when we erode these entities that are expected and required [1:36:56] to enforce whistleblower protections, [1:36:59] fairly investigate their disclosures, [1:37:01] it calls into question [1:37:03] the integrity of their investigations and findings, [1:37:06] whether they'll take whistleblowers seriously when they come forward, [1:37:10] and whether we can trust that they will use their authority [1:37:13] to enforce the protections of whistleblowers who do come forward, [1:37:17] essentially whether they will continue in their role [1:37:20] as an independent watchdog [1:37:23] or basically become a lapdog for a current or future president. [1:37:28] Thank you. [1:37:29] And I will take no more liberties. [1:37:32] I yield back. [1:37:33] Thank you. [1:37:34] I now recognize Mr. Crane for five minutes. [1:37:36] Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman, for holding this hearing. [1:37:40] Thank you to the witnesses for appearing. [1:37:43] In the effort of transparency here, [1:37:47] I got to admit to the witnesses that, you know, growing up, [1:37:50] I really never believed in UFOs or any of this stuff. [1:37:53] I always thought it was a little kooky and whatnot. [1:37:57] But, you know, after hearing, you know, your testimony [1:38:01] from honorable service members watching videos [1:38:04] like my colleague Mr. Burleson just presented, [1:38:07] you know, I got to admit, I've become a believer. [1:38:10] Not that I know where these things come from [1:38:12] or, you know, what they really are up to, [1:38:14] but I'd like to start with asking the witnesses. [1:38:19] Mr. Nusatelli, you were in the Air Force, right? [1:38:23] Yes. [1:38:24] Did you believe in UFOs prior to your encounter? [1:38:27] I've always been interested. [1:38:29] Okay. [1:38:30] Chief Wiggins, you're currently in the Navy. [1:38:32] Is that correct? [1:38:33] Correct. [1:38:34] Did you believe in UFOs before your encounter? [1:38:37] I did. [1:38:38] I'm from Las Vegas, [1:38:39] and I've watched George Knapp my whole life. [1:38:41] Okay. [1:38:43] What about you, Mr. Borland? [1:38:44] I have always been open to where facts go. [1:38:48] Were you guys scared or hesitant to come forward [1:38:52] and tell your story because of fear [1:38:54] and believing that you might be reprimanded [1:38:59] or ostracized from society because of your stories? [1:39:04] Mr. Nusatelli? [1:39:05] Yes, absolutely. [1:39:07] I probably would not have come forward [1:39:09] if I didn't have documentation to prove some of my story, [1:39:12] and I also wouldn't have come forward [1:39:14] without the people that paved the way for us [1:39:16] in the first Congressional hearing. [1:39:19] Chief, what about you? [1:39:20] Once I got the okay from the Navy from top down, [1:39:26] that gave me a level of relief. [1:39:28] Prior to that, I didn't have any thought left or right of that, [1:39:33] but I thanked the Navy to give me the go-ahead, [1:39:36] and that gave me the relief [1:39:37] that I would not have any level of reprisal [1:39:39] or anything happen to me. [1:39:40] Mr. Borland, how about you? [1:39:43] Absolutely. [1:39:44] I mean, after I went through everything, [1:39:46] it was pretty clear that I caused a major issue [1:39:49] in the executive branch, [1:39:50] so I did what I was supposed to do, [1:39:53] and that's why I haven't spoken publicly. [1:39:56] That's why I'm happy to be here. [1:39:57] This is how I wanted this to be done in regards to me. [1:40:02] Mr. Borland, why do you think that you faced reprimand [1:40:06] and discipline for your effort to come forward [1:40:09] and be transparent about what you saw? [1:40:11] About what I saw is the reason why I got into what I know [1:40:17] and has been disclosed to Arrow and the IG, [1:40:20] and I think that information, while it was, [1:40:24] it was labeled an extremely sensitive national security issue. [1:40:27] Thank you. [1:40:29] Mr. Knapp, I've watched many of your videos on Joe Rogan [1:40:32] and other places. [1:40:34] One of the big questions I think for many of us is, [1:40:37] why do you believe that the federal government [1:40:39] refuses to be transparent about this issue? [1:40:42] I think there's probably multiple reasons. [1:40:45] At the start, when these things first started invading our skies [1:40:48] in large numbers, we were scared. [1:40:50] It was right after World War II, and we didn't know what they were, [1:40:53] and they didn't want to panic the public, [1:40:55] and that was probably a good call. [1:40:57] Over time, I think the lying sort of became institutionalized, you know? [1:41:02] Flights over Washington, D.C. in 1952, [1:41:05] they're seen, they're captured on radar, [1:41:07] jets are chased after these objects, [1:41:09] and then we get an explanation it was a temperature inversion. [1:41:13] And those kind of lies have been told for a long time, [1:41:15] what was told to me by an investigator from Congress, [1:41:18] a guy named Richard D'Amato, [1:41:20] who was sent after this story by Robert Byrd and Harry Reid, [1:41:24] he came out to Nevada, tried to get into Area 51, [1:41:27] did get in there, looked around, talked to people, [1:41:29] trying to get to the bottom of it. [1:41:31] He believed that this program, reverse engineering, et cetera, [1:41:34] was inside, had been moved inside these corporations, [1:41:37] and he said, when this comes out, people are going to go to prison. [1:41:40] And he meant people who were basically misusing [1:41:43] legitimate national security funds [1:41:45] for these tens of billions of dollars [1:41:47] in order to keep this cover-up going. [1:41:49] I also believe there's a legitimate reason for the cover-up [1:41:52] in that there is undeniable connection of national security [1:41:56] involved in this technology. [1:41:58] If we are racing for it, to master that technology, [1:42:01] against the Russians and the Chinese, [1:42:03] which is what I have been told by Senator Reid and many others, [1:42:06] then it is a race that's critical to our survival. [1:42:10] There could be a form of disclosure, I think. [1:42:13] Yes, it's real, it's from somewhere else, [1:42:15] but without revealing all the details [1:42:17] that would allow someone else to have an advantage [1:42:19] in the race for this technology. [1:42:21] Thank you. [1:42:22] Finally, I'd like to enter into the testimony [1:42:26] a letter I sent to the DOD regarding the case [1:42:30] of Major David Charles Grush, a UAP whistleblower [1:42:34] who's been extremely helpful to this committee. [1:42:36] Unfortunately, due to his participation in the disclosure of UAP, [1:42:40] he suffered reprisal like the removal of his clearance, [1:42:43] denial of promotion, and loss of medical retirement. [1:42:46] I wrote the DOD on July 24, 2025 on behalf of Major Grush, [1:42:51] and I'm still waiting for a reply. [1:42:53] I appreciate any help the committee can offer to get a response. [1:42:57] Thank you. I yield back. [1:42:58] Without objection, we'll be following up with the DOD after this hearing. [1:43:01] Thank you, Representative Crane. [1:43:03] I'd next like to recognize Representative Gill for five minutes. [1:43:07] Thank you, Chairwoman Luna, for holding this hearing, [1:43:12] and I'd like to yield a minute of my time to you. [1:43:14] Perfect. My first question is to Mr. Knapp. [1:43:17] Mr. Knapp, how do we know [1:43:18] that the files that you obtained [1:43:19] from the former Soviet government are not BS [1:43:22] and just given to you as a disinformation campaign [1:43:24] against the U.S. government? [1:43:25] That's a good question. [1:43:26] So I shared some of them with the Senate Intelligence Committee [1:43:28] when I first got back because that was requested [1:43:31] by the Russians who shared some of that information with me. [1:43:34] Secondly, I gave all of that material to the DIA, [1:43:37] through BAS, the OSAP program. [1:43:40] Sorry for the acronyms. [1:43:41] Can you name names real quick? Sorry. [1:43:43] At BAS or OSAP? [1:43:44] Who did you give them to directly? [1:43:46] I gave them to Robert Bigelow [1:43:47] and to Jim Lukatsky. [1:43:49] And they hired a whole team to go through them [1:43:53] and retranslate them and analyze it, [1:43:55] and they created a structure of how the UFO programs [1:43:59] in the USSR and Russia were put together. [1:44:02] They said they were real. [1:44:03] The other person who said they were real is David Grush. [1:44:06] Noted. Thank you. [1:44:07] Representative Gill? [1:44:08] And thank you. [1:44:10] I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to Eric Burleson. [1:44:14] Thank you, Representative Gill. [1:44:18] Mr. Wiggins, Chief Wiggins, [1:44:20] in your view, what mechanisms such as internal protocols, [1:44:25] witness debriefings, or cross-agency documentation [1:44:29] should be better established in order to ensure [1:44:32] that such a credible sighting like the one that you have given [1:44:36] are preserved and made available to oversight bodies like this? [1:44:43] Thank you, sir. [1:44:45] As an active duty Navy member, [1:44:49] our mission is to carry out the ship's mission [1:44:53] or the command's mission. [1:44:55] And we, on a general basis, [1:44:58] don't have knowledge of what to do when we see things like this. [1:45:01] We just don't. [1:45:02] We're there to do our mission and do what's told of us, right? [1:45:06] So I think what would be important is giving active duty members [1:45:13] a clear way of being able to report things like this [1:45:18] to where it gets to this point [1:45:21] and ensuring that we have, [1:45:24] that we have a standard level of understanding [1:45:27] that there wouldn't be any level of reprisal or anything happening. [1:45:30] Because, you know, I've been in the Navy for almost 24 years. [1:45:34] But what about the sailors that have been in for two years [1:45:37] that experience things like this? [1:45:39] They're not going to have the knowledge [1:45:41] or they'll probably be a little bit more fearful to speak up [1:45:44] being it that their career is just starting. [1:45:47] Yeah, I just, I want to commend you. [1:45:49] You're the first witness to come forward that is currently serving. [1:45:52] And it's not, it's recognized. [1:45:54] So I thank you. [1:45:55] And your testimony is unbelievable. [1:45:57] Let me ask this question. [1:45:59] Are you familiar with the Witness Protection Act [1:46:02] that Representative Burchett has filed? [1:46:05] I'm not too familiar, sir. [1:46:07] Anyone on the committee familiar with it? [1:46:09] It's fantastic. [1:46:10] It's the language that we need. [1:46:12] It's language that will protect whistleblowers [1:46:15] from any kind of reprisal. [1:46:18] And yet it's again and again blocked [1:46:22] by, you know, [1:46:24] this body in some way. [1:46:26] Many times it's being blocked not by elected officials [1:46:29] but by staff behind the scenes. [1:46:31] The other bill, the UAP Disclosure Act, [1:46:34] which was filed last year, [1:46:37] Senator Schumer, who I cannot believe [1:46:40] that there's a topic that he and I agree on, [1:46:42] but he and I agree on this topic. [1:46:44] He has sponsored it in the Senate. [1:46:46] He put it on the National Defense Authorization Act last year. [1:46:49] Remarkably, I can't get it on the, [1:46:52] it was stripped out by the House last year [1:46:54] and I can't get it on to the bill [1:46:56] leaving the House this year. [1:47:00] Mr. Knapp, how far would that bill go [1:47:04] to actually getting the answers that we need? [1:47:08] Pretty far. [1:47:09] I think they're still going to have roadblocks. [1:47:11] You know, the keepers of the secrets, [1:47:13] the private companies that have been doing this job [1:47:15] for intelligence agencies for a long time [1:47:17] are not going to cough it up. [1:47:19] You'd have to force it out of them. [1:47:20] And whether you can get them to admit [1:47:22] that they have it or not, [1:47:23] I mean, they're supposed to lie about it. [1:47:25] They've been lying about it. [1:47:27] You know, more power to you. [1:47:29] I hope it works. [1:47:30] I hope it passes this time. [1:47:32] But it's a daunting challenge [1:47:34] to get them to open up [1:47:36] after lying about it for more than 75 years. [1:47:38] Yeah. [1:47:40] And then finally, Mr. Borland, [1:47:42] when you engaged with Arrow in 2023, [1:47:44] you noted that their public statements [1:47:46] did not match the reality [1:47:48] that you and others had witnessed. [1:47:51] In your assessment, [1:47:52] what were the key limitations of Arrow? [1:47:54] You know, I would put it to you this way. [1:47:57] The statement Arrow has made [1:47:59] is scientific evidence of extraterrestrials. [1:48:02] Scientific evidence requires a scientific control. [1:48:05] Extraterrestrial is an entity on another planet. [1:48:08] The only way to scientifically prove extraterrestrial [1:48:11] is we have to go to that planet, [1:48:13] acquire technology, bring it back, [1:48:15] and compare it to what we have here. [1:48:17] So you're saying they won't let anything out [1:48:19] because, or they won't come forward [1:48:22] unless they confirm that it, [1:48:24] unless they go to the planet [1:48:26] and confirm where its origin is. [1:48:28] That would be scientific evidence, yes. [1:48:30] And by that statement, [1:48:32] Arrow found no scientific evidence [1:48:34] of extraterrestrials is basically, [1:48:36] I don't want to call it a psyop, [1:48:38] but a misrepresentation [1:48:39] because we do have things. [1:48:41] But making that statement [1:48:42] is not technically a lie. [1:48:44] It's a misrepresentation of the full truth. [1:48:46] Thank you. [1:48:48] Madam Chair, may I, [1:48:49] just since we're on that topic real quick, [1:48:52] how do we get to these other planets? [1:48:54] Can we pass the Van Allen radiation belt safely? [1:49:00] Good question for you. [1:49:02] I cannot answer that for you. [1:49:05] I would now like to recognize [1:49:07] Mr. Perry for five minutes. [1:49:10] Thanks, Madam Chair. [1:49:12] I think I'll start with maybe Mr. Borland. [1:49:15] So you have a clearance, right? [1:49:17] You're in uniform. [1:49:18] You have a clearance. [1:49:19] When did you leave service? [1:49:20] What year? [1:49:21] I left in 2013, February 13. [1:49:23] 2013. [1:49:24] Who was the president, if you recall? [1:49:26] 2013 would have been President Obama, sir. [1:49:28] Wasn't President Trump, right? [1:49:29] Yes, sir. [1:49:30] Okay. [1:49:31] So you have a clearance, right? [1:49:32] You're serving in uniform. [1:49:33] You have a clearance. [1:49:34] Yes, sir. [1:49:35] Your story, you know, [1:49:36] I think many of us are kind of picturing the scene. [1:49:37] You walk out in the flight line having a smoke. [1:49:39] This event occurs. [1:49:42] Do you have the perception, [1:49:44] at least I do, [1:49:45] based on your story, [1:49:47] that this involves the U.S. government? [1:49:51] Whatever you saw involves the U.S. government? [1:49:54] That is 100% my opinion then and now. [1:49:59] And was there an after action? [1:50:01] Did you do a daily debrief of the activities of the day? [1:50:05] Was any of that recorded? [1:50:07] Was there a conversation with the command? [1:50:09] Was there any documentation that you know of at the time? [1:50:12] Not to my knowledge. [1:50:13] I mean, like I said, I talked about it on the ops floor, [1:50:16] and a couple of people had pulled me aside, some older enlisted, [1:50:19] and were like, you probably want to keep that to yourself. [1:50:21] So did you get the impression that they knew what you were talking about, [1:50:28] just didn't want you to harm your career or seem crazy, [1:50:32] or that they didn't really witness? [1:50:34] Did you know anybody else that witnessed what you saw? [1:50:37] Again, not that night. [1:50:38] Like I said, the only people that would have been out there would have been security forces [1:50:41] and then those of us that were doing ops. [1:50:43] Security forces in uniform or contract? [1:50:45] Probably both. [1:50:47] Did you talk to them? [1:50:48] Did anybody talk to them in an after action? [1:50:50] Not to my knowledge, sir. [1:50:51] Was there any interest in the command to determine and verify what you saw? [1:50:56] Not to my knowledge, sir. [1:50:58] That's unfortunate. [1:50:59] Chief Wiggins, thank you for your service. [1:51:02] Gentlemen, thank you. [1:51:03] All of you for your courage to be here. [1:51:06] Your story is a little bit different. [1:51:10] Well, for both of you guys and also Mr. Nusatelli, [1:51:15] if this were sanctioned by the U.S. government, [1:51:19] even though you have a clearance but it's classified above the clearance level, [1:51:24] do you see any reason why they would allow you access, [1:51:29] being present, viewing it, hearing it, being around it? [1:51:36] Is this an accident? [1:51:38] Does the U.S. government make these kind of accidents? [1:51:41] Do they make accidents, mistakes like this? [1:51:43] Like, oh, we're doing this test of this new system [1:51:48] and we forgot these guys were standing here. [1:51:50] Does that sound like something that the U.S. government would do? [1:51:55] No, sir. [1:51:56] Some of the launches we were doing were like $5 billion projects [1:52:00] that had taken like 10 years to develop the technology, [1:52:04] and these objects were coming right up to the launch pad. [1:52:07] So any kind of mistake, [1:52:09] I mean, it could cause a catastrophe. [1:52:12] Right. [1:52:13] So it's very confusing why these objects would be operating in [1:52:17] and around our bases or during training exercises. [1:52:21] It would lend you to believe that the U.S. government had nothing to do [1:52:26] with whatever it is you saw. [1:52:28] Correct. [1:52:29] They wouldn't want it there because it would potentially interrupt [1:52:32] the proceedings at the time. [1:52:34] Was there an after action? [1:52:35] Was there a discussion by your command? [1:52:37] Was there an investigation? [1:52:39] Were there any pretty significant activities that you were involved in? [1:52:43] Was there an investigation that you know of? [1:52:45] We conducted investigations in real time. [1:52:47] Right. [1:52:48] And we documented all the evidence. [1:52:49] But as far as anything from higher up, [1:52:51] I don't know if there was an investigation done. [1:52:53] No information came down on what we should do. [1:52:56] Were you ever interviewed at someone else's request? [1:53:00] About that incident? [1:53:01] Yeah, about the incident. [1:53:02] I don't believe so. [1:53:04] Do you think that's – do you find that odd? [1:53:06] If something happens, you're around multimillion, [1:53:09] maybe billion-dollar operations, [1:53:10] and launches of national security interests, very sensitive. [1:53:15] There's an anomaly in the operation. [1:53:20] The only person witnessed it, saw UAP at Vandenberg at that timeframe, [1:53:25] that was interviewed was the one that witnessed the thing land. [1:53:29] Well, I wouldn't – well, I don't know why I'm asking you, [1:53:32] but it seems to me that we would want to interview everybody associated, [1:53:35] even not associated, to find out if they were associated. [1:53:38] Chief Wiggins, how about you? [1:53:39] Did anybody – was there an investigation? [1:53:41] Was there an after-action? [1:53:42] Was there documentation on the incident that you were privy to? [1:53:46] No, sir, not that I know of. [1:53:48] And in my previous experience as an operations specialist, [1:53:54] all operations that I've been a part of have been deliberate. [1:53:57] So there – [1:54:00] And deliberate operations, after the operations, [1:54:03] you conduct an after-action review, or that's what the Army calls it. [1:54:06] I don't know what the – I imagine the Navy has something similar [1:54:09] to determine your weaknesses, your security. [1:54:11] Your weaknesses, your successes. [1:54:13] Do you do that in regard to this incident? [1:54:15] No, sir. [1:54:16] The Navy calls it after-action reports. [1:54:18] And not to my knowledge was there an after-action report of this incident, sir. [1:54:25] That's unfortunate. [1:54:26] Thank you, Chair. [1:54:28] I yield. [1:54:29] I now recognize Mr. Biggs for five minutes. [1:54:31] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:54:32] Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. [1:54:34] I'll tell you that today's testimony should alarm every American, [1:54:37] no matter their views on UAPs. [1:54:39] This isn't simply about UAPs. [1:54:41] It's about government integrity, [1:54:43] responsible use of taxpayer funds, [1:54:45] and Congress's constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch. [1:54:48] I've heard evidence of critical information hidden in special access programs, [1:54:52] off-limits to virtually every elected representative, [1:54:57] and certainly to the public. [1:54:59] Credible witnesses report retaliation for speaking out. [1:55:02] These are clear attempts to silence those who are exposing the truth. [1:55:06] We must protect the whistleblowers. [1:55:08] And decades of government disinformation have eviscerated public trust. [1:55:12] So this isn't a part of – [1:55:14] It's a partisan matter. [1:55:15] It's a constitutional matter. [1:55:17] And when you talk about the VAs, [1:55:19] Ms. Spielberger, [1:55:21] and all the problems that they had, [1:55:23] the hub of that was Phoenix. [1:55:25] And they went after the whistleblowers there. [1:55:27] And that was under the Obama administration. [1:55:31] So it doesn't matter which administration, [1:55:33] which party, [1:55:34] both parties have got to come clean, [1:55:36] particularly on this. [1:55:37] So if the government thinks it can hide the truth [1:55:40] and punish those who speak out, [1:55:42] Congress has to keep pushing until the facts, [1:55:44] whatever they are, [1:55:45] come to light. [1:55:46] Let me go to you, Mr. Knapp, first. [1:55:48] You've interviewed numerous UAP whistleblowers over the years. [1:55:51] The question is, [1:55:52] how do you verify their claims [1:55:53] before deciding they're credible enough to report on? [1:55:55] It's a combination of factors. [1:55:58] First, you check their credentials. [1:56:00] Did they really serve where they said they did? [1:56:02] And did they work where they said they did? [1:56:04] Are there any other witnesses? [1:56:05] Is there visual proof, film footage, things of that sort? [1:56:09] You ask the people around them that know them, [1:56:11] that used to work with them, [1:56:12] if they're credible people. [1:56:14] That's one way. [1:56:15] You know, I think about Arrow, [1:56:16] the organization that this body created [1:56:19] to deal with witnesses and whistleblowers. [1:56:22] I hope I'm not taking too much of your time here, [1:56:24] but they invited people to come forward, [1:56:26] service members who knew, saw things, [1:56:29] and had experiences. [1:56:31] And I can tell you that the people that I have talked to [1:56:33] who went through that are deeply disappointed. [1:56:35] There was a guy named Bob Jacobs who was a lieutenant [1:56:37] attached to Vandenberg in 1964. [1:56:40] His unit would record missile tests. [1:56:43] They recorded all of them. [1:56:44] On one of those particular missions, [1:56:46] after a test, a UFO comes out of nowhere, [1:56:49] zaps what looks like a laser beam [1:56:51] at what would have been a nuclear dummy, [1:56:54] a nuclear weapon, and disabled it. [1:56:56] And he is called into the commander's office. [1:56:59] Two guys in suits clip that film footage out [1:57:02] that shows the UFO, [1:57:04] and he's ordered to never talk about it. [1:57:06] He comes forward to Arrow. [1:57:08] He heeds the call, thinking he's doing his duty [1:57:10] as an American to tell that story, [1:57:12] and they completely dismissed him. [1:57:14] They made up a story that they had [1:57:16] tracked down the original footage, [1:57:18] and there was nothing like that in it. [1:57:20] Well, there was no original footage. [1:57:22] It had been taken away the day the footage was recorded. [1:57:24] He is deeply disappointed. [1:57:26] People like Bob Salas, who had worked at a nuclear ICBM base, [1:57:29] who saw UFOs flying over the base, [1:57:31] and these missile silos were taken down, [1:57:33] he went to Arrow, too, and was completely disregarded. [1:57:36] It almost looks like Arrow operated [1:57:38] as a counterintelligence operation [1:57:40] to get people to come in, tell their stories, [1:57:42] and then discredit all of them. [1:57:44] I can't imagine that any whistleblower [1:57:46] will ever go to Arrow again [1:57:48] because of what happened under the first director, [1:57:50] who's now long gone, [1:57:52] but still seems to act as the spokesperson [1:57:54] for that organization. [1:57:56] And I would say, Madam Chair, [1:57:58] maybe at some point we need to really [1:58:00] dig deep into Arrow, and I would encourage us... [1:58:02] Oh, I'd be happy to send maybe a subpoena [1:58:04] to Mr. Kilpatrick. [1:58:11] Mr. Nucatelli, [1:58:14] you've testified that official Air Force records [1:58:16] of the Red Square incident [1:58:18] are now held by Arrow, [1:58:20] the FBI. [1:58:22] Has Congress, or you, [1:58:24] been denied access to those records, [1:58:26] and on what grounds would they... [1:58:29] would we be denied access, [1:58:31] you or us? [1:58:33] No, the records are unclassified, [1:58:35] so I can't provide them to you. [1:58:38] In the 2003 to 2005 incidents you described, [1:58:40] were any physical effects, [1:58:42] electromagnetic interference, [1:58:44] radio anomalies, [1:58:46] or security system disruptions [1:58:48] documented in base logs, [1:58:50] or any reports, official reports? [1:58:53] Mr. Wiggins, [1:58:57] has the full resolution, [1:58:59] unended footage of your incident [1:59:03] been provided to Congress? [1:59:06] Yes. [1:59:08] Were you or your crew ever instructed formally [1:59:10] or informally not to document [1:59:13] or discuss the event, ever? [1:59:16] No. [1:59:18] Mr. Borland, [1:59:20] you've talked about manipulation [1:59:22] of your security clearance records. [1:59:24] Can you identify which agencies [1:59:26] or offices were responsible [1:59:28] for the multi-agency special access program? [1:59:30] I cannot give those publicly. [1:59:33] So I'd encourage us, Madam Chair, [1:59:35] to have that SCIF meeting if we can. [1:59:37] And then, Mr. Borland, [1:59:39] again for you, [1:59:41] you testified that you withheld certain sources [1:59:43] and methods from Arrow due to mistrust. [1:59:45] Can you give us some specifics [1:59:47] that led you to believe [1:59:49] they were misrepresenting the truth? [1:59:51] Well, as I said already, [1:59:53] what I said about scientific methods, [1:59:55] scientific control, extraterrestrials, [1:59:57] I mean, I know what I've seen, [1:59:59] I know what's true. [2:00:01] So any agency that's going to go public [2:00:03] and try and manipulate [2:00:06] the public perception of this subject [2:00:08] in such a way that it is negative [2:00:10] when I know the truth about it [2:00:13] is why I had extreme reservations with it [2:00:15] and also what I've been through [2:00:17] and other whistleblowers [2:00:19] and people in the know about this subject [2:00:21] have been through. [2:00:23] So, Madam Chair, thank you for letting me wave on. [2:00:25] I think the key thing there you talked about [2:00:27] was manipulation of message, [2:00:29] manipulation of narrative. [2:00:31] That is really the problem [2:00:33] with this entire [2:00:35] system that we've seen [2:00:37] since you've started [2:00:39] these wonderful hearings, Madam Chair, [2:00:41] and I thank you so much. [2:00:43] Thank you, Representative Biggs. [2:00:45] The Chair would now like to [2:00:47] recognize Mr. Begich [2:00:49] for five minutes. [2:00:51] Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:00:53] First question, Mr. Borland, [2:00:55] earlier today you mentioned [2:00:57] that in a SCIF [2:00:59] you would be able to discuss whether [2:01:01] a member of Congress is actually [2:01:03] legally able to access certain information. [2:01:05] Under what authority [2:01:07] would a member of Congress be restricted [2:01:09] from accessing information on this topic [2:01:11] even within a SCIF? [2:01:13] I would suggest reaching out to [2:01:15] Director Gabbard and speaking with her about that. [2:01:17] I'm hopeful that [2:01:19] this goes back to the executive branch [2:01:21] and who even has authority. [2:01:23] Unfortunately, I can't give you a 100% [2:01:25] solid answer because I don't even have [2:01:27] that knowledge. [2:01:29] Next question to George Knapp. [2:01:31] What is the estimated annual budget, [2:01:33] your view, for the program [2:01:35] for investigating or reverse [2:01:37] engineering UAP-related technology, [2:01:39] including official, misappropriated, [2:01:41] or black budget funds? [2:01:43] I wouldn't have a clue. I don't know [2:01:45] any person that's ever seen it. [2:01:48] Does anyone on this panel wish to address that question? [2:01:51] Okay, moving on. [2:01:53] Are any of you willing to name specific [2:01:55] gatekeepers within the root cell [2:01:57] of the UAP SAP Federation? [2:02:06] You mean specific people and contractors [2:02:08] that have dealt with this and kept it a secret? [2:02:10] Or individuals? [2:02:15] Well, one of them was named Dr. James [2:02:18] Ryder at Lockheed. [2:02:21] But, you know, again, to emphasize, [2:02:23] I don't fault these contractors [2:02:25] for doing what they were asked to do [2:02:27] by our government. They're supposed to lie [2:02:29] if people ask about it. [2:02:31] And the intelligence agencies [2:02:33] who gave this stuff to them, [2:02:35] CIA, I think, primarily, [2:02:37] told them to keep it quiet. And they've done that. [2:02:39] And I suspect that they'd like an off-ramp. [2:02:41] That they'd like some help with [2:02:43] figuring out this technology at some point. [2:02:45] And this is, again, available to anyone. [2:02:47] Is there a security classification [2:02:49] guide for UAP or [2:02:51] NHI? [2:02:58] I remember in the 2003 [2:03:00] or 2023 hearing [2:03:02] it was stated that all UAP [2:03:04] related material is [2:03:06] classified secret or above. [2:03:12] I have a name for you. Go ahead. [2:03:15] Glenn Gaffney, CIA. [2:03:17] Glenn Gaffney, CIA. [2:03:19] Another question for you, Mr. Knapp. [2:03:21] What is, in your view, [2:03:23] having investigated this issue for so many [2:03:25] years, what is the long game [2:03:27] with respect to disclosure of [2:03:29] this information to the public? [2:03:31] Because with the advent of [2:03:33] essentially a [2:03:35] video camera and a [2:03:37] high megapixel phone in everybody's pocket, [2:03:39] at some point, this information [2:03:41] is going to be impossible to [2:03:43] withhold from the public. [2:03:45] What do you think is the long game here? [2:03:48] Well, the secret's out. I mean, how many [2:03:50] videos have there been already? [2:03:52] Videos that are leaked from within the military [2:03:54] and intelligence agencies and contractors [2:03:56] and censor platforms? It's out there. [2:03:58] But they have the high ground. The people [2:04:00] that don't want us to take it seriously [2:04:02] dismiss it, discredit the witnesses, [2:04:04] come up with a cover story. I mean, [2:04:06] it's been out there a long time. [2:04:08] The public senses that it's real [2:04:10] and the people in authority [2:04:12] dismiss them. It's a [2:04:14] game that's been going on a long time [2:04:16] and I don't think they're ever going to release it. [2:04:18] I think that there's an attitude [2:04:20] among the people that have been involved [2:04:22] in this for a long time that the public [2:04:24] doesn't deserve to know and that the public [2:04:26] simply can't handle it, but they can. [2:04:29] Final question, and again, this one's open [2:04:31] to anyone who'd like to answer it. [2:04:33] Describe your understanding of the [2:04:35] org chart or lines of control within the [2:04:37] executive branch with respect to these topics. [2:04:39] And if you'd like to address that in a skiff, [2:04:46] feel free to say so. [2:04:49] That could work as long as I'm legally allowed to [2:04:51] and you are legally allowed to receive it. [2:04:57] I think these programs are in the [2:04:59] executive branch, the National Security [2:05:01] Council and over on that side. [2:05:03] That seems to be what [2:05:05] some of our witnesses have told us over the years. [2:05:07] So you can, you know, Congress can [2:05:09] file all kinds of requests, the FOIAs [2:05:11] can be filed with the Department of Defense, [2:05:13] Department of War now, and [2:05:15] they can honestly say, well, [2:05:17] we don't have it, because they don't have it. [2:05:22] Thank you. Is there anything in my [2:05:24] remaining 30 seconds that [2:05:26] you'd like to share on any of these questions [2:05:28] that I've asked you today? [2:05:34] I applaud the committee for [2:05:36] trying to tackle this monster of an issue. [2:05:38] I really appreciate that it might [2:05:40] be the only bipartisan issue in Washington [2:05:42] where everybody can agree. [2:05:44] I've watched multiple hearings now. [2:05:46] Everyone is asking the same kind of [2:05:48] questions, whether right or left, [2:05:50] and honestly want the answers. [2:05:52] Chairman Luna, Chairwoman Luna, [2:05:54] I appreciate your dedication [2:05:56] to this, Tim Burchett and the [2:05:58] other members, for sticking with it. [2:06:00] Because, you know, it's come up in Congress [2:06:02] before and they had hearings [2:06:04] and then they dropped it for 50 years. [2:06:06] It's going to take a lot of time [2:06:08] to get to the bottom of this. [2:06:10] I applaud your commitment to [2:06:12] getting to the truth. [2:06:14] Pursuant to Committee Rule 9C. [2:06:16] Madam Chair, can I ask a [2:06:18] parliamentary question of you? [2:06:20] Does this subcommittee [2:06:22] have the authority to do subpoenas? [2:06:24] Task force. [2:06:26] The task force to answer that question [2:06:28] has to do it through full committee. [2:06:30] Also, in regards to immunity, [2:06:32] which to Mr. Borland's point, [2:06:34] we are going to be doing [2:06:36] a motion to ask for immunity [2:06:38] for you and a few [2:06:40] other people to come into a SCIF [2:06:42] and tell us what you know without being [2:06:44] subject to the Espionage Act, etc. [2:06:46] Thank you, ma'am. [2:06:48] So that's just kind of an update. [2:06:50] But as a task force, because we are not [2:06:52] a full subcommittee and there are certain [2:06:54] authorities that haven't been granted to us, [2:06:56] probably because they don't want us to have it. [2:06:58] But there are ways to work around it. [2:07:00] So we're kind of figuring that out. [2:07:02] Pursuant to Committee Rule 9C, [2:07:04] the majority and minority will have [2:07:06] an additional 30 minutes each to ask [2:07:08] questions of the witnesses without objection. [2:07:10] So ordered. [2:07:12] With that being said, if you guys want to jump in the queue, [2:07:14] and likely Birchit, have a few more questions. [2:07:16] I'll just start out with two [2:07:18] and then I'll pass the buck to Burleson. [2:07:20] Birchit, do you have anything? [2:07:23] Birchit and then Crane. [2:07:25] Just real quick, Mr. Knapp, [2:07:27] and short answers, please, because of time. [2:07:29] How much of these alleged Russian [2:07:31] crash retrieval documents have already been [2:07:33] physically out there? [2:07:35] So, percentage-wise of the documents [2:07:37] that you submitted to Congress, [2:07:39] what was public already and what was not? [2:07:41] Maybe 1%. [2:07:43] Okay, so the rest of it should be predominantly new information. [2:07:45] Just real quick, I know you had, I think, [2:07:47] mentioned a Thread 3 program, [2:07:49] but also alleged in those documents, [2:07:51] I got through maybe half of them last night. [2:07:53] There's a lot, and I don't speak Russian, [2:07:55] contrary to what my people might allege. [2:07:57] What does the Thread 3, [2:07:59] was there any specific programs [2:08:01] that existed within the Soviet government [2:08:03] or groups to specifically investigate this [2:08:05] by name, real quick? [2:08:08] It's a number. [2:08:10] There's a number in those documents I gave you. [2:08:12] There was a larger program that actually had [2:08:14] three sub-programs that was, [2:08:16] and then the DIA guys who looked at it [2:08:18] figured out there was a much larger organization. [2:08:20] And it's listed in those documents? [2:08:22] Yes. Okay, thank you. Real quick, [2:08:24] I'd like to ask the committee to replay that video [2:08:26] that Burleson had played earlier. [2:08:28] I want to ask every witness here, [2:08:30] specifically ones that have sensor training [2:08:32] or have been able to recognize some of this [2:08:34] movement real quick. So if you guys can please [2:08:36] roll that real quick. Okay, while this is still rolling, [2:09:05] Mr. Nusatelli, real quick yes or no answers. [2:09:07] Are you aware of anything [2:09:09] in the government, [2:09:11] United States government arsenal that can split [2:09:13] a missile like this? No. [2:09:15] And do whatever blob thing it did [2:09:17] and then keep going? Nothing? Nothing. [2:09:19] Alright, how about you, Chief Wiggins? [2:09:22] Nothing to my knowledge, ma'am. Okay, and how about you, [2:09:24] Mr. Borland? I prefer to answer that [2:09:26] in a skiff. [2:09:29] Okay, does this video [2:09:31] scare you guys? Yes or no? [2:09:35] Yes. Wiggins? Yes. [2:09:37] Nat? I had a different reaction. [2:09:40] I was really happy [2:09:42] that it got out. Thanks for providing that. [2:09:44] Curiosity kills the cat. Alright, Mr. Borland? [2:09:46] Yes, for [2:09:49] sure. Alright, that is [2:09:52] the end of my questioning. I'd like to now [2:09:54] recognize Mr. Crane. Thank you. [2:09:57] Chief, I was on a ship [2:10:00] for a little bit. I was a gunner's mate [2:10:02] on the USS Gettysburg for a couple years. [2:10:04] My question to you [2:10:06] is when you saw, [2:10:08] had your encounter and [2:10:10] you saw it on the screen, [2:10:12] you were in the CIC, is that correct? [2:10:15] That's correct. On an LCS ship, [2:10:17] the CIC is [2:10:19] on the bridge, so it's called ICC1, [2:10:21] but yes, same. Did [2:10:23] a bunch of the other folks in the CIC [2:10:25] come and check out what you were looking at? [2:10:27] Yes, we all did. [2:10:30] The Tactical Action Officer, [2:10:32] myself, the [2:10:34] RCO, [2:10:36] and two others that were [2:10:38] on watch, we were all in the same [2:10:40] space, so we were all looking at the SAFIRE [2:10:42] screen all at the same time. Because in the other [2:10:44] couple instances with the [2:10:46] witnesses, you guys just saw it by yourself, [2:10:48] is that correct? Mr. Borland, you saw it [2:10:51] by yourself? For me, yes, sir. [2:10:53] Mr. Nesitelli, you saw this by yourself? [2:10:55] No, there were multiple witnesses [2:10:57] in every case at Vandenberg. [2:10:59] Okay. So, Chief, did that [2:11:01] spread like wildfire throughout the ship [2:11:03] in the next day or two, what you guys [2:11:05] had seen? No, sir, it didn't spread [2:11:08] throughout the ship, but it spread throughout [2:11:10] ICC1 conversation [2:11:12] as you do your turnover, we talk about [2:11:14] it, but it didn't go further [2:11:16] than just the watchstanders that stood [2:11:18] watch on the bridge and [2:11:20] in ICC1, so it did [2:11:22] move around there throughout a few days. [2:11:24] I'm kind of surprised. [2:11:26] That stuff usually spreads around the ship [2:11:28] pretty fast. Why do you think the rest of [2:11:30] your fellow sailors [2:11:32] on the boat didn't hear about it? Potentially [2:11:35] uninterest, possibly [2:11:37] with engineers [2:11:39] or combat systems like yourself [2:11:41] don't make their way [2:11:43] up to the bridge enough to get [2:11:45] within sight of the circle of talk about [2:11:47] the incident. Was it hard for [2:11:49] you to get permission from the Navy to bring [2:11:51] that video? I, myself, [2:11:54] didn't bring the video. I just saw [2:11:56] the video. When I saw the video, I got in touch [2:11:58] with [2:12:00] Admiral Gallaudet. [2:12:02] That's how I wind up knowing about the video [2:12:04] itself when I first [2:12:06] talked to the Admiral. You can [2:12:08] hear my voice at the back end of the video. [2:12:10] I was like, hey, that's my voice, and I [2:12:12] wanted to talk about it. How long did that [2:12:14] encounter take place, Chief? [2:12:16] The encounter itself [2:12:19] from the time I recognized [2:12:21] on my radar to [2:12:23] the time after the video ends [2:12:25] was probably about [2:12:27] five to seven minutes. [2:12:29] What speed was the object [2:12:32] moving at? When I first [2:12:35] witnessed off the port bridge wing [2:12:37] the object [2:12:39] moving out of the water, what I thought [2:12:41] was originally just a light on the water, [2:12:43] something on the horizon, and [2:12:45] surfacing and going into the [2:12:47] air, I then knew [2:12:49] it was an air contact, but [2:12:52] as an air controller [2:12:54] myself, I started [2:12:56] thinking and going through kind of like my [2:12:58] checklist in my mind, could it be a helo, but [2:13:00] it's not blinking lights. [2:13:02] I then realized this is [2:13:04] something I've never seen before, so the speed [2:13:06] itself just going from the [2:13:08] horizon to [2:13:10] about maybe three, four [2:13:12] thousand feet in the air was very [2:13:14] slow, slowly rising, [2:13:16] and then it sped up. [2:13:18] I'm not an expert at [2:13:20] knowing specific speeds [2:13:22] of aircraft just [2:13:24] by visual eye, but I would say [2:13:26] probably one, two mach [2:13:28] instantly into the rest of the formation. [2:13:30] I didn't notice visually [2:13:32] with my own eyes the other three [2:13:34] objects until I went [2:13:36] back to my radar and also [2:13:38] utilized SAFIRE to see that in [2:13:40] fact there were four total. [2:13:42] Then again, [2:13:44] when they all left after a certain amount [2:13:46] of time, it was nearly [2:13:48] instantaneous. So you spotted [2:13:50] it visually first, Chief, and then went [2:13:52] back to your radar, or did you guys [2:13:54] spot it on radar first? Radar first, [2:13:56] because that was my watch station. [2:13:58] Then you went out to the port bridge [2:14:00] wing, is that correct? Correct, to verify [2:14:02] what I saw in my radar. What range was it at, [2:14:04] Chief, when you were able to see it visibly? [2:14:06] I would say about [2:14:10] seven nautical [2:14:12] miles, seven to eight nautical miles [2:14:14] of a light from the ship. [2:14:16] Wow. Thank you. I yield back. [2:14:18] I now recognize Mr. Burleson. [2:14:21] Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:14:24] Chief Wiggins, you said [2:14:26] that it emerged from the [2:14:28] ocean, is that right? Yes, sir. [2:14:31] And before it did, it was a [2:14:33] glowing object under the water? [2:14:35] That part I couldn't tell [2:14:38] because it was nighttime [2:14:40] at 1915 [2:14:42] approximately, and it was also at [2:14:44] a distance. So it's very hard [2:14:46] to tell the difference between something [2:14:48] on the horizon and something surfacing from [2:14:50] the water. My [2:14:52] personal thoughts after [2:14:54] seeing what I saw is that [2:14:56] it did in fact come from the water, [2:14:58] but I don't have visual evidence [2:15:00] showing exactly [2:15:02] that it did in fact come from [2:15:04] the water. But I had, again, [2:15:06] I had to go through my process [2:15:08] of elimination and try to [2:15:10] figure out was this a ship on [2:15:12] the horizon just showing its [2:15:15] lights at night, but to see it [2:15:17] surface, then it made me question, [2:15:19] okay, where did this come from [2:15:21] if it's flying and it's not a drone [2:15:23] or anything like that? [2:15:25] Where was its origin? Where did it start? [2:15:27] Mr. Knapp, [2:15:30] in your testimony and in this [2:15:32] document, you [2:15:34] detail an event that happened [2:15:36] in Russia where their nuclear [2:15:38] missiles were activated, [2:15:40] and we were close to a [2:15:42] World War III at that time, [2:15:44] which is startling to hear. [2:15:46] It's also good to know that [2:15:48] as we have investigated the JFK [2:15:50] files as well, [2:15:52] that we're learning that there [2:15:54] was a document that was sent [2:15:56] between Russia, there was an agreement [2:15:58] between Russia and the United States [2:16:00] that if they were to see some unidentified [2:16:02] objects over sensitive [2:16:04] sites, that they would report it to each other. [2:16:06] Are you familiar with that document? [2:16:11] Yes, I'm also familiar [2:16:13] with the rhetoric, public rhetoric, [2:16:15] between President Reagan and [2:16:17] Gorbachev at the time, too, that they [2:16:19] traded statements about [2:16:22] wouldn't it be something if we were threatened [2:16:24] by something from way outside, how we might [2:16:26] work together? I know for sure [2:16:28] that they had conversations about it, [2:16:30] and I know we did reach an agreement [2:16:32] to try to lessen the possibility [2:16:34] that us detecting a [2:16:36] UFO or group of UFOs [2:16:38] would not be mistaken for a bunch of Russian missiles. [2:16:40] There were exchanges of that sort [2:16:42] that went back and forth. Yeah, and I can imagine [2:16:44] that this is, to me, the validity [2:16:46] of this document [2:16:48] is underscored by the fact that [2:16:50] Russia would not want this to be known. [2:16:52] They absolutely would not want [2:16:54] the public to know, or the United States [2:16:56] to know, that there was a vulnerability [2:16:58] in their missile systems. Would you agree? [2:17:00] Absolutely, and [2:17:02] we had many similar incidents at our [2:17:04] nuclear weapons facilities here that have all been [2:17:06] sort of swept under the rug, but it's pretty [2:17:08] scary when you take down [2:17:10] ten missile silos during tense [2:17:12] times, and you don't have a better [2:17:14] explanation for it than it was a [2:17:16] special test of security [2:17:18] mechanisms or using [2:17:20] EMPs, which is a preposterous [2:17:22] explanation. Real quick, we're [2:17:24] going to cut to Mr. Ogles. He just got back. [2:17:26] So we're in a special kind of [2:17:28] lightning round, so five minutes, and then we'll go back to [2:17:30] our line of questioning. Thank you, Madam [2:17:32] Chair. You know, at this [2:17:35] point, I think it's clear from [2:17:37] the hearing that there's [2:17:39] advanced technologies that are [2:17:41] taking place in our [2:17:43] airspace. You know, the question is, and [2:17:45] I posed it in one of the previous hearings, is it [2:17:47] ours, is it theirs, or is it [2:17:49] otherworldly? There may not be a silver [2:17:52] bullet at the moment, but when [2:17:54] you look back through the hearing [2:17:56] and the evidence that's been [2:17:58] presented, if you're going to point the American [2:18:00] people to one piece of evidence [2:18:03] to start their journey on this [2:18:05] topic, what would you suggest, [2:18:07] sir? One piece of evidence? [2:18:13] I would [2:18:17] start with this hearing [2:18:19] and the first hearing. [2:18:22] There is no evidence. But is there a [2:18:24] specific, exactly, but is there a specific [2:18:26] evidence or footage or document [2:18:28] that you think lends [2:18:30] extreme credibility to what we're [2:18:32] discussing today? I would say this [2:18:34] new video we're seeing today is [2:18:36] exceptional evidence that we're dealing [2:18:38] with something. With the kinetic? Yes, sir. [2:18:41] Mr. Wiggins? Sir, I'd have [2:18:43] to say that if [2:18:46] just the average person here in America [2:18:48] looked at absolutely everything [2:18:50] that has come across [2:18:52] television, the internet, etc., [2:18:54] you can't tell yourself that 100% [2:18:56] of what's being recorded is [2:18:58] fake or false. You have to, at [2:19:00] some point, understand that there's something [2:19:02] else out there. Well, I mean, [2:19:05] you bring an interesting point. In the law enforcement [2:19:07] community, any time you're conducting an [2:19:09] investigation, you're always looking at the totality [2:19:11] of the circumstances. You're looking at all [2:19:13] the evidence and how they piece [2:19:15] together. And so that would be my [2:19:17] advice to the American [2:19:19] people, that this is a [2:19:21] journey that is just beginning [2:19:23] from a congressional perspective, [2:19:25] but you have decades [2:19:27] of data, some of it not real, [2:19:29] much of it is, but thanks to [2:19:31] Chairwoman Luna, we're now [2:19:33] presenting this to the American people. [2:19:35] And I think this latest video from [2:19:37] Mr. Burleson is something that should get [2:19:39] every one pause. When you [2:19:41] see the three orbs that drop, [2:19:43] was that in a defensive posture [2:19:45] or was that in an offensive posture? [2:19:47] And what capabilities did those orbs [2:19:49] have that we, quite frankly, may [2:19:51] not have? Mr. Knapp? [2:19:55] As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, [2:19:57] what hooked me on the story was the paper trail. [2:19:59] These documents that shouldn't exist. [2:20:01] We've been told for decades, over and [2:20:03] over, there's nothing to it. It's not [2:20:05] a threat. You can go about your business. [2:20:07] And then when FOIA becomes the law of the [2:20:09] land, thousands of pages to the [2:20:11] contrary leak out. [2:20:13] There's a memo by General [2:20:15] Nathan Twining in 1947 [2:20:17] when the country was being overflown [2:20:19] by dozens of UFOs, [2:20:21] hundreds of UFOs, in which he said, [2:20:23] look, this is not visionary [2:20:25] or fictitious. It's real. [2:20:27] These things are craft. They're not ours. [2:20:29] They outperform anything we've got. [2:20:31] I mean, if you follow the paper trail of [2:20:33] documents that they wrote before [2:20:35] the military got wise and [2:20:37] realized that FOIA really exists [2:20:39] and changed their tune and not put things in writing, [2:20:41] it spells it out pretty clearly. [2:20:43] I'll go refer back [2:20:45] to Russia. One incident I did [2:20:47] not mention to Representative Burleson [2:20:49] is Colonel Sokolov [2:20:51] in that Ministry of Defense [2:20:53] program said there were 40 incidents [2:20:55] where Russian warplanes were sent [2:20:57] to intercept UFOs. [2:20:59] And they were ordered to fire on them. [2:21:01] And for the most part, the UFOs would zip away. [2:21:03] Three of the pilots, though, did fire at these things. [2:21:05] Those three planes [2:21:07] stalled out, crashed. Two of those pilots [2:21:09] died. And after that, the Russians [2:21:11] changed the standing order. If you see a UFO, [2:21:13] leave them alone. No country in the world [2:21:15] wants to say and admit that these [2:21:17] objects are flying around in our airspace [2:21:19] and there's nothing we can do about it. [2:21:21] I mean, who wants to say that? The U.S. certainly doesn't. [2:21:23] And the Russians didn't either. [2:21:25] And I've got to be almost out of time, but Mr. Burland [2:21:27] and you, sir, real quickly. [2:21:29] Yeah, to be honest with you, I think Bob Lazar [2:21:31] and not for the reasons that most would [2:21:33] talk about, mainly because [2:21:35] Bob Lazar was immediately discredited. [2:21:37] They said he never worked where he worked. [2:21:39] They said he never did what he did. But yet Bob Lazar [2:21:41] showed up with a bunch of friends [2:21:43] and a video camera and was filming these [2:21:45] test flights in the middle of the desert. [2:21:47] So clearly he knew something. [2:21:52] Madam Chairman, if I'm out of time, I yield back. [2:21:54] Thank you very much, Representative Ogles. [2:21:56] I'd like to go back now on our lightning round of questioning [2:21:58] to Representative Burchett and then Burleson. [2:22:03] Burchett always number one. [2:22:06] Number one in your heart. [2:22:10] Number 435 on the chart. That's me. [2:22:12] Dillon, [2:22:15] knowing you testified to Arrow, [2:22:18] are they obfuscating [2:22:20] when they claim to have discovered no evidence [2:22:22] of extraterrestrial beings, [2:22:24] activity or technology, and are they lying [2:22:26] to the American public? [2:22:29] As I said before, it's a manipulation [2:22:31] of the public perception. [2:22:33] The statement scientific evidence [2:22:35] of extraterrestrials is a [2:22:37] true statement. It is not the [2:22:39] truth about what is happening and what [2:22:41] you have. [2:22:44] Would any of y'all like to comment on that further? [2:22:47] Mr. Knapp, you're getting edgy. [2:22:49] It's splitting hairs. No proof that they're extraterrestrials. [2:22:51] What would that proof look like? [2:22:53] A piece of kryptonite? What would it be? [2:22:55] I mean, we could be talking about [2:22:57] different forms of non-human intelligence. [2:22:59] I think the dominant paradigm is [2:23:01] that they come from outer space, somewhere [2:23:03] else, and they have some way that they can [2:23:05] cross those vast distances that we can't [2:23:07] even imagine doing. But not necessarily, [2:23:09] that's not necessarily the answer. [2:23:11] So asking for proof of extraterrestrials [2:23:13] might not be the answer at all. [2:23:15] It's splitting hairs. You know, we don't know [2:23:17] where they're from. I don't know anyone who knows [2:23:19] the answer for sure. They call them aliens [2:23:21] just as a placekeeper kind of a word, but [2:23:23] no one in all these programs who've studied [2:23:25] this stuff for years, people with much bigger [2:23:27] brains than mine, knows the answer [2:23:29] for sure. I've talked to Navy folks [2:23:31] that some of the deep sea areas, [2:23:33] they think there might be something there [2:23:35] that they're here, and I don't know when they got [2:23:37] here. Another point that needs to be made [2:23:39] is every time, you know, [2:23:41] we say we're going to back engineering [2:23:43] or whatever you want to call it, [2:23:45] these craft, I always say [2:23:47] it'd be like if you took a, I ride [2:23:49] motorcycles, but if you took like an Indian [2:23:51] or a Harley to the people that [2:23:53] came over here on the Mayflower, [2:23:55] you know, they'd see a bright, shiny object. [2:23:57] They might polish it. [2:23:59] You know, they might get it [2:24:02] started. I doubt they could. [2:24:04] They couldn't work on it. [2:24:06] They couldn't put fuel, they wouldn't [2:24:08] have the capability of putting fuel in it. [2:24:10] I just think that that's, you know, [2:24:12] we're scratching at something that [2:24:14] we don't have any knowledge of, [2:24:16] and that's why it's just taken [2:24:18] so dadgum long. But they do know [2:24:20] the first one that cracks that code, [2:24:22] it's over. [2:24:25] I mean, it's energy, [2:24:27] it's power, it's everything. [2:24:29] And I worry, too, that in the wrong hands [2:24:31] that they do that, they keep it from [2:24:33] the rest of us because they're so invested [2:24:35] in whatever energy [2:24:37] sources we have here that their [2:24:39] billionaire buddies are going to profit [2:24:41] and they can't [2:24:43] retool because they know once it's out [2:24:45] on the internet, it's over. [2:24:47] And so I think there's a lot of things going [2:24:49] after it, and I think that's why the move [2:24:51] to discredit folks is so rapid, [2:24:53] too. I think, you know, they're just, [2:24:55] they point to them and they put [2:24:57] the dogs on them, and it disgusts [2:24:59] me. There's a price to be paid for that, too. [2:25:01] The Russians and Chinese are trying to figure [2:25:03] this out as well, but they don't have [2:25:05] the same kind of stigma. They tell their best [2:25:07] scientists and engineers, get in there and [2:25:09] work on it. And they've been doing it for a very [2:25:11] long time, might have a head start on us. [2:25:13] Here, we don't have our best scientists and [2:25:15] engineers working on it because they've been told [2:25:17] it's nonsense. The stigma is very real [2:25:19] for people like that. [2:25:22] I agree. Yield back, Chair Lighting. [2:25:24] Thank you, and I'd like to recognize [2:25:26] Representative Burleson. [2:25:29] Mr. Nusatelli, [2:25:31] when you heard the testimony [2:25:33] of Mr. Knapp [2:25:35] talking about [2:25:37] that these missiles were shut [2:25:39] down or turned on in Russia, [2:25:41] does that [2:25:43] remind you, [2:25:45] when you hear these stories, it's got to [2:25:47] remind you of the event that happened [2:25:49] on your base? [2:25:51] Absolutely. There are many, many [2:25:53] accounts of incursions [2:25:56] of this type taking place. I believe [2:25:58] in the 60s, we had a similar [2:26:00] incursion in New England, and [2:26:02] the same thing happened. There were these [2:26:04] objects coming over the base at [2:26:06] low altitude, 200 feet over the base [2:26:08] security police, and they were [2:26:10] scrambling fighters, and then the [2:26:12] objects would just fly off. And that went on [2:26:14] for weeks. So the historical [2:26:16] record has laid out that there's a [2:26:18] pattern. Our installations [2:26:20] are visited by these craft, [2:26:22] they come in and do whatever [2:26:25] they're doing, and then they leave. [2:26:27] And we don't know how to respond, [2:26:29] we don't know how to protect the installation, [2:26:31] so that's why we're here. [2:26:34] When you first heard, and were having [2:26:36] to report on these incidents that were [2:26:38] being witnessed by other individuals, [2:26:40] did you [2:26:42] believe them? Did you yourself [2:26:44] believe it would be true until you saw it? [2:26:46] These are people I've worked with [2:26:48] for years, deployed with, [2:26:50] you know, I was in some of the weddings, [2:26:52] these are people that I've worked with [2:26:54] every day of my life. Usually [2:26:56] when the events were occurring, we were [2:26:58] all together. There'd be 40, 60, [2:27:01] 100 people on duty during these [2:27:03] encounters. Really? Yeah. [2:27:05] All seeing it at the same time? Yes, these [2:27:07] were, these encounters were playing out [2:27:09] while we were on duty, [2:27:11] and we [2:27:13] were responding and investigating in real [2:27:15] time as they occurred. And as you said, [2:27:17] the importance of your operation [2:27:19] was highly important because [2:27:21] they said it's the most important in [2:27:23] 25 years, [2:27:25] the research that you were conducting. [2:27:27] For that particular launch, we had [2:27:29] 500 Air Force police [2:27:31] officers guarding the launch. [2:27:34] 500 people. It was that critical. [2:27:36] Wow. But had this thing showed up, we [2:27:38] wouldn't have been able to do anything [2:27:40] to prevent it showing up. Real [2:27:42] quickly, can you just re-describe size [2:27:44] and whether or not you heard anything? It was [2:27:46] how big-wise? [2:27:48] The two square objects were at [2:27:50] least as large as a football [2:27:52] field. The second [2:27:54] encounter, they think it was much larger [2:27:56] than a football field. We're talking like [2:27:58] flying buildings. The object [2:28:00] I saw was about 30 feet in diameter. [2:28:02] And to confirm, you were not the only person [2:28:04] that saw this? Correct. I think I was also [2:28:06] told that there was also [2:28:08] reports of this in a police blotter [2:28:10] in the area. Can you confirm that? [2:28:12] Yes, that's the documentation [2:28:14] that I maintained [2:28:16] from the original event [2:28:18] and turned into Arrow and the FBI. [2:28:20] Okay. Do you have any more, Burleson? [2:28:23] No. Madam Chair, I just want to [2:28:25] reiterate to the American people [2:28:27] that if you're frustrated, [2:28:29] so are we. We're extremely [2:28:31] frustrated. We've been, you know, the [2:28:33] two, three years, I can only imagine [2:28:35] how frustrated Mr. Knapp is or [2:28:37] Danny Sheehan is [2:28:39] and the amount of time that you guys have poured [2:28:41] into this to try to get answers. [2:28:43] I mean, Masson is back there. He's been pouring [2:28:45] to try to get answers into this. [2:28:47] I hope that [2:28:49] you all see that we are committed to this [2:28:51] and we're going to be scrappy [2:28:53] about it. We may not have the direct authority, [2:28:55] but I can [2:28:57] assure you, Representative Luna [2:28:59] is about as scrappy as it gets. [2:29:01] I wouldn't want to scrap with her. [2:29:03] But that being said, I think [2:29:05] that if the American people want to see [2:29:07] answers, we need action. [2:29:09] We've had the hearings. It's time [2:29:11] to take action. It's time that [2:29:13] we pass Tim Burchett's [2:29:15] UAP Whistleblower Act. [2:29:17] It's time that we pass the UAP Disclosure [2:29:19] Act. And [2:29:21] I think that we've had a lot of talk about this. [2:29:23] It's time for action. [2:29:26] Thank you, Burleson. [2:29:38] I would now like to yield 30 minutes to [2:29:40] Representative Crockett. I'll reserve. [2:29:43] Thank you. In closing, I want [2:29:45] to thank our witnesses once again for their testimony [2:29:47] today. I now yield to Ranking Member [2:29:49] Crockett for closing remarks. [2:29:53] I'll pass. [2:29:55] No, I just want to say thank you so much [2:29:57] to each and every one of you [2:29:59] for being here today, for staying [2:30:01] committed to this, and for your courage. [2:30:03] I truly [2:30:05] believe that courage is contagious. [2:30:07] And right now, we need more [2:30:09] courage than ever, whether it's [2:30:11] UAPs or whether we're dealing with any [2:30:13] other form of government [2:30:15] where people are afraid to come out [2:30:17] and speak their truth. [2:30:19] The American people are relying on [2:30:21] amazing public servants like [2:30:23] you to speak up on their [2:30:25] behalf, to be the watchdog, [2:30:27] and to make sure that we [2:30:29] are as safe as possible. [2:30:31] And so, thank you so much [2:30:33] again for conducting a [2:30:35] bipartisan [2:30:37] hearing on such an important matter. [2:30:39] Thank you. [2:30:41] I'd now like to recognize myself for some closing remarks. [2:30:43] This is obviously something that doesn't [2:30:45] just affect everyone in this room. [2:30:47] I can tell you that specifically for [2:30:49] where I represent in Pinellas County, Tampa Bay, [2:30:51] and Florida as a whole, there's many sightings, [2:30:53] many questions, people reporting this, [2:30:55] but I'm not the only one. I was also told [2:30:57] by Representative Biggs, as well as [2:30:59] our great representative [2:31:01] from Alaska, that these are [2:31:03] not isolated instances, and so [2:31:05] it does bring [2:31:07] give us reasoning to provide investigative [2:31:09] inquiry into these topics, but also [2:31:11] to, I would also like [2:31:13] Mr. Spielberger, if you could actually review [2:31:15] and see if your organization would endorse [2:31:17] the Whistleblower Protection Act that [2:31:19] Representative Burchett has. I can tell [2:31:21] you that I will be signing on to a letter [2:31:23] as well as I'm sure many other members of this [2:31:25] task force, and we hope that the ranking [2:31:27] chairwoman, or my colleague [2:31:29] here, Representative Crockett, [2:31:31] as well as our Democrats that were here today, [2:31:33] consider also signing on to that, as we do [2:31:35] feel that it is time to [2:31:37] ensure that our whistleblowers are given adequate [2:31:39] protections, and that people like Mr. Borland [2:31:41] are not facing retribution in the way that [2:31:43] they have been. With that being [2:31:45] said, with all that, and without [2:31:47] objection, all members have five legislative [2:31:49] days within to submit materials and [2:31:51] additional written questions for the witnesses, [2:31:53] which will be also forwarded to [2:31:55] those witnesses. If there are no further business, [2:31:57] without objection, I'd like to now [2:32:00] recognize Representative Burchett for [2:32:02] closing remarks. I would just like to thank the ranking [2:32:04] member and the chairlady for their courage. [2:32:06] This is a tough issue. We all catch [2:32:08] hail for it, [2:32:11] and it's, but it's [2:32:13] gratifying that we're here in a [2:32:15] bipartisan nature, and the way this meeting [2:32:17] was conducted, and I want to thank y'all for your [2:32:19] courage. Thank y'all. [2:32:21] Without objection, [2:32:33] the task force stands adjourned. [2:33:06] Thank you.