Key moments at House UFO transparency hearing

[0:00] My name is Jeffrey Nusitelli. I'm a former military police officer with 16 years of active duty service in the U.S. Air Force. [0:08] I'm here today because the American people have both the right and the responsibility to know the truth about unidentified aerial phenomenon. [0:15] That truth remains hidden, classified and silenced by fear, retaliation, stigma, and confusion. [0:24] Today, we are here to help break that silence. [0:27] Between 2003 and 2005, five UAP incidents occurred at Vandenberg Air Force Base, home to the National Missile Defense Project, a top national security priority. [0:41] At the time, we were conducting launches deemed by the National Reconnaissance Office as the most important in 25 years. [0:48] These were historic launches. [0:51] These facilities were vital, and they were repeatedly visited by UAP. [0:56] Each incident was witnessed by multiple personnel, documented, investigated, and reported up the chain of command. [1:05] We sent information up, but we got no guidance down on how to handle these events. [1:12] I personally witnessed one of these events and investigated others as they occurred. [1:17] Six other service members have provided me with the information that I will share with you today. [1:22] The incursions began on October 14, 2003, when Boeing contractors reported a massive, glowing red square silently hovering over two missile defense sites. [1:35] After several minutes, it drifted further east onto the base and vanished over the hills. [1:41] This event, now known as the Vandenberg Red Square, was referenced by Representative Luna at the first hearing on this topic. [1:48] Official Air Force records of this event are in possession by Arrow and the FBI. [1:56] Later that night, while I was on duty, security guards at a critical launch site reported a bright, fast-moving object over the ocean. [2:05] I responded to the incident. [2:08] Chaos ensued over the radio as the object approached rapidly. [2:12] I heard my friends screaming, [2:13] It's coming right at us. [2:15] It's coming right for us. [2:16] And now it's right here. [2:18] Moments later, I heard them say that it had shot off and was gone. [2:22] When I arrived on scene, I talked to five shaken witnesses who described a massive, triangular craft larger than a football field that hovered silently for about 45 seconds over their entry control point before shooting away at impossible speed. [2:40] About a week later, another patrol reported a light over the ocean behaving erratically. [2:46] Believing it might be an unannounced aircraft, they declared an emergency and an armed response force responded. [2:53] Before the forces could arrive, the object descended and either landed or hovered on our flight line and then took off again at impossible speed. [3:06] The witnesses to this event were threatened and intimidated afterward. [3:12] They were told to keep quiet and think about what they were reporting. [3:16] After that, things did get quiet until about 2005 when another patrol reported a massive, triangular craft larger than a C-130 silently floating over the installation. [3:32] He watched it for a few minutes. [3:34] It traveled west and disappeared into the night. [3:38] And then I had my own encounter again in 2005. [3:41] I was off duty, sitting in my backyard with two other police officers, when we noticed what first appeared to be a satellite in orbit. [3:49] But it wasn't acting like a satellite. [3:51] The light was strange. [3:52] It was pulsing. [3:53] And then it started to maneuver. [3:55] It dropped in elevation. [3:57] At times, it would vanish from view and reappear in a different location in the sky. [4:01] And eventually, it reappeared 200 feet over my house. [4:06] It was a 30-foot diameter sphere of light. [4:09] My friends and I watched it for a moment, and then it gently accelerated and traveled up and disappeared into the stars. [4:19] These events profoundly changed my life and the lives of my friends. [4:24] We stand at a pivotal moment in history. [4:27] The question is no longer whether these events are real, but whether we have the courage to face them. [4:33] True leadership requires vision, a willingness to confront the unknown with transparency and resolve. [4:38] So I ask the Congress to help we, the people, enact this vision. [4:44] There are three goals. [4:46] Fund independent research and treat UAP study with the same seriousness as we would any other scientific field. [4:54] Two, end secrecy and overclassification. [4:58] Transparency is the foundation of truth. [5:01] Without it, witnesses like us are dismissed. [5:05] Three, protect the witnesses. [5:07] Many stay silent out of fear for their careers, reputations, and the safety of their families. [5:14] Protect them, and you will embolden others to join this cause. [5:20] These phenomenon challenge our deepest assumptions about reality, consciousness, and our place in the universe. [5:26] Exploring them can unlock transformative breakthroughs in technology, biology, and human understanding. [5:33] Let this be the moment when America chooses courage over fear, transparency over secrecy, and progress over stagnation. [5:43] Let's show the world that our nation leads not only through strength, but through fearless pursuit of the truth. [5:49] Thank you. [5:52] My name is Alexandro Wiggins. [5:53] I am an active-duty U.S. Navy operations specialist, senior chief petty officer, father of three, and dedicated American testifying today in my personal capacity. [6:04] The views I share are my own, and I do not represent the official positions of the Department of the Navy or any subordinate organization. [6:12] On the evening of February 15, 2023, at approximately 1915 PST, in the Whiskey 291 warning area off the coast of Southern California, I was serving on board USS Jackson. [6:31] During that period, I moved between the Interior Communications Center, ICC-1, and the bridge wing, correlating the sensor picture with visual observations, part of my routine responsibilities for surface and air picture management. [6:46] What I observed and what our crew recorded was not consistent with conventional aircraft or drones as they appear on our system. [6:56] A self-luminous, tic-tac-shaped object emerged from the ocean before linking up with three other similar objects. [7:07] The four then disappeared simultaneously with a high-synchronized, near-instantaneous acceleration. [7:13] I observed no sonic boom and no conventional propulsion signatures, no exhaust plume, no control surface articulation on the sapphire image system. [7:27] Shortly after the synchronized departure, radar tracks dropped. [7:32] These observations were multi-sensor and recorded inside of ICC-1, with time location overlay visible in our source frames that have been made public by journalists. [7:45] From my experience operating in this region over many years, and consistent with our public characterized encounters, unidentified objects reoccur in United States operation areas off Southern California. [8:02] That fact alone does not tell us what they are, but it does argue the systematic stigma-free reporting and for the preservation of sensor data so analysts can evaluate safe and intelligent implications with rigor. [8:20] I want to underscore three points for the task force and the committee. [8:27] Aviation and maritime safety. [8:29] When crews and watchstanders observe objects that maneuver or accelerate in ways that does not match known profiles and do not do so near our ships and aircraft, that is, first and foremost, a safety issue. [8:45] Standardized checklist and training should ensure we capture the best possible sensor data in real time, including IR settings, slant range estimates, and bearing and range altitude snapshots, and immediate chain of custody for any recordings. [9:05] Reporting without stigma. [9:07] Protection without retribution. [9:10] Sailors need to know that reporting UAP encounters will not harm their careers. [9:15] Congress can help by reinforcing witness protection and by directing the relevant office to maintain confidential, destigmatized channels for service members who step forward with data. [9:31] Declassification and transparency where possible. [9:34] The task force declassification mission is directly relevant here. [9:38] Where operational security permits releasing metadata preserved, sensor excerpts, or at least technical summaries would improve public trust and accelerate outside scientific scrutiny. [9:55] That includes, when feasible, the time geo-reference IR frames and radar parameters needed for independent analysis. [10:02] To be clear, I am not here to make claims beyond my lane. [10:06] I am here to provide a first-hand account of what I saw, what our systems recorded, and why it matters for safety, for intelligence, and public confidence. [10:21] My request to you is practical. [10:22] Help us capture, protect, fairly evaluate the evidence, and provide a safe pathway for those in uniform to report it. [10:32] In closing, I want to thank the committee and the task force for holding this hearing, and for placing this discussion in a forum where evidence can be examined carefully and openly. [10:45] I appreciate your attention and stand ready to answer your questions. [10:48] Thank you. [10:49] I'm George Knapp, chief investigator reporter at KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. [10:53] I began my pursuit of this weird mystery way back in 1987, and for 38 years, I've always approached this as a news story. [11:02] It's not a matter of faith or belief. [11:04] To me, it's a story, and it's an important one. [11:07] I'm proud to be here alongside these witnesses today, men who have seen strange things and stepped forward to tell the world about it. [11:16] Whistleblowers and witnesses who step up are routinely insulted, belittled, or worse. [11:23] They risk their reputations, their careers, their clearances, their livelihoods, and sometimes much more than that, even their freedom. [11:32] I know that one of the goals of the task force here is to figure out ways to protect whistleblowers and witnesses, [11:37] and it's a tall order because so many of the things that happen to witnesses like these are extra legal. [11:44] They are carried out by persons unknown, as Mr. Dave Grush, sitting up at the top of the room, [11:49] knows all too well, including events in recent days that have happened to him. [11:54] I want to share a couple of things that I've learned along the way on this long journey, [11:58] and I submitted most of that in written form because I estimate that my statement here today would take about four and a half hours, [12:04] so I'm going to try to jump over and touch on the more important salient points. [12:09] I submitted the detailed written statement for the record, and we'll go into a lot of that here, [12:14] but, you know, the public has been told over and over since the late 40s there's nothing to worry about here. [12:21] These mysterious craft seen by millions of people in the skies, in the oceans, over the land, are not real. [12:27] They're not a threat. The witnesses are wrong. They're crackpots. Don't believe it. [12:32] That changed for me. What got me hooked is the paper trail, documents that were squeezed out of the U.S. government [12:39] after the FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, became the law of the land, [12:44] and those documents paint a much different picture than what the public, the press, and Congress have been told over many years. [12:51] The documents from military and intelligence personnel behind closed doors admit that, quote, [12:56] these things are real. They're not fictitious. They can fly in formation. They're evasive, and they outperform any aircraft known to exist, including ours. [13:06] The public, of course, as I said, has been told something much different. [13:09] You know, back in 1989, I reported about a guy named Bob Lazar who claimed that he worked at a facility dubbed S-4 out in the Nevada desert, [13:17] very near to Area 51. He said he was part of a reverse engineering program. [13:21] He said there are alien craft that will be taken apart to figure out how they operated out there, and that was a pretty tall order. [13:28] I had clearly taken a dive into the deep end of the pool there, but in the years since then, I've interviewed dozens of other people, [13:34] and I've detailed what their testimony has been in the written statement. [13:38] They include Senator Harry Reid, Senator Howard Cannon, also of Nevada, a guy named Al O'Donnell, [13:44] who was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada, which managed the Nevada test site, which blew up hundreds of nuclear weapons. [13:51] There's a guy named Dr. James Lekatsky, who was a career scientist with the Defense Intelligence Agency, [13:57] who was the guy who initiated a program called OSAP, Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, [14:04] which is, as far as we know, the largest acknowledged UFO program ever funded by the U.S. government, [14:10] which put together an amazing pile of information that members of this committee and the world, [14:16] most of which they have never seen. [14:18] The DIA still hasn't released 95% of what was prepared by that program at a cost of millions and millions of dollars. [14:28] The one name I do want to bring up in this session, though, is Robert Bigelow. [14:32] So, looking into the idea of crash retrievals and reverse engineering, while OSAP, that program, was active, [14:40] the DIA's contractor, Robert Bigelow of Las Vegas, made a bold attempt to acquire physical proof of UFO crashes. [14:47] It's been widely reported and suspected that Lockheed Martin is one of the contractors, the defense contractors, [14:53] that has held this stuff, stored it away in secrecy, and tried to figure out how it works. [14:58] I have confirmed on the record that Robert Bigelow and a trusted colleague from OSAP met with and negotiated [15:07] with senior executives at Lockheed Martin and hammered out a deal wherein Bigelow's company, Bass, [15:14] would receive a quantity of unusual material that had been stashed away and protected at a facility in California. [15:21] That material was not made here. [15:24] I want to move on now to the Russia files, because that was going to be sort of the central impetus [15:28] of what I was going to talk to you about today. Back in the early 90s, I got into Russia, [15:33] met with a number of their defense officials, Ministry of Defense and others, [15:37] who confirmed for me that Russia had been doing the same thing the United States had been doing, [15:42] that is, secretly studying UFOs while publicly saying something completely different. [15:48] The documents and interviews that I obtained and have now shared with this task force [15:52] show that the USSR launched what is almost certainly the largest UFO, UAP investigation in the world. [15:59] The first phase of that was an order was sent out to the entire USSR military empire that every unit, [16:07] you see anything strange in the sky, a craft, an orb, something unusual, you had to gather all the evidence, [16:13] collect testimony from the witnesses, look for physical evidence, and all of that information went into [16:19] one program at the Ministry of Defense. Thousands and thousands of these reports came in. [16:24] A lot of them were first routed to the KGB, but then back to another program that came after this [16:30] collection effort called Thread 3, and Thread 3 was an analysis program. We have provided to the [16:36] committee the documents of what they were trying to do, and essentially, they were trying to build [16:40] their own UFOs. They were using the information from their observations and studies to try to figure out [16:46] the technology. The guy who was in charge of that program, Colonel Borosokalov, told me that their goal [16:52] was to basically develop technology that would be superior to anything we had, based on what they learned [16:58] from UFOs. [16:59] Mr. Knapp, just in the name of time, to my understanding, did you have anything you wanted to submit for [17:05] Congress to see in this committee? [17:07] I have submitted those documents. [17:08] Would you like to play any videos? Do you have a video that you would like to play? [17:13] I don't think it's for me to play. Alexander's video. [17:19] Okay. [17:20] You can play it. He can narrate it. [17:21] Okay. We can, in the name of showing that video to everyone on Task Force, we'd like [17:25] to play that video at this time. [17:27] Sure. [17:52] The BVSS team, is that the BVSS team, is that the BVSS team, is that like 20,000 D? [18:03] That took off earlier. [18:05] If we can get rid of the audio real quick. Mr. Wiggins and Mr. Knapp, we'll get back to [18:16] what that video was in a moment, but we just wanted to make sure that it was entered into the record, [18:20] as well as all the documents. Those will be able to be publicly found for everyone in the country [18:24] due to view. If we could, Mr. Knapp, we'll continue on the line of questioning, but I'm [18:28] going to move on to Mr. Borland's opening statement. [18:32] My name is Dylan Borland, a former 1N1 geospatial intelligence specialist for the United States [18:37] Air Force and in active duty and enlisted capacity from 2010 to 2013. I've also been employed [18:43] with BAE Systems and Intrepid Solutions as a senior analyst, expert in analyzing video, [18:49] radar, and advanced electro-optical imagery for official identification of aerial order of [18:54] battle as well as naval and ground order of battle. I'm a federal whistleblower, having [18:59] testified to both the ICIG and Arrow with direct first-hand knowledge of and experience [19:04] with craft and technologies that are not ours and are reportedly operating without congressional [19:09] oversight. Because of my direct knowledge of the reality of certain legacy UAP programs, [19:15] my professional career was deliberately obstructed, and I have endured sustained reprisals from [19:22] government agencies for over a decade. From 2011 to 2013, I was stationed at Langley Air [19:28] Force Base, Virginia, conducting 24-hour operations via manned and unmanned aerial vehicles for [19:33] special operations forces in the global war on terror. During the summer of 2012, my team [19:38] was on standby for weather, and I returned to my barracks on base, and at approximately 0130, [19:43] I saw an approximately 100-foot equilateral triangle take off from near the NASA hangar on the base. [19:49] The craft interfered with my telephone, did not have any sound, and the material it was made of [19:56] appeared fluid or dynamic. I was under this triangular craft for a few minutes, and then [20:02] it rapidly ascended to commercial jet level in seconds, displaying zero kinetic disturbance, [20:06] sound, or wind displacement. Some years after that experience, I was further exposed to classified [20:12] information from the UAP legacy crash retrieval program through a sensitive position I held within [20:17] a special access program. During this time, intelligence officers approached me in fear for their own [20:22] career, citing misconduct within these programs, and similar retaliation that I was already enduring [20:27] at this time. These issues include medical malpractice committed by Veterans Affairs staff, denial of [20:35] work I performed while enlisted in the United States Air Force, forged and manipulated employment documents, [20:40] workplace harassment, including colleagues being directed to not speak with me, manipulation of my [20:44] security clearance by certain agencies blocking, delaying, and ultimately removing my ability to be [20:50] employed within the IC. The retaliation I face and the retaliation against individuals I know who [20:57] worked in these programs is what convinced me in March 2023 to become a whistleblower. I came forward [21:02] out of concern for people's lives and to ensure I did everything I could to let our elected representatives [21:07] know the truth about what is really happening in the executive branch. At the end of March 2023, [21:14] I agreed to meet with Arrow following the suggestion of other federal officials believing it was what our [21:19] nation required of me. I had reservations with Arrow due to assessments they were reporting publicly at [21:25] the time as a misrepresentation of the truth. Because of these concerns, I did not share sources and [21:31] methods information in order to protect current and formal federal personnel personnel who had first-hand [21:36] exposure to technologies of unknown origin. I did not want anyone to face further retaliation beyond what they [21:42] had already endured and unfortunately a staff member ended up getting in some trouble because of that. [21:49] After David Grush testified under oath in the summer of 2023 and provided historic disclosure, [21:55] I was then asked to go to the ICIG and did so in August 2023. It was very clear early on during my [22:01] intake interview, which was video recorded under oath, that the objective was to solely assess how much [22:07] I know and not move forward with an investigation with new information I provided them. The aftermath of [22:14] that IG complaint still troubles me to this day. Since my ICIG complaint, I have been prevented from [22:19] assuming prior employment and can confirm I'm still blacklisted from certain agencies within the [22:24] intelligence community. In addition, multiple agencies attempted phishing attacks to assess what [22:29] I had divulged to the Inspector General, including being asked to disclose details of my ICIG complaint [22:35] during a CI polygraph or a position unrelated to UFO UAP matters as recently as November 2024. As I sit [22:42] before you today, I and many other whistleblowers have no job prospects, no foreseeable professional future, [22:48] in a nation every single one of us came forward to defend. Numerous individuals have come forward [22:54] in various ways to reveal the truth of the UAP reality as patriots and defenders of our nation, [22:59] yet many feel discarded, isolated, hopeless, separated from the country they serve. Efforts to rectify this [23:06] situation for all whistleblowers have been difficult and troubling, and to my fellow whistleblowers and [23:11] officials who know this information, I offer you my apology, something that I have never gotten, [23:18] and I'm giving it to you. I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, an oath that [23:24] demands truth and transparency for our democratic republic to function. Each day these truths remain [23:30] hidden from our citizens, humanity drifts further from the principles our nation was founded to uphold. [23:35] Each day victims of crimes committed by agencies and companies maintaining this secrecy are denied [23:41] justice is another day our Constitution is shredded. In 2023, patriots provided this committee and the [23:48] executive branch with undeniable proof of the UAP reality and I commend your continued commitment. [23:54] The future of humanity is one which we either travel to the stars or regress to the stone age with [23:59] this technology. My career has been to deliver critical information to decision makers. Your role as [24:06] elected by your representatives is to act on it. The time to act is now. Thank you. I'm a senior policy [24:15] counsel at the project on government oversight, a nonpartisan independent watchdog organization that [24:20] investigates and exposes waste, corruption, abuse of power, and when the government fails to serve [24:26] the public or silences those who report wrongdoing. Whistleblowers are the first line of defense to root [24:32] out waste, fraud, abuse of power, and corruption in our government. Congress relies on whistleblowers so that [24:39] it can fully exercise its oversight and legislative authorities. It's understandable that former presidents of both [24:46] parties have often taken a hostile approach toward whistleblowers. Their disclosures can embarrass the [24:52] president and their political party or even lead to a national scandal. But whistleblowers continue to play [24:58] a vital role during both Democratic and Republican administrations. They help Congress and the public [25:05] identify and understand what government corruption looks like. Their disclosures fuel investigations and [25:11] allow us to address wrongdoing and hold those responsible to account. That's why historically, [25:17] there's been a strong bipartisan consensus in Congress to support and protect whistleblowers. [25:23] Doing so protects the country and ensures our government is more responsive and accountable to [25:28] the people. National security whistleblowing in particular is a tradition going back to the [25:34] founding of our country and over time national security whistleblowers and their disclosures have [25:40] impacted some of the most fundamental issues and questions about how we wish to be governed [25:45] and how our government can better serve its people. From the role the U.S. plays around the world, [25:50] to holding powerful actors accountable, government ethics and transparency, human rights and civil liberties, [25:57] executive branch authority, First Amendment freedoms of speech and dissent, freedom of the press, [26:03] and the public's interest and right to know. Despite this invaluable public service, blowing the whistle comes at great personal risk. [26:11] Whistleblowers risk losing their jobs, careers, livelihoods and reputations. They can face retaliatory investigations, [26:19] lawsuits and even serious criminal charges. And they can endure deep mental, emotional and psychological harm. [26:27] All of that risk to speak the truth, to ensure that agencies fulfill their core missions, [26:33] and that they serve the best interests of the people. Those who retaliate against whistleblowers don't just [26:38] violate their legal rights, they inflict real harm on our government and betray the public's trust. [26:45] Targeting whistleblowers instead of the corruption they expose wastes agency resources and further [26:51] allows that corruption to continue unaddressed. It can instill a chilling effect across an agency, [26:57] fostering a climate of fear and distrust, quieting dissent and free speech, and deterring potential [27:03] whistleblowers from coming forward in the future. Whistleblowers are often some of the most dedicated [27:11] and principled public servants we have because of their willingness to put themselves on the line to do [27:17] what's right. And Congress has historically supported them again on a bipartisan basis, but unfortunately, [27:24] whistleblowing has increasingly become more politicized, [27:27] with support for whistleblowers often hinging on which party is in power and which party is [27:33] politically inconvenienced by the misconduct being exposed. But to be clear, targeting whistleblowers [27:40] individually risks undermining whistleblowing period. POGO advises members of Congress on both sides of the [27:47] aisle to focus on the evidence, not the individual. We will always need whistleblowers to achieve the [27:54] government that best serves its people. Because when people of conscience, integrity, and good [27:59] character refuse to speak up out of fear, complacency, or self-preservation, and leave corruption to [28:06] fester behind closed doors, that is probably the most dangerous risk of all. If we are serious about [28:13] increasing government transparency and restoring the public's trust, we need public servants committed to [28:18] the truth. Whistleblowers need safe and effective channels to make lawful disclosures. They need [28:24] stronger protections against retaliation. And when they do face retaliation, they need a fair shot to be [28:30] made whole. Congress has made strides to pass whistleblower legislation, and these laws need to be updated and [28:37] expanded so that whistleblowers truly receive the protections they need, retaliators are held accountable, [28:43] and we can achieve the type of government the people deserve. We strongly urge Congress to continue its historic [28:50] tradition of championing the rights and protections of all whistleblowers. Thank you again for the [28:56] opportunity to testify here this morning. POGO is committed to working with you and the Oversight Committee to [29:01] address these critical issues. I look forward to any questions. Mr. Borland, in your testimony you [29:07] described witnessing large triangular craft ball station at Langley Air Force Base in 2012. Can you explain what you [29:13] observed in terms of size behavior and why you're confident it was not conventional technology? Great [29:19] question, ma'am. So on barracks, on the base, I lived in the barracks, there was a little smoke hit outside. I was [29:25] there on the telephone and looking across to the flight line, and I see a white light pop up and stop about [29:33] 100 feet in the air. I thought it was a weather balloon. I've seen tests from there before, a weeknight, you know, [29:39] normal thing, not surprising. I actually finished my cigarette and I began walking up towards the [29:45] flight line. There is a track, and because I was on three months of night work, I began, I would walk [29:52] the track at night when we were weathered down, and as I began walking towards the light, towards the flight [29:57] line and the track, the light then flies across the base, across the flight line, and as it flies to me, [30:03] a triangle manifests around the light. I can't tell you if it's active camouflage. I can't tell you if [30:10] it appeared around the light, but I can tell you that it was a white light and then it was a triangle. [30:16] It stopped about 100 feet in front of me and approximately 100 feet above me. My telephone [30:21] got extremely hot, completely froze dead. I remember how thick it was. It was between one to two stories [30:29] thick, equilateral triangle. I could never see the top of it, and the edges were 90 degrees. There were [30:37] four lights in total, one light on each corner and a larger light in the center, two to three times the [30:44] size of the corner lights, but what was really odd was the outside, the best way to describe it is [30:51] like looking at a James Webb telescope picture where you have the colors and then the black background. [30:57] So the craft itself was this black metallic flake paint, but on top of the craft was this gold, [31:05] lava, plasma, some type of fluid going over and around the craft. I'm under this for about two to [31:12] three minutes, and then the center light flashes two to three times, no sound, immediately shoots up to [31:19] commercial jet level minimum, in my opinion, and I immediately feel static electricity all over my body, [31:26] and then I smell the smell of after a thunderstorm or lightning storm, that really strong summer [31:32] thunderstorm smell, gets up to flight level. I'm trying to get my phone reset, and I can only see [31:39] the center light at this point. If I didn't actually see it take off, I would have thought it was a star. [31:43] And then it hovers up there, and it begins to slowly move due east out over the Atlantic Ocean. I finally [31:51] got my phone reset. The entire thing was about from the time I saw the light pop up near the hangar until [31:56] it took off out over the ocean was about 15 minutes. [31:59] And following up to that question, after you disclose this information to the intelligence community [32:05] inspector general, you're subject to phishing attempts and job blacklisting. How widespread do you think [32:11] this is across the intelligence community for those who raised concerns regarding UAP programs? [32:16] It's a difficult question to answer. I think prior to David Grush and people beginning this process of [32:22] bringing people into awareness of the reality of these programs and certain things people have [32:28] witnessed, probably extremely widespread. I think today there's still an issue, but because people are [32:36] able to come before you and people are speaking out, I think it has been somewhat less. I would hope, [32:44] though, that people would, because if this goes back into closed doors, this is going to get really ugly. [32:50] What type of behavior have you witnessed from former Arrow director Sean Kilpatrick as well as his staff [32:55] in relation to this information you provided to them? Did they ever try to classify this information as [33:00] non-human technology? Good question. The problem with this is that I know [33:07] what I experienced firsthand and I know other things. I think the staff at Arrow that I met with in March [33:13] of 2023, I think they were good people doing the job they were told to do. I did not meet with Kirkpatrick. [33:21] He was either not present or did not want to meet me that day. However, they did classify information about [33:28] the reality of this subject and it was very concerning because in my Arrow MFR they had actually referenced a [33:39] former staff member that was the one who told me to go there and they probably shouldn't have done [33:45] that. And real quick before my time is up and we might go to second round of questioning just so [33:50] you're all aware. How important, given everything that you've seen and experienced, is the UAP Disclosure [33:55] Act of 2025 in restoring both public accountability and trust? I think very important. I would hope, [34:02] though, that the seven-year window could be shrunk, in my opinion, but very important. The truth needs [34:08] to be known. Mr. Wiggins, I want to talk to you. I find your background testimony compelling. When you [34:18] first saw what you were looking at, what were your first thoughts? My first thoughts were, I think, [34:32] everything that I was told and taught as a kid and as a growing adult no longer, you know, was applicable. [34:39] If I'm able to see something that I thought defies gravity in such a way, then what else could be [34:44] possible? That was my first thought. So did you think what you were looking at was a weapons program [34:50] that you were unaware of? Or did you think what you were looking at was obviously some extraterrestrial [34:57] piece of technology? I didn't, neither one of those crossed my mind. It was just. How about now? [35:04] What do you think it is now? I'm not the expert. I think it, I want to be as skeptical as everyone [35:13] else and just hope to know the information. Anyone in the U.S. government tell you what you were looking [35:17] at to try to dissuade you from what you thought it was? No. So no one was like, oh, you know, [35:23] there was some anomaly with the technology. No one from the government did that? No one. [35:28] How do you think you were treated when you reported this information or have talked about, [35:34] you know, the Tic Tac video is well out there. It's well reported. How were you treated? [35:39] I've had no pushback at all. I haven't had anyone reach out to me or try to, you know, [35:47] dissuade me in either direction, militarily speaking. So I was treated fair and I appreciate [35:54] the Navy itself with assisting me with coming here to being able to testify. That's good. [35:59] So what do you think the American people should take away from watching your video, [36:03] right? Because when we watch it, obviously, right, we've never seen anything like that. [36:07] It defies what we know to be technologically possible. What are we supposed to think? [36:12] Someone's lying about something. Someone's hiding something, right? That's not normal what you looked at. [36:20] I think what the American people should think when seeing that video, along with others before me, [36:26] is that there is something out there and we should know as the people what it is. [36:32] Right. And so let's eliminate possibilities. So they didn't come to you and say there was [36:35] a technological error with what you were looking at. So we put that aside, right? They didn't say [36:39] it was broken. So we look at that and we see something. So it's either a weapons program [36:45] being reverse engineered by our governments or other governments or it's nobody's government [36:50] and it's not from here. Those are it. You agree with that assessment? I agree. One or the other. [36:58] What do you and your friends think about it today? You all have talked about it. I mean, [37:04] so what do you think about your experience as a collective group? That'll be my last question, [37:07] Madam Chairman. I mean, we've been talking about this for 20 years. We don't know what we saw. [37:14] What we saw changed our lives and the way we think about everything. It was incredibly profound. [37:23] The object I saw, I don't even know if it was an object. It was a light. It was an orb. It didn't [37:28] look like a craft, but it did look solid. And that's what we talk about. We noticed the object, [37:36] and this was a pattern across all the encounters. Someone would see a light. They would pay attention to [37:41] the light. And then the object responds. It performs for you. And then they come down and they [37:50] investigate you. So it's almost like they're curious. So that's the thing we primarily talk [37:55] about. You know, why did it come after we noticed it? Maybe it noticed us after we noticed it. [38:03] I only have one minute left. So, Mr. Knapp, we're definitely going to you. Watched every documentary. [38:09] You guys have done it. You and Jeremy have done a terrific job. I usually have more questions than [38:13] I have answers. I think we all do. And you guys are doing a terrific job to bring information to the [38:17] public. Do you think that any of this is a psyop by the U.S. government? Entirely possible. I mean, [38:25] our government and other governments have admitted that they've tried to use UFOs to cover secret [38:30] projects. But I think they also do some reverse engineering of those claims. So years after people [38:36] start seeing UFOs over Area 51, for example, they come up with a story. Oh, yeah, that was a weak [38:42] we planted that story. So I read in a major newspaper just a couple of weeks ago, they planted this [38:48] story. An Air Force colonel went out into the desert, went to a bar at Rachel and gave them some fake UFO [38:55] photos. And that's how the whole story about Area 51 started, which is preposterous. Yeah. And I didn't [39:00] even get to the crash retrieval program stuff yet, Ms. Chairwoman. There's just so much. [39:07] Okay. Thank you so much for your time today. I wish we had more time. Thank you, Madam Chair. [39:12] I now recognize Mr. Burchett from Tennessee for five minutes. [39:16] Thank you, Chair Lady. And thank you, Ranking Member Crockett. I see a lot of friends out [39:22] there and I see a couple enemies. So I'll remember that. But it's a pleasure being here. I want to remind [39:30] people too. This thing is an ongoing deal. We're not going to get this overnight. We've been fighting [39:35] this battle, some of y'all, for 30 years and maybe longer. I hope we just keep focused on what we're [39:44] trying to get to as total disclosure. We get a little wrapped up in a lot of things, but the [39:51] government has something and they need to turn it over to us. We pay their dadgum salary, you pay our [39:56] salary, and you ought to get more out of us than you do. And that's what disgusts me about this [40:01] whole thing. I think they're just trying to run the clock out on us, really. They'll poke us a [40:08] little and they'll make jokes to us and try to pull us off the target. But I think we know where [40:13] we're at. And that's why they're firing at us because we are over the target. My first question is, [40:20] Mr. Knapp, I recently introduced the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act to help provide whistleblower [40:27] protection to federal personnel for disclosing the use of federal taxpayer funds to investigate [40:33] UFOs. I still don't want to say UAPs. How can Congress further increase whistleblower protections? [40:43] I think you've got to unleash the dogs and go track down the money and where it goes, [40:47] because a lot of this stuff has been moved out of government. As you know, [40:51] Rep. Burchett, it's been given to private contractors who stashed it away. They've had it [40:56] for so long that there's nobody left inside government, or very few, who know where it is. [41:01] And they do that to keep us from FOIA, correct? Yeah, it's to keep it from FOIA. And I think [41:07] that the contractors who've had this stuff for a very long time set their own standards about who [41:12] is allowed to know what. And it's a very small group that ever cracks that. I think Representative [41:19] Luna has been looking at the use of classifications to hide things. I'm not sure that even this committee [41:26] getting security clearances that should allow you to see this stuff would allow you to follow where [41:31] it really goes. I worry about the people that are looking at it don't even know what they're looking [41:36] at. I mean, it's gone through so many. I mean, since, since Roswell, for instance, I mean, you think [41:42] there's nobody even alive that was around any of that stuff. Yeah, I don't think they've made much [41:47] progress from the people that I've talked to. I don't think they've made much progress in learning [41:50] that technology. Might have made some. But you wonder, you know, the implication is Tic Tac. Oh, [41:55] yeah, that's ours. What what flew over Washington, D.C. in 52? Is that ours, too? When are you going [42:00] to break that out? You guys authorized tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars on [42:05] weapons systems that can't do half of what we've seen UFOs do. So when do when do they break this [42:11] out if it's if it's really a classified project could change the world? I don't think they've made much [42:16] progress. And I think they've been lying to us and to you and the rest of the world. And they're [42:20] still doing it. Yes, sir. I agree with you. How did you manage to obtain the classified Russian UAP [42:27] documents? And how did you get them back in the United States? Well, I met this Russian physicist who [42:32] was in the United States. And I want to clarify that I can't even take a thing of honey home on my [42:39] airplane when I fly back to Tennessee. So I did something pretty dumb. And I'm bitter about it. But go [42:45] ahead. I did something kind of dumb. I met with these officials who, you know, during that time [42:49] period, glasnost, perestroika, the Russians were trying to open up to the world. And I saw it as [42:54] a window of opportunity. And it was. And we were able to talk these folks into providing us information [43:00] that otherwise we would never have seen. Some of that was classified. I found out that they only [43:06] stamped the top pages of these documents that were classified. So I just removed them. I removed those [43:11] pages and I carried them out. And if they'd caught me, I'd be in a gulag still. Yeah. We'd be saying, [43:16] what happened to George Knapp? Oh, yeah. What happened to the Russians that came forward to you [43:22] in 1993? And were there any repercussions for them? Well, there were. The first thing that happened [43:28] when I talked about this after getting back and going through the files and things and sifting through [43:32] it, the Russian physicist who had helped us be introduced all these people wrote back and said [43:39] there was a huge eruption, that there was the real right, far autocratic forces that wanted a return [43:49] of the USSR had really go after these guys. They described them as traitors. Nikolai Kopranov, [43:55] the physicist friend of mine, said, look, if this had happened five years earlier, we would be in prison. [44:00] If it had happened 10 years earlier, we would have been shot. Luckily, at that point, Putin was not in [44:05] power. But none of those people that we talked to on that trip in 1993 would ever talk to me again. [44:11] I went back in 1996, and it was like I had the plague. I spoke to different people, but they were [44:16] scared. And eventually, the story was spun where the Ministry of Defense officials who gave us this [44:23] information were described as ufologists who said there was nothing really significant to these files. [44:29] They didn't really find anything a big deal. And I can tell you, you'll see those files that I shared with [44:35] you. They did find stuff. There was an incident in October of 1982 over an ICBM base where UFOs popped [44:42] up, was observed over this base where the missiles are pointed at us, the United States. These UFOs [44:48] perform incredible maneuvers. They split apart. They fuse back together. They'd appear and disappear. And [44:54] right at the end of this four-hour period, the launch control codes for the ICBMs lit up. Something [45:01] entered the correct codes. The missiles were fired up and ready to launch, and they could not shut it [45:06] down. The Russian officers were panicking. The UFOs go – they disappeared. The launch control system [45:12] goes back to normal. Colonel Sokolov and his team came in, took the thing apart, could not figure out [45:17] what it was. It wasn't a power surge or EMPs or some of the baloney excuses that our country has given [45:22] for similar events involving our nuclear missiles. They thought it was a message from wherever the UFOs were from. [45:28] And that's a chilling thing. I mean, that was – we were a couple of seconds away from World War III [45:33] starting, and the UFOs were responsible for it. Chief Wiggins, based on your training and [45:39] operational experience, could the behavior that you witnessed, a transmedium object vanishing [45:45] without a sound, be explained by any known technology that we possess or other governments possess? [45:52] It cannot. No. And has any government agency [45:56] debriefed you or any of your shipmates regarding the EOIR and radar confirmed UAP encounter aboard USS Jackson? [46:08] No one has Newman. What was that encounter like when you brought that up? If you want to [46:13] briefly summarize that. When you brought that to their attention and then you were not provided any [46:19] follow-up, who was told and what – how did you feel when there was no contact back to you? [46:27] As far as the actual incident happening or the reporting level? Yes, Chief. [46:32] It was within the event happening. My duties are to report to the tactical action officer on watch [46:41] while we're standing watch. So, tactical action officer was there. I made my report. I've not had any [46:50] discussion outside of that day. There's been no communication to me or requests from me to, you know, [46:57] with inside of the military. But speaking of that actual incident itself, once the report was made to [47:06] the tactical action officer, that's when I made the decision to ask the individual watchstander that [47:15] was controlling Sapphire to be able to slew into the location. And that's what you see in the video [47:22] itself is when the watchstander is slewing in and kind of showing us what we're looking at. But outside of [47:31] that, that's as far as the reporting went that I know of. Thank you, Chief. Just for the sake of time, [47:38] Mr. Nusitelli. Has Aro, the Air Force, or the FBI ever followed up with you personally about the Red [47:44] Square event? I did have follow-up by Aro. Nothing with the Air Force. The Aro office updated me, I [47:54] think, at least two times. They let me know that they were unable to locate any records, that the [48:00] records had been destroyed by the Air Force. The Air Force is destroying all their police records every [48:06] three years on a schedule. You were informed that these documents were destroyed? Well, I have a [48:13] Freedom of Information Act from the Air Force that states clearly that they destroy all police records [48:18] on a three-year schedule. Okay. So they were sitting on documentation, destroyed it, refused to question [48:27] any of the lead investigators, anything leading into this investigation? Yeah, basically, they destroyed [48:35] all the police records. So you couldn't even, like, call the Air Force and ask them if there was a vehicle [48:41] accident in that time frame. So that's a big problem. We're losing data in real time. So we'll never [48:49] be able to go back and track. I think our federal government has a history of destroying records. [48:54] Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Nusitelli. Look, I'm not, I'm not jumped to the conclusion that I [48:59] believe that there are, you know, aliens coming from another planet. Um, but I'm open to that. [49:05] And I think that it's my, our responsibility, especially when we're seeing that we have a [49:10] government that is blocking, actively blocking information from us. Just last night, I tried to [49:15] get an amendment onto the National Defense Authorization Act that fit in the germaneness of that bill [49:22] to have UAP disclosure. And conveniently, it was named non germane, mostly deemed by staff, [49:30] not even an elected official. This is the kind of stuff that we repeatedly see. Last year, we were [49:36] blocked by someone in House administration from being able to receive a full briefing from Arrow. So, [49:45] not an elected official, but someone in staff blocked us. And I've had it. Enough is enough. [49:50] Um, I want to queue up a video that, that I've been given. And as, before it starts, I'm going to [49:57] describe, this was taken October 30th of 2024. This video is of an MQ-9 drone tracking an orb, or this [50:06] object, off the coast of Yemen. Um, you'll see that another MQ-9, um, launched a Hellfire missile, [50:14] that you cannot see that drone. Um, and so, uh, you'll, and I'm not going to explain it to you. [50:21] You'll see exactly what it does. This is when it zoomed out, so you can still see it traveling. So, [51:08] Mr. Knapp, um, do you have any, have you heard about, uh, you know, events like this occurring? [51:15] And what, what, what information might you have? [51:17] I have heard about events like this. I have heard about this event. Jeremy Corbell and I talked about [51:23] it in one of our episodes a while back. We did not have the video though. There are, uh, servers, [51:29] where there's a whole bank of these kind of videos that Congress has not been allowed to see, [51:34] that the public hasn't been allowed to see. Occasionally some of that stuff gets out in the [51:38] wild and it comes our way. Uh, it should be going to you. Uh, you know, the public should be seeing [51:43] this stuff. And, and why you're not allowed to, I don't know. But that's a, a Hellfire missile smacking [51:48] into that UFO and just bounced right off. Um, and it kept going. It kept going and it looks like the [51:53] debris was taken with it. Yeah. What, what the hell is that? What, what, so again, I'm not going [51:58] to speculate what it is, but the question is, what, what, you know, why are we being blocked from, [52:04] from this information consistently? And, and you had, um, you reported, uh, James Lekatsky came to you, [52:11] um, with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify [52:19] to the veracity of that claim? Dr. Lekatsky is an honorable man who served [52:24] most of his career with the DIA, a very trusted high level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst [52:29] who inspired the OSAP program, as I said earlier. And in, uh, you know, in full disclosure, [52:35] I've co-written two books with him. He dropped this on myself and our other coauthor out of the blue. [52:41] And it took 14 months for us to get Dobser approval for him to release two sentences on that. He said, [52:48] this craft, we had, uh, managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail. It had no fuel, [52:56] no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was [53:01] aerodynamic, but, uh, he would not go further. Uh, he's a by the book guy. And until he gets clearance [53:08] to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more, but it's not ours. It wasn't ours. [53:13] We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. [53:18] We've got at least one. And I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we've, [53:22] we do have, uh, recovered desks and materials. Mr. Knapp, I've watched many of your, uh, videos [53:27] on Joe Rogan and other places. Um, one of the big questions, I think for many of us is why do you [53:34] believe that the federal government refuses to be transparent about this issue? I think there's [53:40] probably multiple reasons at the start when these things first started invading our skies in large [53:45] numbers. We were scared. It was right after world world two and, and we didn't know what they were [53:49] and they didn't want to panic the public. And that was probably a good call. Uh, over time, I think [53:54] they, the lying sort of became institutionalized, you know, flights over Washington DC in 1952, uh, [54:02] they're seen, they're captured on radar jets are chased after these objects. And then we get an [54:06] explanation. It was a temperature inversion. And those kinds of lies have been told for a long time. [54:12] What was told to me by a, an investigator from Congress, a guy named Richard D'Amato, [54:16] who was sent after this story by Robert Byrd and Harry Reid, he came out to Nevada, [54:22] tried to get into Area 51, did get in there, looked around, talked to people, [54:26] trying to get to the bottom of it. He believed that this program, reverse engineering, et cetera, [54:30] was inside, had been moved inside these corporations. And he said, when this comes out, [54:35] people are going to go to prison. And he meant people who were basically misusing [54:40] legitimate national security funds, tens of billions of dollars in order to keep this [54:44] cover up going. I also believe there's a legitimate reason for the cover up in that it, [54:48] there is undeniable connection of national security involved in this technology. If we are racing [54:54] for it to master that technology against the Russians and the Chinese, which is what I have been told [54:59] by Senator Reid and many others, uh, then it is a, a race that's critical to our survival. [55:06] There could be a form of disclosure, I think. Yes, it's real. It's from somewhere else [55:11] without revealing all the details that would allow someone else to have an advantage [55:15] in the race for this technology. Thank you. [55:17] Uh, my first question is to Mr. Knapp. Mr. Knapp, how do we know that the files that you obtained from [55:22] the former Soviet government are not BS and just given to you as a disinformation campaign against US [55:27] government? That's a good question. So I shared some of them with the Senate Intelligence [55:31] Committee when I first got back because that was requested by the Russians who shared some of that [55:35] information with me. Secondly, I gave all of that material to the DIA, the, through, through Bass, [55:42] the OSAP program, sorry for the acronyms. Can you name names real quick? Sorry. [55:46] Uh, of, of, at Bass or OSAP? Who did you give them to directly? [55:49] I gave them to Robert Bigelow and, uh, to Jim Lukatsky. And they, uh, they hired a whole team to go [55:55] through them and re-translate them and analyze it. And they created a, uh, structure of how the UFO [56:01] programs in the USSR and Russia were put together. They said they were real. The final, the other [56:06] person who said they were real is David Grush. Um, and then finally, Mr. Borland, when you engaged [56:13] with Arrow in 2023, you noted that their public statements did not match the reality that you and [56:19] others had witnessed. In your assessment, what were the key limitations of Arrow? You know, I would put it [56:26] to you this way. The statement Arrow has made is scientific evidence of extraterrestrials. [56:32] Scientific evidence requires a scientific control. Extraterrestrial is an entity on another planet. [56:38] The only way to scientifically prove extraterrestrial is we have to go to that planet, acquire technology, [56:45] bring it back, and compare it to what we have here. So you're saying they won't let anything out [56:50] because, or they won't, they won't come forward unless they confirm that it, it, unless they go to the [56:56] planet and confirm where its origin is. That, that would be scientific evidence, yes. And by that [57:01] statement, Arrow found no scientific evidence of extraterrestrials is basically, I don't want to call [57:07] it a PSYOP, but a misrepresentation because we do have things. But making that statement is not [57:13] technically a lie. It's a misrepresentation of the full truth. Let me go to you, Mr. Mr. Knapp first. [57:19] You've interviewed numerous UAP whistleblowers over the years. Question is, how do you verify their claims [57:25] before deciding they're credible enough to report on? It's a combination of factors. First, you check [57:30] their credentials. Did they really serve where they said they did, and did they work where they said [57:34] they did? Are there any other witnesses? Is there visual proof, film footage, things of that sort? You [57:40] ask the people around them that know them, that used to work with them, if they're credible people, [57:44] that's one way. You know, I think about Arrow, the organization that this body created to deal with [57:51] witnesses and whistleblowers. I hope I'm not taking too much of your time here, but they invited people [57:57] to come forward, service members who knew, saw things, and had experiences. And I can tell you that [58:03] the people that I have talked to who went through that are deeply disappointed. There was a guy named [58:07] Bob Jacobs, who was a lieutenant attached to Vandenberg in 1964. His unit would record missile tests. [58:14] They recorded all of them. On one of these particular tests, a UFO comes out of nowhere, zaps what looks like a [58:21] laser beam at what would have been a nuclear dummy, a nuclear weapon, and disabled it. And he is called [58:28] into the commander's office. Two guys in suits clipped that film footage out that shows the UFO, [58:34] and he's ordered to never talk about it. He comes forward to Arrow. He heeds the call, thinking he's [58:40] doing his duty as an American to tell that story, and they completely dismissed him. They made up a story [58:45] that they had tracked down the original footage, and there was nothing like that in it. Well, [58:50] there was no original footage. It had been taken away the day the footage was recorded. He is [58:54] deeply disappointed. People like Bob Salas, who had worked at a nuclear ICBM base, who saw UFOs flying [59:01] over the base, and these missile silos were taken down. He went to Arrow, too, and was completely [59:06] disregarded. It almost looks like Arrow operated as a counterintelligence operation to get people to [59:10] come in, tell their stories, and then discredit all of them. I can't imagine that any whistleblower or [59:16] witness will ever go to Arrow again because of what happened under the first director, who's now long [59:22] gone, but still seems to act as the spokesperson for that organization. And I would say, I would say, [59:27] Madam Chair, maybe at some point we need to really dig deep into Arrow, and I would encourage us. Oh, [59:33] I'd be happy to send maybe a subpoena to Mr. Kilpatrick. Another question for you, Mr. Knapp. [59:43] What is, in your view, having investigated this issue for so many years, what is the long game [59:49] with respect to disclosure of this information to the public? Because with the advent of [59:57] essentially a video camera and a high megapixel phone in everybody's pocket, at some point, [1:00:02] this information is going to be impossible to withhold from the public. What do you think is [1:00:08] the long game here? Well, the secret's out. I mean, how many videos have there been already? You know, [1:00:13] videos that are leaked from within the military and intelligence agencies and contractors and [1:00:17] sensor platforms, it's out there. But they have the high ground, the people that don't want us to take [1:00:22] it seriously dismiss it, discredit the witnesses, come up with a cover story. I mean, it's been out there a [1:00:28] long time. The public senses that it's real, and the people in authority dismiss them. It's a game [1:00:36] that's been going on a long time, and I don't think they're ever going to release it. I think that there's [1:00:41] an attitude among the people that have been involved in this for a long time that the public doesn't [1:00:45] deserve to know and that the public probably can't handle it, but they can. Real quick, I'd like to ask [1:00:51] the committee to replay that video that Burleson had played earlier. I want to ask every witness here, [1:00:56] specifically ones that have sensor training or have been able to recognize some of this [1:01:01] movements real quick. So if you guys can please roll that real quick. Okay, while this is still [1:01:32] rolling, Mr. Nusitelli, real quick, yes or no answers. Are you aware of anything in the government, [1:01:38] United States government arsenal that can split a hellfire missile like this? No. And do whatever [1:01:44] blob thing it did and then keep going? Nothing? Nothing. All right, how about you, Chief Wiggins? [1:01:49] Nothing to my knowledge, ma'am. Okay, and how about you, Mr. Borland? I prefer to answer that in a skiff. [1:01:54] Okay, does this video scare you guys? Yes or no? Yes. Wiggins? Yes. Nat? I had a different reaction. [1:02:08] I was really happy that it got out. Thanks for providing that. Curiosity comes to that. All right, [1:02:12] Mr. Borland? Yes. Okay. All right, that is the end of my questioning. Chief, I was on a ship for a [1:02:22] little bit. I was a gunner's mate on the USS Gettysburg for a couple years. My question to you [1:02:28] is, when you saw, had your encounter and you saw it on the screen, you were in the CIC, is that correct? [1:02:36] That's correct. On an LCS ship, the CIC is on the bridge, so it's called ICC-1, but yes, same. [1:02:43] Did a bunch of the other folks in the CIC come and check out what you were looking at? Yes, we all did. [1:02:51] The tactical action officer, myself, the RCO, and two others that were on watch. We were all in the same [1:03:02] space, so we were all looking at the sapphire screen all at the same time. Because in the other [1:03:06] in the other couple instances with the witnesses, you guys just saw it by yourself, is that correct? [1:03:11] Mr. Borland, you saw it by yourself? For me, yes, sir. Mr. Nesatelli, you saw this by yourself? [1:03:17] No, there were multiple witnesses in every case at Vanderbilt. Okay. How long did that encounter [1:03:23] take place, Chief? So, the encounter itself, from the time I recognized on my radar to the time after [1:03:33] the video ends, was probably about five to seven minutes. What speed was the object moving at? When I [1:03:42] first witnessed off the port bridge wing, the object moving out of the water, what I thought was [1:03:50] originally just a light on the water, something on the horizon, and surfacing and going into the air, [1:03:57] I then knew it was an air contact. But as an air controller myself, I started thinking and going [1:04:05] through kind of like my checklist in my mind, could it be a helo, but it's not blinking lights. So, I then [1:04:10] realized this is something I've never seen before. So, the speed itself just going from the horizon to [1:04:18] about maybe three, four thousand feet in the air was very slow, slowly rising. And then it sped up. [1:04:27] I'm not an expert at, you know, knowing specific speeds of aircraft just by visual eye, but I would [1:04:34] say probably one to mock instantly into the rest of the formation. I didn't notice visually with my own [1:04:41] eyes, the other three objects until I went back to my radar and also utilized Sapphire to see that, [1:04:48] in fact, there were four total. And then again, when they all left after a certain amount of time, [1:04:55] it was nearly instantaneous. So, you spotted it visually first, Chief, and then went back to your [1:05:01] radar, or did you guys find it on, spotted on radar first? Radar first, because that was my watch [1:05:06] station was... And then you went out to the port bridge wing, is that correct? Correct, to verify [1:05:10] what I saw in my radar. What range was it at, Chief, when you were able to see it visibly? I would say [1:05:18] about seven nautical miles, seven to eight nautical miles of a light from the ship. Wow. Thank you. I yield back. [1:05:27] Chief Wiggins, you said that it emerged from the ocean, is that right? Yes, sir. And before it did, [1:05:34] it was glowing, it was a glowing object under the water? That part I couldn't tell because it was [1:05:42] nighttime at 1915, approximately, and it was also at a distance. So, it's very hard to tell the [1:05:49] difference between something on the horizon and something surfacing from the water. My personal [1:05:56] thoughts after seeing what I saw is that it did, in fact, come from the water, but I don't have visual [1:06:02] evidence showing exactly that it did, in fact, come from the water. But again, I had to go through my [1:06:11] process of elimination and try to figure out, was this a ship on the horizon just showing its lights [1:06:18] at night? But to see it surface, then it made me question, okay, where did this come from? If it's [1:06:24] flying and it's not a drone or anything like that, where was its origin? Where did it start? Mr. Knapp, [1:06:31] in your testimony and in this document, you detail an event that happened in Russia where their nuclear [1:06:39] missiles were activated, and we were close to a World War III at that time, which is startling to [1:06:46] hear. It's also good to know that, as we have investigated the JFK files as well, that we're [1:06:54] learning that there was a document that was sent between Russia, there was an agreement between Russia [1:07:00] and the United States, that if they were to see some unidentified objects over sensitive sites, [1:07:06] that they would report it to each other. Are you familiar with that document? [1:07:13] Yes. I'm also familiar with the rhetoric, public rhetoric, between President Reagan and Gorbachev at [1:07:19] the time, too, that they traded statements about, wouldn't it be something if we were threatened by [1:07:25] something from way outside, how we might work together? I know for sure that they had conversations [1:07:31] about it, and I know we did reach an agreement to try to lessen the possibility that us detecting a [1:07:37] UFO or a group of UFOs would not be mistaken for a bunch of Russian missiles. There were exchanges of [1:07:42] that sort that went back and forth. Yeah, and I can imagine this is – to me, the validity of this [1:07:47] document is underscored by the fact that Russia would not want this to be known. They absolutely would [1:07:54] not want the public to know or the United States to know that there was a vulnerability in their missile [1:07:59] systems. Would you agree? Absolutely. And, you know, and we had many similar incidents at our [1:08:05] nuclear weapons facilities here that have all been sort of swept under the rug, but it's pretty scary [1:08:09] when you take down 10 missile silos during tense times and you don't have a better explanation for [1:08:16] it than it was a special test of security mechanisms or using EMPs, which is a preposterous explanation. [1:08:24] At this point, I think it's clear from the hearing that there's advanced technologies that are taking [1:08:31] place in our airspace. You know, the question is, and I posed it in one of the previous hearings, [1:08:37] is it ours, is it theirs, or is it otherworldly? There may not be a silver bullet at the moment, [1:08:44] but when you look back through the hearing and the evidence that's been presented, if you're going to [1:08:50] point the American people to one piece of evidence to start their journey on this topic, what would [1:08:56] you suggest, sir? One piece of evidence? I would start with this hearing, in the first hearing. [1:09:12] There is no evidence. But is there a specific, exactly, but is there a specific evidence or [1:09:17] footage or document that you think lends extreme credibility to what we're discussing today? [1:09:23] I would say this new video we're seeing today is exceptional evidence that we're dealing with [1:09:28] something. With the kinetic? Yeah, sir. Mr. Wiggins? Sir, I'd have to say that if just the average [1:09:37] person here in America looked at absolutely everything that has come across television, [1:09:42] the internet, et cetera, you can't tell yourself that 100% of what's being recorded is fake or false. [1:09:49] You have to, at some point, understand that there's something else out there. [1:09:53] Well, I mean, and you bring an interesting point, you know, in the law enforcement community, [1:09:57] anytime you're conducting an investigation, you're always looking at the totality of the [1:10:01] circumstances. You're looking at all the evidence and how they piece together. And so that would be my, [1:10:07] you know, advice to the American people, that this is a journey that is just beginning [1:10:14] from a congressional perspective, but you have decades of data, some of it not real, [1:10:20] much of it is. But thanks to Chairwoman Luna, we're now presenting this to the American people. [1:10:25] And I think this latest video from Mr. Burleson is something that should get everyone pause. [1:10:31] When you think, when you see the three orbs that drop, was that in a defensive posture, [1:10:36] or is that in an offensive posture? And what capabilities did those orbs have that we, [1:10:40] quite frankly, may not have? Mr. Knapp? As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, [1:10:47] what hooked me on the story was the paper trail, these documents that shouldn't exist. We've been [1:10:51] told for decades, over and over, there's nothing to it. It's not a threat. You can go about your [1:10:56] business. And then when FOIA becomes the law of the land, thousands of pages, to the contrary, [1:11:02] leak out. There's a memo by General Nathan Twining in 1947, when the country was being overflown by [1:11:10] dozens of UFOs, hundreds of UFOs, in which he said, look, this is not visionary or fictitious, [1:11:16] it's real. These things are craft. They're not ours. They outperform anything we've got. [1:11:20] I mean, if you follow the paper trail of documents that they wrote before the military got wise and [1:11:27] realized that FOIA really exists and changed their tune and not put things in writing, [1:11:31] it spells it out pretty clearly. I'll go refer back to Russia. One incident I did not mention to [1:11:38] Representative Burleson is Colonel Sokolov in that Ministry of Defense program said there were 40 [1:11:44] incidents where Russian warplanes were sent to intercept UFOs. And they were ordered to fire [1:11:50] on them. And for the most part, the UFOs would zip away. Three of the pilots, though, [1:11:54] did fire at these things. Those three planes stalled out, crashed. Two of those pilots died. And after [1:12:00] that, the Russians changed the standing order. If you see a UFO, leave them alone. No country in the [1:12:04] world wants to say and admit that these objects are flying around in our airspace and there's nothing we [1:12:10] can do about it. I mean, who wants to say that? The U.S. certainly doesn't. The Russians didn't [1:12:14] either. And I've got to be almost out of time. But Mr. Berlin, then you, sir, real quickly. [1:12:19] Yeah, to be honest with you, I think Bob Lazar and not for the reasons that most would [1:12:24] talk about, mainly because Bob Lazar was immediately discredited. They said he never worked where he [1:12:29] worked. They said he never did what he did. But yet Bob Lazar showed up with a bunch of friends [1:12:33] in a video camera and was filming these test flights in the middle of the desert. So clearly he knew something. [1:12:38] Dylan, knowing you testified to Arrow, are they obfuscating when they claim to have discovered [1:12:49] no evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology? And are they lying to the American [1:12:54] public? As I said before, it's a manipulation of the public perception. The statement, scientific [1:13:02] evidence of extraterrestrials, is a true statement. It is not the truth about what is happening and what [1:13:08] we have. Any of y'all like to comment on that further? Mr. Knapp? You're getting edgy. [1:13:15] It's splitting hairs. No proof that they're extraterrestrials. What would that proof look [1:13:19] like? A piece of kryptonite? What would it be? I mean, we could be talking about different forms of [1:13:25] non-human intelligence. I think the dominant paradigm is that they come from outer space somewhere else, [1:13:30] and they have some way that they can cross those vast distances that we can't even imagine doing. But not [1:13:36] necessarily the answer. So asking for proof of extraterrestrials might not be the answer at [1:13:42] all. It's splitting hairs. You know, we don't know where they're from. I don't know anyone who knows [1:13:46] the answer for sure. They call them aliens just as a placekeeper kind of a word, but no one in all [1:13:51] these programs who've studied this stuff for years, people with much bigger brains than mine, knows the [1:13:56] answer for sure. I've talked to Navy folks that some of the deep sea areas, they think there might be [1:14:02] something there that they're here. And I don't know when they got here. Another point that needs [1:14:06] to be made is every time, you know, we say we're going to back engineer or whatever you want to call [1:14:12] it, these craft, I always say like, it'd be like if you took a, I ride motorcycles, but if you took [1:14:18] like an Indian or a Harley to the people that came over here on the Mayflower, you know, they'd see a bright, [1:14:24] shiny object. They might polish it. You know, they might, they might get it started. I doubt they could. [1:14:31] They couldn't, they couldn't work on it. They couldn't put fuel. They wouldn't be able to have [1:14:35] the capability of putting fuel in it. I just think that that's, you know, we're just, we're [1:14:40] scratching at something that we don't have any knowledge of. And that's why it's just taken so [1:14:45] dadgum long, but they do know first one that cracks that code. It's, it's over. I mean, it's, [1:14:53] it's, it's energy, it's power, it's everything. And I worry too, that in the wrong hands that they do [1:14:58] that, um, they keep it from the rest of us because they're so invested in whatever energy sources we [1:15:05] have here and their billionaire buddies are going to profit and they can't, and they can't retool [1:15:11] because they know once it's out on the internet, it's over. And so I think there's a lot of things [1:15:16] going after. And I think that's why the, the move to discredit folks is so rapid too. I think, you know, [1:15:22] they're just, they point to them and they, they put the dogs on them and it disgusts me. [1:15:27] There's a price to be paid for that too. The Russians and Chinese are trying to figure this, [1:15:31] this out as well, but they're, they don't have the same kind of stigma. They tell their best [1:15:35] scientists and engineers, get in there and work on it. And they've been doing it for a very long [1:15:39] time. Might have a head start on us here. We don't have our best scientists and engineers working [1:15:44] on it because they've been told it's nonsense. The stigma is very real for people like that. [1:15:48] I agree. Mr. Nusatelli, when you heard the testimony of Mr. Knapp talking about [1:16:00] these missiles were shut down or turned on in Russia, does that, does that remind you, [1:16:07] when you hear these stories, it's got to remind you of the event that happened on your base? [1:16:12] Absolutely. There are many, many accounts of incursions of this taking place, [1:16:20] I believe in the 60s. We had a similar incursion in New England and same thing happened. There were [1:16:26] these objects coming over the base at low altitude, 200 feet over the base security police, [1:16:32] and they were scrambling fighters and then the objects would just fly off and that went on for [1:16:37] weeks. So the historical record is laid out that there's a pattern. Our installations are visited by [1:16:44] these craft, they come in and do whatever they're doing, and then they leave. We don't know how to [1:16:51] respond, we don't know how to protect the installation, so that's why we're here. [1:16:56] When you first heard and were having to report on these incidents that were being witnessed by other [1:17:02] individuals, did you believe them? Did you yourself believe it would be true until you saw it? [1:17:08] These are people I've worked with for years, deployed with. You know, I was in some of the weddings. [1:17:14] These are people that I worked with every day of my life. Usually when the events were occurring, [1:17:20] we were all together. There'd be 40, 60, 100 people on duty during these encounters. [1:17:26] Really? Yeah. All seeing it at the same time? Yes. These were, these encounters were playing out [1:17:31] while we were on duty, and we were responding and investigating in real time as they occurred. [1:17:39] And as you said, the importance of your operation was highly important because [1:17:44] they said it's the most important in 25 years, the research that you were conducting. [1:17:50] For that particular launch, we had 500 Air Force police officers guarding the launch, [1:17:56] 500 people. It was that critical. Wow. But had this thing showed up, [1:18:00] we wouldn't have been able to do anything to prevent it showing up. Real quickly, can you just [1:18:05] re-describe size and whether or not you heard anything? It was, how big, wise? [1:18:09] The two square objects were at least as large as a football field. The second encounter, they think [1:18:17] it was much larger than a football field. We're talking like flying buildings. The object I saw was [1:18:23] about 30 feet in diameter. And to confirm you were not the only person that saw this? Correct. I think I was also [1:18:29] told that there was also reports of this in a police blotter in the area. Can you confirm that? Yes, [1:18:35] that's the documentation that I maintained from the original event and turned into Arrow and the FBI. [1:18:43] Okay.