Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - GOP Oversight UFO Hearing Breakdown With Ashton Forbes

Episode Date: November 15, 2024

In this episode, we bring you the breakdown and full audio from the GOP Oversight UFO Hearing, featuring key testimonies from retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, former Department of Defense official Luis Elizondo, NASA UAP independent study team member Michael Gold, and journalist Michael Shellenberger. We share our initial reaction and dive deeper with Ashton Forbes, who joins us to discuss his key takeaways. Stay tuned for an upcoming episode where we’ll unpack our final thoughts. Are UFOs and aliens real, or is this a government coverup for advanced weapons technology?

Welcome to Investigator, Earth podcast. I'm your host chat alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry, on today's episode. We're going to be live streaming the Joint Subcommittee Hearing on UFOs and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. There are many witnesses that are set to testify, guys, and we're just going to, I'm going to double check this here for a second, make sure that we are not live yet. And I do not believe we are live yet over on YouTube. but either way, welcome to the show, guys. We are excited about this. There's a lot of people wondering what is going to happen in this meeting.

Will there be any new information coming out? After all, the first hearing with David Grush, Ryan Graves, and Commander Fravor. Did offer a decent amount of information, but I think that even some of the information from David Grush to come out and the fact that he was saying that there was biologics, they said, that he knew about, or at least he knew of people that worked on alien spacecraft or some type of downcraft where they know that what they witnessed was biologics or bodies of aliens. So obviously everyone kind of took that and ran with it.

And they ran with it on both sides. You had one side of the argument that was saying, this is absolute horseshit. There's no way that David Grush is somehow works with people that actually had alien biologics or bodies. Then obviously you have the other side. side of the argument where people are like, we're finally getting disclosure and, you know, we're finally about to figure it out.

I think it is at the very least, especially since the last hearing, has divided a large part of the UFO community. What do you think? I totally agree. And last night I was watching a documentary. It was so interesting because I got to talking to chat about, you know, just like 10 years ago, if you even mentioned UFO, you are a crazy conspiracy theorist. You're crazy.

And like, they don't exist at all, right? And then just recently in the last three years, it's like, oh, yeah, they definitely exist. And they've been here the whole time. It's like they're trinkling out information to make it. Yeah, to make it. Yeah, it's just to normalize it. That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to normalize the argument or not even argument, but they're trying to normalize the whole UFO topic.

Right. It's interesting when you said that last night and the more and more information we see on a regular basis, it does seem like, you know, although the government is trying to say no, we don't know for sure this, we don't know for sure this, we're hiding this, we're hiding that. It does at the very least seem like they're trying to soften the entire conversation up for when it is just completely out in the open, everyone actually acknowledges and understands and witnesses UFOs or maybe even biologics or little space guys. We don't know how this is all going to actually play out in disclosure.

But what we do know is a lot of people are going to be a lot more ready when it happens because of the slow drip of information that we've seen for a very long time, not just with movies and television shows, but obviously over the past two or three years, mainstream media has been talking about it all the time. And then obviously on X and many communities around the internet, it is all so many people talk about. Thank you, James, by the way, for the happy birthday. It is my birthday. Happy birthday, Chad. And I was also watching the documentary, and I thought it was interesting that, you know, now it's all coming out that we have UAPs and might have biologics and we have these things.

But in this documentary I was watching last night, now there's, everyone's talking about reverse engineering, reverse technology, that what we're seeing in the sky is no longer UAPs, but it's really ours. Yeah. And it's just crazy how we go from, oh, these are UAPs, but now they're saying, oh, no, those aren't UAPs. This is stuff we've had all along. Yeah.

You know, what I'm saying is just like they're switching the narrative on us. Well, no, I mean, they're just also trying to soften up the fact that, hey, you know, a lot of potentially what we are seeing is reverse engineered craft. And obviously there's been that argument. There's at the very least been that speculation is a lot of what we have been seeing for years and years and years. Is this our technology? Is this things that we have either reverse engineered or maybe stolen from China or at least the, I guess you can say the blueprints for some of this stuff? Obviously, that's been a big race between countries around the world. I mean, if you go back to the Soviet Union, the Cold War with the United States and the rush for nuclear fusion.

And then you talk about the Oppenheimer days. And, you know, obviously there's been a huge race for that. And it seems like potentially, although I don't think we fully understand what's going on as far as how much advanced tech that we actually have in 2024, at the very least, you could probably make the argument that there is a race going on right now for that technology, for the reverse engineered craft, if that is actually, what it is that partly what we're seeing in the skies. And so don't think if the United States has access to that advanced technology, I would say it's safe to assume that Russia does as well, more than likely China does as well. And you've got to think about, you know, half of the guys that started NASA, which number one were Nazis. We were taking Nazis, starting NASA with those guys.

And then also Russia was trying to do the same thing. And we were also at the same time trying to steal Russian science. from Russia or from Soviet Union then to bring them over to the United States. Because a lot of these people back then, obviously, we're working on nuclear fusion, working on nuclear. And then obviously you have this big race for reverse engineering now. So, Connor, there's actually someone on our YouTube, which I didn't know that we actually got through to YouTube to stream, but it did work. So do you think we get aliens? Do you think we get aliens or we have advanced craft or both?

I think it's both, Connor. That's what we were saying. And it's what we've talked about a lot. I think it is definitely potentially both. I just want to know, though, I know it's both. But when we're seeing stuff in the sky, is it ours or is it something else? And like, what is the percentage? How much of it is actually ours?

How much of it is actually not ours? Yeah. And do they interact with each other? Who knows, right? I mean, we don't know. My biggest argument is if we had such advanced technology, like some say we do. And so some of these people out there

are saying that that's all we have. It is only our technology. There are no UFOs. There are no UAPs. There is no other life form living in our atmosphere or not our atmosphere, but in our universe or in our galaxies. And that's one argument, right?

But you got to think about this too. The amount of reporting, the amount of people that said they saw UFOs or UAPs for years, I'm talking about hundreds of years, and there are obviously even biblical stories. You think that we would have, we would not obviously have the reportings of a lot of disinformation. And I'm talking about for hundreds of years,

if not thousands of years in some cases. And so that's a large part of me, why I just don't know if this is even our technology at all, to be honest. And if it's not, that's fine. But if it is our technology, another question I've been thinking about is we're not really talking about things that go underwater. We know it happens.

We've seen it. We've even seen things that could be possibly like a mothership. Do we have that type of technology that can go underwater like the UAPs we've seen on camera? Well, I know we do because there is that. Let me see if I can actually find that, that underwater leaked military, I don't know what you would call it, craft, I guess you can say. Let me see if I can find this. It was like when something was hovering, it was hovering over the ocean and then there was something underneath the ocean. And it looked like a huge.

mother ship. Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. Oh, okay. That's what I'm talking about. No, there was actually, there was a leaked Google image, actually. I think it was a Google Earth image. And I'm going to show you this to you guys while we're waiting on this stream to start. Stop screen.

And then what we'll do is what we'll present here. Share screen. And I think this is it right here. So this is what we're talking about, guys. This was actually seeing or something very, very similar to this has been seen. on Google Images. It was leaked. It was seen actually on a California military base.

And basically the way these things kind of pull up is these are our technology. I believe these are drones, mostly. But apparently these things are pretty damn fast underwater. We don't know for sure whether these things can fly or not, whether they can come in and out of the water. But in the very least, we do know that we have this technology. How do we know that's our technology? Well, because we've seen it on Google images at a military base.

Oh, at a military base. Yeah. Somehow they forgot to blur out a certain Google image or Google satellite image. We saw something like this on that image. And it was very interesting because what was it? What was they were saying? It was at two or three different bases. I think someone had seen it.

But, you know, it does kind of look like a triangle. It can move underwater. We don't know for sure if it can actually fly. It looks like it has wings like it could fly. Yeah, absolutely definitely could. We're just not 100% sure. I will start to get here. Here we go.

Here we go. Here we go. Good morning and welcome everyone. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement right now. Good morning and welcome today's historic hearing, which I'm co-chairing with Mr. Grohman, whose subcommittee held an important hearing on this topic last year.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Oversight Committee, including Mr. Birchette, Mr. Burleson, Ms. Luna, Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Garcia, for their relentless strive to get answers on UAPs. They've been steadfast in demanding transparency on the sightings reported by military pilots and armed forces. Their commitment to digging for the truth is exactly what this country needs, to cut through the secrecy surrounding this issue. And many high-ranking individuals in the military and intelligence communities believe UAPs demand greater attention, and thus the purpose for this hearing today.

Former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said on Bill Mars program, that, quote, there are phenomena that had been witnessed by multiple people that are just inexplicable by the science available to us. Army Colonel Carl Nell, a member of the federal government UAP task force, said at a conference this past May that non-human intelligence exists. Non-human intelligence has been interacting with humanity. This interaction is not new, and it's been ongoing, and they're unelected people in the government that are aware of that. But UAPs remain a controversial topic. I'm not going to name names, but there are certain individuals who didn't want this hearing to happen.

because they feared what might be disclosed. But we stood firm. No amount of outside pressure would ever keep me from pursuing a subject to ground come hell or high water. On that score, I want to thank our witnesses for being here. We have before us a panel of individuals accomplished in the military, in civilian government, in science, and in journalism. Some of the testimony you will hear them deliver today does not reflect well on influential individuals and agencies within the U.S. federal government and perhaps some of our contractors. It's never easy to present such information publicly.

So I appreciate our witnesses voluntarily agreeing to being here today. This hearing is attended to help Congress and the American people to learn the extent of the programs and activities our government has engaged in with respect to UAPs and what knowledge it has yielded. This includes, of course, any knowledge of extraterrestrial life or technology of non-human origin. If government-funded research on UAPs has not yielded any useful knowledge, we also need to know those facts. Taxpayers deserve to know how much has it been invested, how much has been spent. They shouldn't be kept in the dark to spare the Pentagon a little bit

of embarrassment. The reality is, despite their enormous taxpayer-funded budgets, the transparency of the Defense Department and the intelligence community have long been abysmal. The Pentagon has failed six consecutive audits. In fact, it's never actually passed one. Adding to this is a runaway overclassification of documents and materials, a reluctance to declassify materials when appropriate, and at times an outright refusal to share critical information with Congress. In short, it's not attractive. record that instills trust. So Congress has tried in recent years to lift the veil and find out if information about UAPs is being withheld, not only from the American public, but also from their

elected representatives in Congress. Part of the transparency effort was legislation created in the Pentagon, the all-domain anomaly resolution office or arrow, but the new office is struggling to get its footing. A recent statute orally required report from Arrow intended to illuminate the government's historic assessment of UAPs was heavily criticized by those seeking UAP transparency. The report has stoked suspicions Arrow is unable or perhaps unwilling to bring forward the truth about the government's activities concerning UAPs. I'm disturbed that Arrow itself lacks transparency. Even its budget is kept from the public. So if there is no there to there,

then why are we spending money on it and by how much? Why the secrecy, if it's really no big deal and there's nothing there, why hide it from the American people? Because I'm not a mathematician, but I can tell you that doesn't add up. I expect some of our witnesses to share their views on that Arrow report. We will also hear from the witnesses today allegations of UAP related misinformation and disinformation by government officials of which they are personally aware and directly experience. And we will hear testimony today concerning recent revelations about a purportedly secret UAP program

whose existence and findings may have been improperly withheld from Congress. But before we get to the witnesses, we're going to have a few more opening statements from our colleagues. And one thing I wanted to add at the end of my closing statement is there is a document that will be entered into the congressional record today. Mr. Tim Burchett from Tennessee has this document, and we just distributed it to every member up here on the dais of this document. But this is going to be the original document from the Pentagon about Immaculate Constellation that Michael Schellenberger delivered to Congress today.

So thank you, Mr. Schellenberger, for this information. We are all reading it in real time now, and Mr. Birchette will enter it into the record, but 12 pages about this unacknowledged special access program that your government says does not exist. So with that, I would acknowledge my colleagues, Mr. Garcia. I want to say, first of all, to Mr. Connolly, who cannot be here today, the ranking member on my subcommittee on cybersecurity.

I want to say that I was greatly saddened to hear about the recent news of Mr. Connolly's cancer, diagnosis, and I want to convey to him and to all of our colleagues. We wish our very best to you in a full and speedy recovery. And with that, I would acknowledge Mr. Garcia for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. I want to thank the Chairwoman and the Chairman both for their continued support and really treating this discussion and these hearings in a way that's bipartisan. I think one thing that's very important for all of us that are interested in the conversation around UAPs is that this is an area that both Republicans and Democrats where we may disagree in a lot of other spaces.

This is an area where bipartisanship is really important. And in fact, that would add it's critical that we all continue to work together in a way that moves forward with the truth and an important disclosure. So we're here to have a bipartisan and serious conversation, I believe, about our national security. We should always ground these conversations in facts, evidence, and the data in front of us. I want to note that we have our witnesses here. I want to thank you all for being here and note that also we, amongst you of folks that also served us in our military.

And I know that for many of you, this has been a difficult process, but I'm very grateful to have you with us today. And I thank you for joining us. I also want to note that today's hearing builds on a quite, I think also historic public hearing that we had many months ago that Mr. Groffman and others helped lead in this very same hearing room where I believe we began a really real. really important public conversation about UAPs. And so I want to thank him for that. And I especially want to thank, and Chairwoman Mace, for her continued advocacy on this topic. I also want to start

to start to start with some facts. We know that there are objects or phenomena observed in our airspace as your witnesses will testify and also possibly in our oceans. In many cases, we don't know what they are. And this is, of course, why we're discussing UAPs. Now, the all-demand anomaly resolution Office, Arrow, has reported hundreds of UAPs that remain, quote, uncharacterized and unattributed, and which, quote, appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities and require further analysis. This is our own Arrow office. Now, we shouldn't prejudge what they might be. I'm certainly not going to. We need evidence. But what we are detecting things, and we know that we don't understand them, and this is worth

investigating. Now, the American people have legitimate questions, and I believe it's critical that Congress should help address them. This is about the truth and science and facts. Now, transparency and faith in our institutions is vital in a good democracy. Now, I'm proud to say that this hearing will build on that important bipartisan work, and I want to thank everyone for being involved, including members of our committee. Now, in our last hearing in July, we heard testimony that a significant number of pilots of major airlines have witnessed UAPs as well, but have no real confidential way of reporting them to the government. We heard that commercial pilots were counter UAPs may be hesitant to speak openly due to stigma or fear of retaliation.

We also know that Arrow has reported that, and I want to quote, that most reports still reflect a bias towards restricted military airspace, a result of reporting for military personnel and censors present in such areas. And so the lack of ability for civilian pilots raises real safety concerns and limits our ability to understand UAPs. This is a particular piece of this conversation that I am very interested in. Now, our last hearing inspired us to introduce a safe airspace for Americans Act, joined by Chairman Graftwin, Chairwoman Mays, and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors.

I see some of our leaders from Safe Airspace for Americans Act here, and that would create a safe reporting for UAP process, which we want to continue to do. Now, members of both parties and senior officials in multiple administrations have now taken an interest in this issue. Mainstream media, in many cases, have beginning to take more of an interest in this issue, and we should all be proud to carry that work and build confidence for the American people. I believe we can always be more transparent.

To me, this hearing and others are simply about the truth and getting to the facts of what these UAPs actually are. It's very important that we show that Democrats and Republicans in Congress can work together to cut through misinformation and look for a serious and thoughtful way to have the discussion in public. Many of us have also called for additional public hearings to discuss UAPs.

This should be a third. topic that continues on throughout the Congress so we can gather more information data and work with the relevant agencies to gather more information. Finally, I just want to add that those that are here on this dais, many of us have participated also in classified briefings as well, and where we have also gained a lot of important, I think, and interesting information, at least I personally have. And so with that information, we want to continue today's hearing, and I think all of our witnesses for being here. And with that, I'd like to yield back. Thank you, Mr. Garcia, and I'm now like to recognize Mr. Grothman for a five-minute introduction.

Thank you. Good morning. I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here one more time. This is a topic I've been interested in since eighth grade. I'd like to thank Ms. Mace for working me on this topic and for making this a joint subcommittee hearing. Last year, the Subcommittee on National Security, the Board and Foreign Affairs here, held an historic hearing to understand the potential national security risk of unidentified anomalous phenomena. UAPs. We heard from former Navy commander, David Fraver, who shared firsthand experience with the UAP, engaged while on duty in the Pacific. We learned from David Gresh, a former member of the intelligence community, who revealed the supposed existence of secret government programs hidden from congressional oversight. Additionally, formerly, additionally, former military pilot Ryan Graves informed us of the limited ways in which the military and commercial pilots can report UAP

sightings. Since that last hearings, I've led several briefings with government agencies to deepen my understanding with these issues. First, the Department of Defense Inspector General's office informed us that the Department of Defense does not have a streamlined process for service members to report UAP activity. Since then, the Joint Chiefs have implemented standards for UAP reporting across the services. The Intelligence Community Inspector General informed us that whistleblowers often fear retaliation for reporting mismanagement of highly sensitive government projects or information. Finally, AARO has expressed to the committee that like any other federal government agency, its face challenges and its establishment, specifically in hiring staff to manage UAP historical records

and coordinating with other federal agencies. Well, these agencies have been helpful to us in understanding the challenges that come from collecting UAP data none of them have been able to substantiate the claims made at this hearing last year by David Rush, despite our committee members endlessly questioning these agencies inside and outside of a skiff. I hope our witnesses today will be able to provide evidence and content that is worthwhile to our pursuits of eliminating government waste and increasing transparency. To help alleviate some of the roadblocks, I'm supportive of measures that were included in last year's National Defense Authorization Act to increase transparency and improve record-keeping measures when it comes to UAPs.

But I believe there's still more work to go. I co-led the Safe Airspace for Americans Act with Ranging Member Garcia, which requires the Federal Aviation Administration to develop procedures to collect UAP data from civilian aviators. I look forward to working with members of Congress to see that this legislation and other UAP legislation crosses the finish line. I'm deeply alarmed by the reporting of the massive drone swarm that flew over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia last December. Langley is the home of the first fighter wing, which maintains half of the F-22s in the U.S. Air Force inventory. Reports of this incident indicate these drones were roughly 20 feet long, flying more than 100 miles an hour in an altitude of over 3,000 feet. yet the origin of these drones and their operators remains a mystery.

This incident and other sightings near sensitive military installations highlights the complexity of the UAP challenge facing our intelligence, defense, and homeland security committees. Whether these phenomena are the result of foreign adversaries developing advanced technologies or something else entirely, we must take them seriously, investigate them thoroughly, and assess their implications on national defense. The repeated UAP sightings around sensitive military sites underscores the need for innovative,

defensive strategies beyond traditional measures. They also highlight the urgent need for updated policies to address emerging threats as well as more effective interagency cooperation and intelligence sharing. However, none of this is going to be possible without transparency. for far too long critical information about UAPs has been either classified or ignored leaving the American public in key. Congressman without clarity needed to make informed decisions. Declassifying reports and fostering a more open dialogue about UAPs will not only increase the public trust, but also encourage collaboration between government, the scientific community, and our allies.

Quite frankly, there's been things that have been kept secret that is, I think, old enough that there is no reason it shouldn't be released, regardless of any so-called, you know, private information. A transparent approach will allow us to share insights, identify patterns, and develop new strategic defenses. As we continue to investigate these phenomena, we must do so with a mindset of protecting our country advancing scientific discovery. and upholding the trust of the American people, who right now I don't think have trust, and it's just obvious. I don't have trust. We cannot shy away from the unknown,

especially when the stakes are so high. I look forward to discussing these matters with the witnesses today. I'm hopeful we can learn from the testimony and come out of this hearing with actionable ideas to advance UAP transparency. Actually, the idea is just to say, in my mind, go back 15 years and everything has to be released. I'm hopeful that we can learn from their testimony to come out of this hearing.

And with that, I yield back. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Moskowitz for a five-minute introduction. Thank you, Chairwoman. Good morning, everyone. I first want to thank the chairs and ranking members for holding the hearing today on this topic. And again, having a second hearing. I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today to share your expertise on UAPs

and the need to build trust through transparency. But first, I want to mention, you might be wondering why Chairman Comer has allowed me to be a ranking member today, but it's really only because our dear friend, Jerry Connolly, is not here. As Chairwoman Mace mentioned, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and all of us on this committee. No, no Jerry, and he's a fighter, and we're praying for him and hoping for his speedy recovery. So today's hearing marks this committee's second meeting dedicated to UAP. transparency. I was pleased, as I know all of us are, on the bipartisanship that existed in last year's hearing, and even though we can't talk about what happens in the classified settings,

the bipartisanship that has existed in those settings with the questions members have asked. Last year's hearing was a great example of open dialogue about UAPs, and we must remain committed to share information with the American people, and I think you see that commitment based on the people here and the commitment across the political spectrum. I personally have worked with multiple members of this committee, but I want to particularly thank Congressman Burchett, Mace, Luna, and Garcia for working on bipartisan pieces of legislation. In recent years, Congress has taken numerous bipartisan steps towards greater transparency.

In 2022, in the NDAA, we created the All-D-D-D-Aolmany Resolution Office, to investigate unidentified flying objects. Following Arrow, along with OD&I, release an unclassified report on UAP sightings. Of the 366 sightings included in the report, 171 remain uncharacterized with some of these appearing to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities.

That's a nice way of saying, we don't want to tell you what they are. In March, Arrow revealed a report on the historical record of U.S. government involvement with UAPs, which covered investigatory efforts going back from 1945 to the present day. Earlier this year, I joined Congressman Burchett to introduce the UAP Transparency Act, which would require the declassification of all documents related UAPs with many other members of this committee.

In fiscal year 2024, the NDA required the National Archives and the Records Administration to establish the unidentified anonymous phenomena of records collection. This collection will include digital copies of all unidentified UAP records that can be publicly disclosed. This commitment is in transparency, is vitally important and unnecessary overclassification has led to a void of information, which has allowed theories over the decades to foster. When the American people and members of Congress ask our reports of UAP's credible, we're met with stonewalling, we're met with responses of, I Can't Tell You, and in fact, we're met with people not wanting us to have hearings. We're met with people not wanting us to ask you questions.

In fact, many of us were told not to ask some of you certain questions on certain topics. In a time of heightened distrust of our government institutions, I believe more transparency is not only needed, but is possible. And obviously, we can respect national security limits, but we also have to provide our constituents with the information and oversight that they have tasked us for. It's part of this government agencies must maintain open lines of communication with members of Congress. And there are regular questions that Americans have. What are UAPs? Are they real? Are they ours? How has this technology been developed?

How do they get funded? Right? And now we've seen this is great. gone from a long time ago where you could discredit people because it's some guy living in a Winnebago. You're able to see people now. These are pilots. These are military. These are folks with serious backgrounds. This has changed the face of this because now we have video. People have questions. We know there are advanced technology programs. Almost 15 years ago, one of those came out of Area 51 to go after Osama bin Laden. And the only

reason we know about that is because one of those helicopters was downed. Americans have questions about whistleblowers who have come forward to talk about retribution. And so I want to thank everyone for being involved today on trying to get more transparency. This has been bipartisan, bycameral. And as we get into a new administration, the president had elect has talked about opportunities to declassify information on UAPs, and I hope he lives up to that promise. And with that, I yield back. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moskowitz, and I would now, committee stuff asked me to go ahead and I will do it to enter into the congressional record, this 12-page document that Michael Schellenberger

brought today that describes the Immaculate Constellation Government Program. So we will do that now. Every member up here has a copy of it. The first section talks about the unacknowledged special access program called Immaculate Constellation. And the second section about USG imagery, intelligence. And Representative Luna just told me if I say immaculate constellation, I'll be on some list. Maybe a FISA warrant. So come at me, bro, I guess. But without objection, entered in the record.

All right. So next we will introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. Thank you so much for being here. Our first witness is retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, who retired from the U.S. Navy and is now the chief executive officer at Ocean STL Consulting. Our second witness is Mr. Lou Alizondo, a former Department of Defense Official, an author of a recent bestseller book about UAPs. Our third witness is Mr. Michael Schellenberger, founder of the newsletter public, an author of a recent journalistic piece about special access programs, including one widely identified. as immaculate constellation. I swear the staff wants me on a list.

Okay, and our last witness today is Mr. Michael Gold, a former NASA official who was also a member of the NASA UAP Independent Study Team. Welcome, everyone. We are pleased to have you today. Pursuant to Committee Rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise your right hands. This is where it gets real.

Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God. Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record.

You guys may be seated. Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. As a reminder, please press the button in front of you so the microphone is turned on so that everyone in the room, members included, can hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes has expired, and we would ask that you please wrap it up. So I will first recognize Rural Admiral Gallaudet to please begin your opening remarks.

Thank you, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman, ranking members Connolly and Garcia and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today regarding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena or UAP. Confirmation that UAPs are real came to me in January of 2015 when I was serving as the commander of the Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command. At the time, my personnel were participating in a pre-deployment naval exercise off the U.S. East Coast. It included the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, and this exercise was overseen by the United States Fleet Forces Command, led by a four-star Admiral, who at the time was also my superior officer. During this exercise, I received an email a Navy's secure network from the operations officer of U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Email is addressed to all the subordinate commanders and the subject line read in all capital letters, urgent safety of flight issue. The text of the email was brief but alarming, with words to the effect, if any of you know what these are, tell me ASAP.

We are having multiple near midair collisions. And if we do not resolve this soon, we are going to have to shut down the exercise. Attached to the email is what is now known as the go-fast video, captured on the forward-looking infrared sensor of one of the Navy FAA 18 aircraft participating in the exercise. The now declassified video showed an unidentified object exhibiting flight and structural characteristics unlike anything in our arsenal. The implication of the email was clear. The author was asking whether any of the recipients were aware of classified technology demonstrations that could accept. explain these objects. Because the DoD policy is to rigorously de-conflict such demonstrations with live exercises, I was confident this was not the case. The very next day, that email

disappeared from my account and those of the other recipients without explanation. Moreover, the commander of Fleet Forces Command and the operations officer never discussed the subject. Even during weekly meeting, specifically designed to address issues affecting exercises like the one in which the Theater Roosevelt Strike Group was participating. This lack of follow-up was very concerning to me. As the Navy's chief meurologist at the time, I was responsible for reducing safety of flight risks. Yet it appeared to me that no one at the flag officer level was addressing the safety risk posed by UAPs. Instead, pilots were left to mitigate these threats on their own without guidance or support. I concluded that the UAP information must have been classified within a

special access program managed by an intelligence agency. That is a compartment of program that even senior officials, including myself, were not read into. Last year's UAP hearing before this oversight committee confirmed that UAP related information is being withheld from senior officials and members of Congress. And just this week, I learned from former DOD official Chris Mellon that satellite imagery of UAP from a few years ago still has not been shared with Congress. Equally concerning, last year's UAP hearing also revealed that elements of the government are engaged in a disinformation campaign to include personal attacks designed to discredit UAP whistleblowers. Having never signed a nondisclosure agreement regarding UAPs and now as a private citizen, I've become an advocate for greater UAP transparency from the government. The continued overclassification surrounding UAPs has not only hindered our ability to effectively address these phenomena, but has also eroded trust in our institutions.

While I applaud previous bipartisan legislation passed by Congress concerning UAPs, a more comprehensive approach is needed to address the broader implication of UAP on public safety and national security, as well as the socioeconomic opportunities that open UAP research could unlock. Therefore, I recommend Congress take the following action, which I believe will receive bipartisan support. First, established robust oversight of the executive branch's management of UAP information by directing key officials, beginning with the director of the DOD's All-Dain Anomily Resolution Office, to provide comprehensive briefings on what the government knows about UAP and does not know. Two, enact the provisions of the UAP Disclosure Act that establish a UAP Records Review Board

to ensure independent oversight, transparency, and accountability in the government's handling of UAP information. And three, strengthen the UAP Disclosure Act and future reauthorizations with provisions that mandate a whole-of-government approach to addressing U. In closing, I will share my personal reasons for speaking out on this topic. First, as a former science agency leader, having led the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I've always sought the truth in human knowledge and thought. Now that we know UAP are interacting with humanity, and these include unidentified, submerged objects in the ocean, we should not turn a blind eye, but instead boldly face this new reality and learn from it.

Additionally, at a time when leaders in government leave much to be desired, I feel obligated to show moral leadership on this issue of UAP disclosure by validating the credibility of the courageous men and women who come out as witnesses and whistleblowers to expose the truth. My speaking out has encouraged others to do the same, and it may, it's my hope over time that a number of your constituents will want to know the truth and about UAP, and this number will increase to such an extent that the congressional action I've just recommended will become inevitable. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Elizondo for his opening statement.

Greetings, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman, ranking members, Connolly and Garcia, and members of the committee. It is my honor and privilege to testify before you on the issue of unidentified anomalous phenomenon, formerly known as UFOs. On behalf of our brave men and women in uniform and across the intelligence community, as well as my fellow Americans who have awaited this day, thank you for your leadership on this important matter. Let me be clear. UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our government or any other government are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our

adversaries. I believe we are in the midst of a multi-decade secretive arms race, one funded by misallocated taxpayer dollars and hidden from our elected representatives and oversight bodies. For many years, I was entrusted with protecting some of our nation's most sensitive programs. In my last position, I managed a special access program on behalf of the White House and the National Security Council. As such, I appreciate the need to protect certain sensitive intelligence and military information. I consider my oath to protect secrets as sacred, and I will always put the safety of the American people first. With that said, I also understand

the consequences of excessive secrecy and stovepiping. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the aftermath of 9-11, which many of us remember all too well. I believe that America's greatness depends on three elements. A, a watchful Congress, B, a responsive executive branch, and C, an informed public. Over the last decade and a half, I learned that certain UAP programs were and are operating without any of these elements. Although much of my government work on the UAP subject still remains classified, excessive secrecy has led to grave misdeeds against loyal civil servants, military personnel, and the public, all to hide the fact that we are not alone in the cosmos.

A small cadre within our own government involved in the UAP topic has created a culture of suppression and intimidation that I've personally been victim to, along with many of my former colleagues. This includes unwarranted criminal investigations, harassment, and harassment, and efforts to destroy one's credibility. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the Pentagon's very own public affairs office openly employs a professional psychological operations officer as the singular point of contact for any UAP-related inquiries from citizens and the media. This is unacceptable.

Many of my former colleagues and I have provided classified testimony to both the Department of Defense and the intelligence community inspector general. and many of us have subsequently been targeted by this cabal with threats to our careers, our security clearances, and even our lives. This is not hyperbole, but a genuine fact, and this is wrong. To fix these problems, I propose three principal actions. First, Congress and the President should create a single point of contact responsible for a whole-of-government approach to the UAP issue. Currently, the White House, CIA, NASA, the Pentagon, Department of Energy, and others play a role, but no one seems to be in charge.

Leading to unchecked power and corruption. Second, we need a national UAP strategy that will promote transparency and help restore the American public's trust at a time when the public's trust is at an all-time low. This strategy should include a whole-of-government approach, including the academic and scientific communities, the private sector, and our international partners and allies. Third, Congress should create a protected environment so whistleblowers, desperate to do the right thing, can come forward without fear.

As it currently stands, these whistleblowers suffer because of stigma, a code of silence, and concerns about retaliation. These whistleblowers should be encouraged to come forward in ways that protect them against any forms of retaliation. Policies and procedures should ensure that protection. And for those who refuse to cooperate, it is up to the members of this committee and the other lawmakers to wield their subpoena power against hostile witnesses and prevent additional government funding to those UAP efforts that remain hidden from congressional oversight. In closing, we as Americans have never been afraid of a challenge. In fact, we thrive on them, whether it's eradicating polio or going to the moon. We don't run from a challenge. We take it head on.

To the incoming administration and Congress, I say to you, we need immediate public transparency. And this hearing is an important step on that journey. If we approach the UAP topic in the same way as we as Americans have met other challenges, we can restore our faith in our government institutions. together we can usher in a new era of accountable government and scientific discovery. I believe that we as Americans can handle the truth, and I also believe the world deserves the truth. Thank you, esteemed members of Congress for your time today. It is profoundly appreciated by many.

Thank you. I ask unanimous consent for Representatives Ogles of Tennessee and Bobert of Colorado to be waived onto the subcommittee for today's joint subcommittee hearing for the purpose of asking questions without objection, so order. I would now like to recognize Mr. Schellenberger for his introductory remarks. Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Connolly, Ranking Member Garcia, members of the subcommittees, thank you for inviting my testimony. One of Congress's most important responsibilities is oversight of the executive branch in general and the military and intelligence community in particular.

Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence that the U.S. government is not being transparent about what it knows about unidentified anomalous phenomena, and that, elements within the military and the IC are in violation of their constitutional duty to notify Congress of their operations. President-elect Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama have both said that the government has information about UAPs that it has not released. There are other explanations for UAPs than that they represent a new form of life or non-human life. Current dominant alternative theories, including those put forward by ARO, or that UAPs are some kind of natural phenomena we don't yet understand like ball lightning or plasma. They could also be

part of some new U.S. or foreign government weapons programs such as drones, aircraft, balloons, CGI, hoaxes or birds. Whatever UAPs are, Congress must be informed as must the people of the United States. We have a right to know what UAPs are no matter what they are. However, we now have existing and former U.S. government officials who have told Congress that Arrow and the Pentagon have broken the law by not revealing a significant body of information about UAPs, including military intelligence databases that have evidence of their existence as physical craft. One of those individuals is a current or former U.S. government official acting as a UAP whistleblower. This person has written a report. This is the report that says the executive branch has been managing UAP

NHI issues without congressional knowledge, oversight, or authorization for some time, quite possibly decades. Furthermore, these individuals have revealed the name of an active and highly secretive DoD unacknowledged special access program or USAP. The source of that document told public me that the USAP is a strategic intelligence program that is part of the US military family of longstanding, highly sensitive programs done with various aspects of the UAP problem. The new UAP whistleblower claims that the U.S. military and IC database includes videos and images taken using infrared, forward-looking infrared, full motion video, and still photography. The report that was just shared with Congress says Immaculate Constellation serves as a central or parent USAP that consolidates observations of

UAPs by both tasked and untasked collection platforms. Immaculate constellation includes high-quality imagery intelligence and measurement and signature intelligence of UAPs, the whistleblower's report adds. The sources of this intelligence are a blend of directed and incidental collection capacities, capabilities, positioned in low Earth orbit, the upper atmosphere, as well as military and civilian aviation altitude and marine time environments. The report to Congress details in detail various UAPs, including spheres, orbs, disc, saucers, ovals, triangles, boomerang, arrowhead, and irregular organic. The report describes various incidents found in the human intelligence databases. One involved orbs surrounding enforcing an F-22 out of its patrol area. In another incident, the crew of a Navy aircraft

carrier watched a small orange-red sphere rapidly descend from a high altitude of 100-200 yards directly above the flight deck of the CVN or aircraft carrier. And since my reporting on this immaculate constellation last month, another source came forward who told me that they saw a roughly 13-minute long, high-definition, full-color video of a white orb UAP coming out of the ocean approximately 20 miles off the coast of Kuwait. It was filmed from a helicopter. Then halfway through the video, the person said the orb is joined by another orb that briefly comes in to the frame from the left before rapidly moving again out of the frame. The person discovered the video on SIPR, the secure internet protocol router network,

which the DOD uses to transmit classified information. A leading UAP researcher who utilizes the Freedom of Information Act to find out what the government knows, John Greenwald, told me last year that the U.S. government had been increasingly denying his request for UAP information. He has been doing FOIA requests for 27 years and has an archive of 3 million pages. The government has for decades denied any interest in UFOs, he told me, but the documents that he has assembled show that behind the scenes it was a completely different story. Contrary to the hopes of many advocates of transparency, the government has been restricting more

information since the leak of three UAP videos in 2017. The DoD Organization Arrow has been labeling many documents with a B7 exemption, which Greenwald says does not make any sense. They're stating that anything Arrow does is involved in law enforcement investigation, which allows Arrow to not release it. Greenwell says the DOD has denied the existence of a UAP and ATIP-related records on multiple occasions, only to acknowledge them after an appeal was filed. He added that the Naval Air Systems Command in March 2022 stated they found no additional UAP videos. It seems strange that they had three, and only those three, but other requests had been filed by the Black Vault, that's John Greenwald's group, to seek out more places

UAPs might be hiding. Then in September 2022, the Navy admitted that the UAP-related video, and photographs existed, but deny the request in full for their release, saying that the requested videos contain sensitive information that are classified and exempt from disclosure. The DOD will deny things on a Monday and then admit to it on a Friday, said Greenwald. He said the government can and does release videos that protect secret methods of capturing it. They fall back on the sensitive platform excuse a lot. He said, however, the on-screen information can be blurred and scrub. The metadata can be removed. I'll show you this example here.

This is a presentation from the UATP task force. This is completely absurd. It's nuts, this level of censorship, of redaction on a document. It shows the redaction of how many reports they've collected. For how many years, two of the three potential explanations are blacked out. The Pentagon, the intelligence community is treating us like children. It's time for us to know the truth about this. I think that we can handle it.

Thank you very much. Thank you. I would now like to recognize Mr. Gold for five minutes. Thank you, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Goughman, ranking members of Connolly and Garcia, Representative Moskowitz, and distinguished members of both subcommittees. I'm grateful to all of you, as well as your intrepid staff, for the opportunity to testify, and would like to begin by discussing courage. Courage is what it takes to tackle this topic.

And courage, in the face of adversity is what I see in front of me, beside me, and behind me. For my introduction, I am currently the chief growth officer at Redwire Space and have had several leadership positions at NASA. That being said, I want to be clear that I'm speaking exclusively on my own behalf and not for Redwire, NASA, or any other organization. However, I am here today to speak out for science. Science requires data, which should be collected without bias or prejudice. Yet, whenever the topic of UAP arises, those who wish to explore the phenomena are often confronted with resistance and ridicule. For example, members of the NASA UAP independent study team, particularly those in academia, were mocked and even threatened for simply having the temerity

to engage in the study of UAP. Our best tool for unlocking the mystery of UAP is science, but we cannot conduct a proper inquiry if the stigma is so overwhelming that just daring to be part of a NASA research team elicits such a vitriolic response. Therefore, one of the most important actions that can be taken relative to exposing the truth of UAP is to combat the stigma. And this is where I believe that NASA can be eminently helpful. The NASA brand is synonymous with hope, optimism, and credibility. If you were to take a walk down the national mall, you would immediately see the NASA logo

on T-shirts, hats, and bumper stickers. Few federal agencies enjoy this kind of popularity. I've never seen anyone wearing an Office of Personal Management T-shirt, which is why NASA could play such an influential role. Specifically, NASA could, with relatively little cost and effort, host symposia on UAP, or even just participate in existing panels examining the topic. NASA personnel stepping forward and participating in such discussions would make a powerful statement to the scientific community

that UAP should be taken seriously and researched accordingly. In regard to research, NASA has vast archives, much of which may contain important UAP data. Again, for relatively little cost and effort, NASA could create an AI or ML algorithm that could search the agency's archives for anomalous phenomena. I suspect that such an effort would not only result in information that will help us to understand UAP,

but could result in data that will assist in other areas of scientific inquiry, such as anomalous weather or meteorite activity. Beyond its existing archives, NASA could act as a clearinghouse for civilian and commercial UAP data. during my work on the UAP Independent Study Team, it quickly became evident that there is no clear or well-publicized process for civilian pilots to report UAP sightings. The stigma associated with UAP hampers the number of pilots that would report such phenomena, but even for those who overcome the stigma, I believe the current FAA guidance is largely

unknown and poorly understood. In order to effectively collect UAP data, the independent study team recommended the use of NASA's aviation safety reporting system, or ASRS. This system, which is administered by NASA and funded by the FAA, provides a confidential means for the reporting of safety violations in a voluntary and non-punitive manner. Over 47 years, the ASRS has collected nearly two million reports. ASRS is the perfect tool to collect UAP data, which could then be collated by NASA and shared with the public at large. Leveraging ASRS could create a treasure trove of UAP data, potentially hundreds of thousands of reports, supporting this hearing's goal of exposing the truth. And I'm grateful to our two co-chairs and other members who have already incorporated this idea

into proposed legislation. At this hearing, and as others have demonstrated, the UAP issue is justifiably dominated by national security and defense. However, I would urge the subcommittees to keep in mind the numerous ways that NASA and the FAA, as well as commercial activities in the air in space and in the water, can generate a massive amount of invaluable data on anomalous phenomena. I cannot help but be excited by the potential for such an endeavor since scientific discovery is driven by anomalies. It's the existence and study of anomalies that led to the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and nearly all of humanity's scientific breakthroughs. This is why the study of UAPs should be embraced since whatever is occurring, the chance to garner new knowledge should never

be ignored. We must be thorough in collecting information, fearless, and making conclusions, and open to following the data, no matter how mundane or extraordinary the results may be. I began this testimony by praising the Joint Subcommittee members for their courage, and I will end by echoing that sentiment. As the saying goes, the truth is out there. We just need to be bold enough and brave enough to face it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. I will now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. I have a lot of questions and I have a lot of witnesses. So I would just ask if it's yes or no to please just tell me yes or no. If it requires more than that, be very succinct because I would like to go down the line and ask as many questions as possible. So

for the admiral this morning first. Former DOD official Chris Mellon reached out to you about satellite imagery from 2017 that depicts a UAP. What were the dates in 2017 when this occurred? I can't share with you the details, ma'am, but I can do it in a closed setting, and I can also tell you the agency that wrote a report on it. Okay, so who has the imagery? I can tell you that in the closed setting. Can you describe what was depicted in the satellite imagery? Just a description.

It was a UAP, ma'am. That's it. No other description. The term that the analysts used, they call it the button. It was a disk-shaped object. Okay. Where was it? I can't tell you that, ma'am.

Okay. All right. Mr. Alizando, you stated in your testimony that, quote, advanced technologies not by our government or any other government are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe, end quote. If these technologies are not made by any government, who's making it? them. Private companies, or are you implying they are crafted by a non-human intelligence? Well, ma'am, that's precisely why we're here. The problem is that temporally speaking over decades, not just the last 10 years. To put this in perspective, are these private companies you're implying or is this non-human intelligence?

It may be both. When it comes to Blue Force Technologies, I would not be able to discuss. Okay. Are you read into secret UAP crash retrieval programs? We would have to have a conversation in a close session, ma'am. I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss specifically crash retrievals. I submitted for my book through the DOPHR process, which took a year to be reviewed. And what is in the book is what I was told I'm allowed to talk about. Has the government conducted secret UAP crash retrieval programs? Yes or no.

Yes. Okay. Were they designed to identify and reverse engineer alien craft? Yes or no. Yes. Does the U.S. government have any reverse? Okay, I already say that question about retrieval programs. Do any U.S. contractors have the same?

I would prefer to address on a closed session, ma'am. Okay. In your book, you mentioned government employees who've been injured by UAPs, placed on leave and receiving government compensation for their injuries. Is that correct? That is correct. How can the government deny we have recovered craft if they're paying people because they've been injured by recovered craft? Ma'am, that's a great question. That's why I think we're here again, because I've seen the documentation by the U.S. government for several of these individuals

who have sustained injuries as a result of a UAP incident. It's a crazy idea, right, the hypocrisy and the logic. Okay, Mr. Schellenberger, I'm going to say it again, to be very clear, Immaculate Constellation. What's its mission and how are they funded? Its mission is to, as I stated, its mission is to, it's an unacknowledged special access program. Its mission is to document UAPs.

Okay, and do you, for your story and your report, do you have more than one credible source? I do. Sourcing? Okay. And then why do you believe your sources to be credible? How do you judge the veracity of the documentation you've been provided about this program? I checked the sources and they are who they say they are. They are current or former government officials.

I should also, I wanted to also add that I did not specify that they were Defense Department employees. I didn't specify the agency nor the gender. Would they have included non-government employees, people that aren't employed by the government? These are, I'm comfortable saying that these are government or previously government employees. Any of them currently employed by a private contractor or private contractors? I'd rather not say. Okay. What's the key takeaway?

Just a few seconds about the Immaculate Constellation document you provided us today. I think that what the American people need to know is that the U.S. military and intelligence community are sitting on a huge amount of visual and other information, still photos, video photos, other sensor information, and they have for a very long time. And it's not those fuzzy photos and videos that we've been given those very clear high resolution. How many, how many visuals, graphics, videos, photos? I mean, I've been told hundreds, you know, maybe thousands. I mean, I also wanted to say because there was some, there was some conversation around

concern around the revealing of these materials, revealing the source collections, but some of these are shot from helicopters using normal videos of oceans. I just think that's absurd, that somehow you're going to be revealing some secret U.S. technology by revealing that you've photographed orbs off the coast of Kuwait. Okay, thank you have eight seconds. Mr. Gold. Did NASA, the NASA independent study team get briefed on what you call ASAP very quickly? I flagged the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System application program to our chair and our DFO. We did not get briefed. But I believe it is definitely worth looking into.

That was probably the largest UAP review effort ever. And I think it used a lot of interest data, including revealing Nimitz. I don't know if my fellow witness, Lou might want to. He did yeoman's work on it. Might want to comment. Okay. All right. I'm going to turn to Mr. Moskowitz.

We would be recognized for five minutes of questioning. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman. So Mr. Gold, you gave a whole diatribe for a couple of minutes about UAPs, science, data collection, stigma. A lot of non-believers in all of this would just ask a very simple question. Why? Why is it so hard? Right. Like, why are people, anytime they ask, why are they always thwarted? Why are they always judged? Why is they always have misinformation spread, why is there always retribution? Why is it always met with an ear? What's the why? If it doesn't exist, why is it such a problem? I think if you go through the history of science representative,

it is always difficult for breakthroughs and new information, regardless of whether it's UAP or any other kind of discovery. And in science, we're supposed to be open. But when you break with the orthodoxy of what's believed, whether it's Galileo, saying that the earth doesn't rotate or the earth rotates around the sun or the sun doesn't rotate around the earth. It's always challenging for new beliefs. And the more extraordinary those discoveries than the more extraordinary of those new beliefs, it's very difficult. So I think this is natural. There's natural conservatism that when it comes to science, but this issue in particular has been very difficult where, again, even to attempt to study it becomes problematic. But every hearing like this, every news report,

every video, documentaries, I was privileged to be part of something Dan Farr is putting together. I think many of us have interviewed for it, documentary over 30 different government officials. Every brick in the wall will help get us closer to getting to the truth. I appreciate that. Mr. Elizando, do I have that correct? Sir. I'm a recovering lawyer, so I want to put my hat on for a second. You said you signed a document.

Love that. Who gave that to you? The U.S. government, sir. Okay. You have a copy of it? It is stored in a skiff right now. I do not have possession of it. The U.S. government does.

What department of the U.S. government gave you this document? I will say the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, I can't say in this forum much more than that. You specifically said the document said you can't talk about crash retrieval. Well, you know, you can't talk about fight club if there's no fight club. Correct. Okay, I'm just making an observation. Yes, sir.

So that document that you signed, that you said exists, specifically said you can't talk about crash retrieval. Correct, sir. It was a limitation on what I, because already I had been speaking publicly about the topic. And so the document said you can continue saying XYZ, but you cannot discuss the topic. When you, give me, give me the atmosphere of signing this document. You're in a room by yourself? I'm in a skiff with a security officer, sir. Just one on one, anybody else? There may have been an assistant as well. It was in a skiff within a department of defense facility. Give me your background real quick.

My background is I went to school to study microbiology and immunology, entered into the U.S. Army, and after a very short stint in military intelligence, I became a counterintelligence special agent. As a civilian, later on, it became a special agent in charge, running investigations in counterterrorism and counterespionage primarily, with some experience in counterinsurgency and counter narcotics. And then in 2009, time frame, when I came back to the Pentagon after a tour with the Director of National Enstron, intelligence. I quickly became part of a program that was originally called ASAP that evolved into the program now called ATIP, which is where those videos that we now see, we're at the GoFAST, the gimbal, the FLIR. That was part of our efforts, sir.

Right. So you're not some conspiracy theorist. You actually have a legitimate background. Well, sir, I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist. I'm fact-based, just a fact-stam. So when you're in this room, I want to paint the picture of everybody. You're in this room, you're by yourself, you're in a skiff, you're handed a document. How long is the document? It's about a page front and back. So basically you have some things they call trigraphs, which I cannot, again, talk to. How long were you given to sign the document? As long as I needed, sir.

And what if you didn't sign it? Well, I suspect there would be repercussions. I wouldn't have access to certain information. Were you allowed to conduct, ask a lawyer, or weren't allowed to talk, weren't allowed to ask for a lawyer to review the document? It wasn't an option, but they probably wouldn't have allowed me to because the document itself is pretty explicit about, you have. to be, put him in an interest, let me try to thread a needle here. There are certain documents

that we have in the U.S. government that allow people to have access to certain programs, whether it's a special, and I'm going to be very generic here, whether it's a special access program or controlled access program, SAP, CAP, whatnot. How many people have to sign that document? It depends how many people are going to get access to the information, sir. Okay. Last question. Doctor, real quick, can you tell us about the Omaha incident in greater detail? I've read your background, right? Some people would label you as a member of the deep state, since you worked in government for a long period of time. But can you tell us more about that incident? You've written a lot about that. I wrote a lot about incidents like it, Congressman, but that specific incident

involved in the U.S. is Omaha, the Tor, the Tor Combat Ship of the U.S. Navy operating off southern California. I don't remember the exact date. It was within the last decade. And what the watchstanders on the bridge observed was a UAP, again, something that was aloft but had no observable exhaust or control surfaces. So it was something that couldn't be explained. And then they saw it enter the water from the atmosphere and going through the air sea interface. And so with us exhibiting transmedium travel. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr. Grossman for five minutes of questioning. Yeah, we'll start with Mr. Galladadad. During a previous UAP hearing, Navy commander David Fravor discussed the TikTok object engaged in 2004.

You're familiar with the incident, the TikTok incident? Yes, sir. That's almost 20 years ago, right? Yes, sir. It's been said there are more videos, documents, and reports related to this incident. Do you believe the information regarding the TikTok incident should be available to all members of Congress and in your expertise? What reason would the Department of Defense possibly have for not release?

releasing information that's over 20 years old. Thank you, Congressman. I don't think there's any good reason to withhold information and important data, especially of national security concern from Congress. What would they say? I will speculate, sir, that they don't want to share that kind of information because it reveals weaknesses and our ability to monitor and protect our airspace. Okay.

In your written testimony, you claimed last year's UAP hearing before this Oversight Committee confirm that UAP-related information is, well, it's not only being withheld, but the elements of the government are engaging in a disinformation campaign to include personal attacks designed to discredit UAP whistleblowers. Could you elaborate on that statement a little? Yes, sir. Earlier this year, I met with the DOD's All-Domain Anomily Resolution Office, and what I thought would be a 90-minute meeting just to meet with leadership,

turned out to be an hours-long influence operation on me, where I was, they attempted to convince me of the validity of the very flawed and error-ridden historical records report. In addition, they tried to have me question very valid UAP reports like the Tick-TAC incident. And even coming to stating possibly that the TICTAC was American technology. And then, of course, if you asked David Fravor, Alex Dietrich, the two witnesses, they were convinced it was otherwise. And then, and they also cast this credit on various UAP whistleblowers and witnesses to question their validity and credibility as witnesses. Okay. We'll go to Mr. Ilazando. I hope I got that right or not at least not that.

Yes, sir. You're familiar with the recent drone incursion over Langley Air Force Base? Yes, sir. The owners of these drones remain unclear. The U.S. military has not been able to give us in Congress and answer, given your experience in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, how frequently are UAP sightings over military installations? And secondly, I suppose hypothetically you could have incursions over just, say, regular airports.

Is it obvious these incursions are more likely over military facilities than just a random airport out there? there. Yes, sir. There's definitely enough data to suggest that there is certainly some sort of relationship between sensitive U.S. military installations, also some of our nuclear equities, and also some of our Department of Energy sites. There is a long historical record that some of your colleagues may have documentation that demonstrates this. This is not a new trend. This has been going on for decades, and that information has been obfuscated, unfortunately, from from folks like you in this committee. And I think that's problematic

because ultimately at the end of the day, we have a significant situation here. We have something that can enter into US airspace completely with no attribution. And how long has this been going on? Sir, decades. And there's information that will hopefully be entered into the record. Can you think of any possible reason

why they can't release any information they have on something, say, 15 or 20 years old? Sir, if I could echo my colleague here, Admiral Gallaudet, I think one of the big issues that we have in the Intelligence Community Department of Defense We don't want to broadcast any potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in our national defense systems or our intelligence collection platforms. Therefore, when you have a conversation where you address a problem for which there is no solution, it makes that a very uncomfortable conversation to have. Okay, we'll switch to Mr. Schellenberger.

The primary reason you're here today is because you published an article on the news publications you own called public, right? alleging that a new unnamed government whistleblowers come forward asserting that a highly classified program exists dedicated to recovery and reverse engineering of UAP technologies. What can give us what specific evidence you have or that your source provided you to substantiate the claims about the existence of the Immaculate Constellation Program? Well, you have the report in front of you now, so you can see it for yourself. But what I checked the report, and I did not find it based on existing cases. It was new cases for me. I couldn't, at least I hadn't found anybody. So that answered for me that it was not obviously circular reporting,

which is one of the big concerns in the space. I also had the name of the program confirmed by more than one additional source. So, yeah, and then, of course, I checked to make sure that the source was who they claimed to be. Okay. I should also say that when I said before it was this database, it is a much broader program. That also includes human intelligence, and then, as you mentioned, the retrieval and the... Any knowledge of what country these things originated in? No. No, I have no idea.

Okay. Okay, I will now recognize Mr. Burchett for five minutes of questions. Thanks, Chair Lady. Our question is consent to enter into the record documents provided to us regarding legacy UAP programs and psychological operations. Lou Alizondo. So ordered. I also wanted to thank my buddy, Jeremy Corbell, for writing these documents and access to some whistleblowers. Mr. Alizondo, what is the last position, your last position with the federal government? Sir, I was the director of national program special management staff managing a White House special access program on behalf of the National Security Council. How would you characterize UAPs?

An enigma, sir, and a frustration. We're talking. about technologies that can outperform anything we have in our inventory. And if this was an adversarial technology, this would be an intelligence failure eclipsing that of 9-11 by an order of magnitude. Are there classified Department of Defense materials related UAPs that you believe could be safely disclosed to the public without compromising national security? Yes, sir, I do. I would never ever try to endorse providing some sort of information that could compromise what we call it blue force technology or capability. But I do believe there's a lot of information regarding this topic and I've been very vocal about it that should be shared not only

with the public, but most importantly, with members of Congress. Are you familiar with my friend David Grush? Absolutely, sir. I had the privilege and honor of working with him myself several years ago at US Space Force. Last year, as you know, he testified that the U.S. has run a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program. Would you agree with that? Yes, sir. Are there UAP programs operating without proper congressional oversight? 100%. What are they? Unfortunately, sir, I would have to have that conversation in a close session.

I know you said that. A lot of people are frustrated with those kind of answers, but we're asking those kind of questions, so you all know what the heck we're up against. You also mentioned your opening statement that the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office employs the psychological operations officers, the singular point of conduct for UAP related inquiries. Why the heck would they do that?

Sure, that's a great question. I would ask the Pentagon. There's a long history here of that individual providing misleading and false information to the public through various news outlets and media outlets in order to discredit this topic. I have personally been victim to it. We have the documentation to substantiate where this information has been absolutely inaccurate that has been provided time and time again. And it turns out that that individual was also working with former leadership of Arrow at the time as well.

And we punish them by giving them. them multi-million dollars more than they asked for every year. Admiral Gallaudet, you mentioned in your opening statement on an email you received from the operations officer of the fleet forces command regarding unknown objects, almost colliding with U.S. military planes. Did anyone respond with knowledge of what the objects were? I received no response, sir. Did the operation, did the exercise get canceled?

The exercise did not get canceled. Why do you think the commander of fleet forces operations officer never discussed the incident again? Sir, I'm speculating because I didn't have an exchange with him, but I believed it to be part of a special access program, the information and the video, which we have known now it was. And he realized he couldn't share that openly with the recipients of the email, and therefore the email was pulled from everybody's account. Again, tell us what happened to the email from the commander of fleet forces. The day after I received it and all the other recipients received it, which were all the subordinate commanders of U.S. fleet forces, so one and two-star admirals. including strike group commanders. The email was wiped or deleted from our accounts.

Okay. And then no one talked about it. All right. Have you specifically had any experience with submersible objects? Sir, I'm not, no personal experience, but I've had witnesses on submarines come to me and say they've seen on sonar data. Correct. How would you characterize those and how do they move?

The one instance that was revealed to me was in the 80s on a nuclear-powered submarine, a ballistic missile submarine, that the object exhibited the characteristics of a Russian torpedo in terms of its speed of movement and closing rate with a submarine, and then it slowed and followed the submarine slowly in its wake for a period of minutes and then rapidly exited the scene. And nothing that we know of and technology-wise could replicate that. The speed of these objects was faster than anything that we have or anybody else has that would be manned. Is that correct? It was on the order of a torpedo. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. But as it exited, I don't exactly know how fast a torpedo is, but I suspect it does better than my old outboard's got at water.

So I'll take that as a yes. Okay. Have you experienced any experience with the All-Demain Anomily Resolution Office Arrow? Yes, Congressman. as I mentioned previously, I have met with them. Okay. You heard Mr. Alexander described psychological operations for those contacting the Department of Defense about UAPs.

You mentioned a similar influence operation by Arrow. Why are federal agencies invested in running information operations about UAPs if they do not exist? Yes, sir. But I'll make a statement on Arrow's behalf. They have new leadership. The office has reached out to me to meet again. And I take that as a good faith effort, and we'll see where that goes. Thank you, Chairlady.

I've run over. Thank you, Mr. Tennessee. I would now like to recognize Mr. Higgins. You're the king in Tennessee. Mr. Higgins, you recognize for five minutes of questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Elizondo, Mr. Schellenberger, notes in the report that we've been given for this hearing. I believe Mr. Schellenberg, let me shift you with all.

of this report? I'm sorry, sorry, I'm not the author. Mr. Schellenberger. Were you the author of this report? No, I was not. No. Do you know the author? I do.

You do. And how would you estimate that, that madam or gentleman, the author? The person is a current or former U.S. government employee. And it stays here that this is the public version of the author's report. Yes. So where might one find the non-public version of the author's report? I don't know the answer to that. Would that be with the Department of Defense?

I don't know. But you do know the author. I do. You know what the author's sources were? The author's sources are described in the report, these databases, the Immaculate Consolation. But you expressed some confidence in the sources. I would. Earlier in testimony.

you express confidence. So do you know those sources? I do. Are they within the Department of Defense? I can't say. You can't say or you won't say? I won't say. Okay, why not?

Because I protect my sources and I think the reason. But you're not naming them. It's a big department. Many of us on my side of they are always say it's far too big. So you're talking about the Department of Defense sources from within the Department of Defense? I'm not willing to reduce. the potential universe of where my sources might be. Okay, moving on.

In this report, Mr. Elizondo, for reference, several types of allegedly alien craft or possibly alien craft or unknown aerial phenomena, what we used to call UFOs or describe. Spheres and orbs, disc and saucers, oval or tic-tac, triangular shape, Boomerang and Arrowhead and irregular or organic.

Mr. Elizandos, is that summarized to you the types of craft that we're discussing today? So that is a general morphology, historically speaking, of UAP. Okay. So those descriptions are very different craft. Is it your assessment that they would come of different origins? It's possible that this also could be a matter of utility. And let me just stay for the record. I never read the report or the article that Mr. Schellenberger put out. That's a good point.

We're just referencing it for descriptive purposes for the American people. Mr. Schellenberger, in this report, it's striking to me that regarding the descriptions of experiences with these various craft, several of them, include biological effects and several do not. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about? Yes. Okay, so spheres and orbs, triangular craft, and irregular or organic craft, include some descriptions of biological effects,

including feelings of unease, electronic device malfunctions, long-term psychological effects, such as anxiety or insomnia, have been noted, feeling of being watched, a shared awareness with the triangle craft, and under the irregular and organic craft, biological effects include physical sensations of warmth, of cold, and unexplained smells, and psychological distress. So these are very specific descriptions of the reaction.

of human beings, which allegedly have been noted from a study here, a report, all of those experiences would have been described by the sources that the author used. I'm not sure I understand. This is a very broad description of biological effects. And it's striking to me that they are present with relationships. to some types of craft, but absent in others. This would require a great deal of research and study. Can you explain that?

My understanding is that the database is very large. It includes both the images, the videos, the still images, as well as the human intelligence, the reports, the raw data from individuals having these experiences. So in answer your question, yeah, I mean, I think we're looking at a very large amount of data collected over many decades. And that data is held by the Department of Defense? Well, I will say that after I published, I was told that this program that the USAP was actually managed by the Department of Defense but held at the White House.

But that's a single source and I don't have multiple sources to verify that. Thank you, sir. I did my best to trick an answer out of you. I was partially successful, Madam Chair, I.U. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Frost for five minutes of questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to serving on this committee, the oversight committee, I also serve on the Science Space and Technology Committee, where we often discuss how essential data and evidence are used in science and use at departments such as NASA. During a hearing, NASA administrator Nelson affirmed the importance

of NASA and helping us to understand UAP. Mr. Gold. If the government doesn't have the data it needs on UAP because, say, someone who saw something is concerned about stigma, public backlash, et cetera, or maybe there's just not good systems in place, how are we supposed to ultimately figure out what's going on? Yeah, thank you for the question. And let me compliment Administrator Nelson that there wouldn't have been a UAP independent study team if it wasn't for his leadership and courage. we're talking about data and where we can get data from. As I described, NASA has whole archives of data, much of which I believe will likely have information that will help inform UAP. We need only look. And again, in an era with AI and ML, we can relatively quickly and easily go through it. So I think it's something that we should encourage NASA to do. However, per Chairman Groffman's comment about UAP focusing on national security sites, I believe there's something

that you may have heard of called sensor bias, that because we've got more cameras, more monitoring of national security, we don't know how extensive UAP activity may be over civilian areas. And this is to the second part of your question where we're not collecting the data. We're not collecting sufficient data from pilots.

We're not collecting sufficient data from civilian and commercial activities. And this is, again, where ASRS, I think, could substantially change that, get the data out there and allow us to do good science. Thank you. I mean, on the data, I'm a really big proponent of transparency.

But obviously, there's always a little bit of balance that we have to have in government on transparency as well. I mean, last year, NASA appointed a director of UAP research and response to the recommendation by the independent study team. In the final report, there's a quote, despite numerous accounts and visuals, the absence of consistent, detailed, and curated observations means we do not presently have the body of data needed

to make definite and scientific conclusions about UAP. Can you just talk really quickly about that balance of security and transparency? So I can say, having served at NASA, it is the most transparent organization I've ever been in. When we would have conversations of executive leadership, things would leak out almost instantly. So I can assure you intentionally or not, NASA is very transparent. I don't know if many of you've worked with engineers or scientists. They love to talk. So I believe that NASA is a paradigm of transparency, but we must have the ability and the data to be able to be transparent with.

And if we're not gathering that, if not looking at it, then we can't bring NASA into the game and get to that good science that you need. You know, it was about a year ago I was touring a facility with a pretty senior government official. we went by a certain hangar and they said, yeah, that's, you know, a company leases that out. We don't really know what's going on in there. We have no way of knowing what's going on in there. And there was a few of those, in fact, while we were driving around this facility. To what extent do you think that some of the UAP out there comes from off the books or unauthorized experimental aircraft? I mean, I think probably the vast majority of UAP are drones, experimental aircrafts,

weather conditions, which is again why I say if we review the data, I think we're going to discover a lot about things we weren't even thinking about. But there is a percentage that isn't. And looking into those anomalies is how discoveries will be made. And relative to science, Congressman, if I can say, when NASA studies black holes, when NASA studies galaxies, we have instruments that are tailored to do so. With UAP, we're using cockpit gun cameras or cell phones. We could never do good science with that. And let me tell you that NASA budget is under pressure.

We need to make sure that the Artemis program is funded fully. We need to beat China to the moon and maintain our presence in low Earth orbit. So NASA would need more money to do this, but I think tailored instruments that would look at UAP in the same way that we have tailored instruments to look at astronomical data is important to gathering valuable and uniform information. If we were studying black holes by using fighter cockpit cameras, we probably wouldn't know that much about black. 100%. Well, I think it's important that federal leaders take the necessary steps to ensure that UAP does not pose threats to the American public as well and that we have the necessary budgets to collect this data so we can actually see what's going on. And I'm fully supportive of funding the Artemis mission. I think it's very important.

Also, a personal note, the pilot is a frat brother. of mine. He is a member of the 5-Beta Sigma Fraternity, and so I would love to see my fraternity make it to the moon. Redwire is building the cameras for Artemis, so we will take some pictures of your frat brother and get them. There we go. Thank you so much. I yield back. Thank you. I will now recognize Ms. Luna for five minutes of questioning. Mr. Elizondo, to your knowledge, can you name the country and around time frame

that the first back-engineered UAP program started? Madam, unfortunately, I would not be able to have that conversation in public. Can anyone on the panel name that? None of you? This next question is for Mr. Gallaudet. To your knowledge, have any USOs ever outpaced our submarines? Yes, ma'am. At what magnitude?

I don't have the exact speed, but again, a witness came to me, a credible former submarine officer who observed it on sonar data. And this was in the 80s in the North Atlantic during a storm, and it outpaced his submarine by orders of magnitude. Are you aware of any hotspots that currently exists off our shores in North America? Not with sufficiently credible data, ma'am. Okay, we've heard reports of there potentially being hotspots, maybe enter and entry and exit points.

Have you heard of any of that? I have not, ma'am, but my colleague here, Mr. Elizondo, does discuss some USO activity that he's observed in certain DOD databases. Mr. Elizondo, in regards to these aircraft being piloted by whatever they might be non-human biologics, would you agree that it's likely that they are being piloted by some mind-body connection? Madam, I think it is safe to presume here that they are being intelligently controlled because they, some cases, seem to anticipate our maneuvers. And in other cases, they seem to, and I came across an email where the word stocked was used in a very secure email between Navy officers discussing their ships being pursued by a UAP. In our previous panel, we had Grush, and he had testified to say that some of these were interdimensional beings. Can you speak on that at all?

Ma'am, I'm not qualified certainly as a scientist or otherwise to speculate points of origin. I looked at everything from a scientific perspective. So if you look at, for example, instantaneous acceleration, which was one of the observables of the program that I belong to, ATIP, the human body can withstand about 9G forces for a short period of time before you suffer negative biological consequence. is blackouts and ultimately red outs and even death. Comparison, our best technology, the F-16, which is one of this older platform, but one of our most highly maneuverable aircraft,

manned aircraft made by General Dynamics, can perform about 17 or 18 G-forces before you start having structural failure, meaning that the airframe begins to disintegrate where you're flying. The vehicles we're talking about are performing in excess of 1,000, 2,000 to 3,000 Gs. So are you, I guess, Would it be safe to infer that they're living breath?

You know, I'm not prepared at this point to state for the record is something alive or not, because even that definition is there was a time in science. We thought that life required oxygen, and we now know that's not true. There are anaerobic bacteria that thrive in oxygen environments that lack oxygen. And also same with photosynthesis. When I was in college, it was told everything is derived from photosynthesis. as a form of energy. In reality, that's not true.

There are things that live off of chemosynthesis. So we're constantly having to reevaluate our understanding what the definition of life is. Do any of you ever come across reports from people that claim to have firsthand experiences with these entities, whatever they might be, or these aircraft, and then as a result, whether or not they're religious,

find that these things will automatically disappear? Anyone, this is open to any of you on the panel? So just real quick, because I'm running out of time. Lou? Ma'am, I've always been a nuts and bolts kind of guy when I was at A-Tip. I was focusing more on the performance characteristics and less on the potential occupants. Okay. The reason I ask is because it seems like just based on our conversations that we've had people

that say that they are good and bad of whatever these things are. And so my concern from a national security perspective is, is A, that true? B, are you guys hearing reports of that? and see, I think moving forward in regards to technology, Mr. Gold, if you can answer this real quickly, some of these aircraft, it seems that they are operating off of energy that we don't currently have. But just yes, no, in your opinion, if we were able to obtain that, would that impact humanity for the better or negative? It would certainly save us some money on funding on Artemis.

Definitely. This is a national security issue that if there is such technology out there, we're not the only country that might have access to it. We don't want to be on the wrong end of technological surprise. Okay. you guys for your time. All right. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Garcia for five minutes. Thank you. I apologize for stepping out. My governor is here upstairs, so I'm trying to get in between meetings, so I apologize for that. I want to just start by just asking everyone on the panel

witnesses, and I had a chance to read all the testimony before. But just to set the agenda, just if we can go down real briefly, do you believe, just for the record that the federal government, any part of the federal government, is knowingly concealing evidence about UAPs from the public? look. Yes, sir. 100%. Yes. Yes. Thank you. I also want to just go down the line. I know many of you have already said this, but I just for the record again, just briefly. What do you believe UAPs could be or are? Strong evidence that they are non-human higher intelligence.

I echo my colleague's comment, sir. Genuinely do not know. don't know, but we must find out. Okay, thank you. I appreciate those answers, gentlemen. I think this is obviously another remarkable hearing with just really important information, so I thank all of you for answering the questions. Admiral, I just want to go back to one thing.

Now, last year, our subcommittee heard from two retired Navy pilots, Lieutenant Ryan Graves and Commander David Fraver regarding UAPs. Actually, I think Ryan is here in the audience and been a great person to get to know and to have conversations with. He, of course, has been involved in the Safe Airspace for Americans Act with Chairman Graves, with Chairwoman Mace for UAP reporting by civilian aviation personnel. Can you discuss briefly why it's important for civilian pilots to be able to report UAPs and why these legal protections are critical for national security?

Yes, Congressman, thank you. And I did invite Ryan Graves, my guest, as I'm on his advisory board for the Americans for Safe Aerospace. and legislation that you supported and introduced, I fully support it as well. And I think it's important that more civilian pilots, commercial pilots report so we can better understand and learn and do research on UAP, as well as remove the stigma.

So more citizens report on what they observe. And also it will only contribute to aviation safety when we have a better understanding of where these UAP are, how they operate, and at what frequency and what capability level. So it's important for, for aviation safety, and it'll be important for moving science and research forward. Thank you, sir. And I just want to just reiterate to my colleagues. I mean, this is a very bipartisan piece of legislation, and we just got to continue to get this through the Congress,

and it's incredibly important that civilian pilots have the opportunity to safely report the UAPs that they are seeing or encountering in the air. And I can't express how critical this piece of what I believe is a larger collection of evidence and facts actually happen. We've been approached by pilots. I've talked to folks that have been engaged with our office and others, and there is still enormous stigma. And essentially, we don't have a system where folks are feeling free to be able to report what they're seeing. So I just want to reiterate that advocacy. Mr. Golden, your testimony, you discuss NASA's aviation safety reporting system,

a confidential non-punerity reporting mechanism. In the Safe Airspace for Americans Act, we explicitly allow for civilian reporting, of course, of UAPs. Can you explain why the NASA Task Force recommended the use of the aviation safety reporting system? The aviation safety reporting system is an existing system that is trusted, that has taken hundreds of thousands, now millions of cases. And again, recognizing budgetary constraints, this seems like the perfect way to be able to gain more data. And when it comes to the stigmaser, it's something that pilots are used to reporting on, that crew is used to reporting on. So it's a great way to get data to overcome the stigma without spending really that much more additional money

since the system exists. Thank you so much for your support of that. Thank you for what Ryan Graves does. This is a common sense means to expose the truth of UAP for the purpose of this hearing. Thank you. I just want to also add now earlier this year as part of the House Defense authorization bill, the NDA. I filed an amendment to include the UAP Disclosure Act, which would create a UAP record review board and exercise with exercise. of eminent domain over UAP related material modeled actually on the JFK assassination records collection act, which is widely known. Now, the amendment was blocked, but thankfully the Senate included the amendment by

Senator Rounds and Schumer for the UAP Disclosure Act. So I just again want to say that we should be pushing and ensuring the UAP disclosure Act, which is bipartisan and its support, should be, should move forward. And if I can just briefly also particularly Adam Roll, can you just briefly, as I close my time, explain why the UAP Disclosure Act would be critical for us international security. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I believe the UAP Disclosure Act is important for national security, as well as advancing potential socioeconomic benefits resulting from UAP research, as well as public safety as we referred to previously regarding aviation.

And this act will allow for greater transparency and open research. And that's why I'm also a member of the UAP Disclosure Fund as an advisor, as in the sole-foundation. as an advisor senior strategic advisor which is advocating for the same thank you very much i yield back all right thank you i'd like to recognize mr biggs for five minutes of questioning thank you madam chair thank you for holding this committee thank you to the witnesses uh admiral uh the video uh that is called the go fast video the email that you've talked about being deleted um i i just want to briefly cover this uh you said that the email uh the author was asking whether any of the recipients were aware of the classified technology demonstrations that it could

explain the objects that were observed. And then you said the email disappears. Then you guys have a series of meetings. The commander of fleet forces and his operations officer never discussed the incident again. Is that accurate? That's accurate, sir. And even during weekly meetings, it was never discussed again. My question for you is you were in those meetings. Did you personally hear that nothing was going on about that? Yes, sir. I was in those meetings.

Did you make inquiries about that? No, I did not, sir, because I inferred, since I had been read into other special access programs, that this UAP video was part of one that I was not read into or any of the recipients or the author of the email, and that an intelligence agency basically pulled it back and instructed the, the author of the email, hey, this is, you just conducted what they call spillage into a lower classification level. And when that's done, the procedures are basically to remove any of the communication. You're going to silo it.

So, Mr. Elizando, you said in your report and your testimony today, a government work on the UAP subject still remains classified. Excessive secrecy has led to grave misdeeds against loyal. civil servants, military personnel in the public, all to hide the fact that we are not alone in the cosmos. Fair? Yes, sir. All right. And all of you, and Mr. Schellenberger, by the way, I've read several of your books, Mr. Schellenberg, excellent stuff.

What I would say, too, is you were asked about the veracity of the author of this report. You're comfortable with veracity? Yes. Okay. And then I'll get to you in a segment Mr. Gold. We'll talk about Kunian and Lakotian scientist. advancement and our obviating that through these processes. But we'll get to that in a sec.

Because what I want to really get to is the ultimate question really becomes this, for what purpose is the federal government overclassifying, because that's what they're doing, they're overclassifying, and forbidding the public for getting access to this. And if you know, if you have an explanation, I'm curious, because I know what I've been told. I just want to know from your perspective, why do they over classify?

Mr. Elizondo, you look like your finger on the button ready to go. Yes, sir. Forgive me. I think there's several reasons. I think at the time when this reality became evident to the U.S. government, we were in the middle of the Cold War with then Soviet Union, and we did not want to tip our hands to what our knowledge base was on this topic. We did not want to broadcast that to,

Cold Wars, Cold Wars long over. It is, sir. It is, sir. There's also then the philosophical argument that the Department of Defense and the intelligence community is solution oriented. And when you don't have answers, it's a really tough spot to be in. It's easier to be quiet and suppressed than what you don't have the answer. Indeed, sir. In fact, there's a very real example when we built a U-2 spy plane and flew it over then Russia. And we're taking reconnaissance. And when we first started flying the aircraft, it flew so high and so high.

fast we thought they weren't tracking us. In reality, they were tracking every flight. It wasn't until the Russians could develop the SA2 surface-to-air missile and successfully shoot them. I would suggest to you also, along with Lakatos and Kuhn, you also have a problem with Kenneth Arrow's path dependence or increasing returns. That's one reason why they won't disclose it. It's too painful to admit. But I just want to read a couple of things from Mr. Schellenberger's what he gave to us today, because I think this is interesting stuff, and I just want to convey this to you. On USG networks, there exist infrared footage of

and imagery of a grouping of vessels engaged in significant and mass collection at night in a specific area of the Pacific Ocean. This footage, which was in close proximity to the vessels, a large equilateral triangle UAP suddenly appears directly over the ships. These three bright points are seen at each bottom corner of the UAP, which is observed to slowly rotate on its horizontal access. And he goes on to describe that. And I just want to read one more, and I'm doing this because I think it's interesting.

This stuff is interesting as anything. So let's get this one here, right here. While performing a routine airspace surveillance and control mission in the eastern air defense sector, an F-22 fighter observed multiple UAP contacts at mission altitude. moving to intercept the F-22 pilot noted multiple metallic orbs slightly smaller than a sedan hovering in place. Upon vectoring towards the UAPs, a smaller formation of the metallic orbs accelerated at rapid speed towards the F-22, which was unable to establish radar locks on the presumed hostile UAPs. The F-22 broke trajectory and attempted to evade but was intercepted and boxed in by approximately three to six UIPs.

And then I'll leave that there, but because I just have no more time left. Well, she's not looking. So let's just get into, let's, let's get into, to part of this. I thought I would be saved by the bell. You know, no, no. Let's talk about Kunian, Lakotian type of scientific development. And the problem that we have here is you have institutional blockage of what would be normal development of scientific ideas. And if you want to expand that, Mr. Gold.

We're over time to be very fast, please. I'll just say I'm a recovering attorney, so please take it easy on the science. But all breakthroughs have been heretical at first, and that's the challenge that we face, particularly with something as extraordinary as this, which is why gathering the data is so important. And I'll just end by saying, by the way, the over classification of material is in no way limited to UAP that is occurring throughout the government, as well as the inability to get people classifications in a timely and efficient manner, and then to have those classifications be broad enough to be useful. So this is a larger issue. that I hope the Congress will.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Biggs. I've been generous. All right, Mr. Burleson, I'll recognize you for five minutes of questions, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Elzondo, I,

or does any branch of the United States government or defense contractors possess technology? Sir, there's documentation that I believe was submitted for the record that was approved for release by the U.S. US Pentagon by the Department of Defense Office of Pre-publication Security Review. And it states one of the reasons why my predecessor program, OSAP, was trying to collect material of unknown origin. Was it successfully collected?

It was not. What happened is that there was an aerospace contract company that requested to divest itself of the material that was collected in 1950s. unfortunately that that didn't actually occur so let's dive into that that's the bigelow airspace correct so there was a journalist christopher sharp who who said that there was a transfer between locky martin biglow airspace and the cia allegedly blocked this can you describe that um what i can say is that it was blocked um why it was blocked i can i can only surmise. I was part of some conversations later on with some of those contract personnel where they

had told all of us that is accurate. What we required was a memo from the Secretary of the Air Force in order to make that complete, and that never occurred. And so when Secretary Mattis became Secretary of Defense, I decided it would be appropriate for me to try to receive a memo from him as SecDef, as Secretary of Defense, if we could not get a memo from the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer that material. So if that material exists today, who's in possession? Sorry, I wouldn't be able to have that conversation in an open hearing. We'd probably have to have that. Okay, my question to you then is, if we were in a secure setting, if we were in a SCIF, would you be able to provide or get access to something, whether it's visuals or material that we

can put our hands on or biologics, that would convince me. that would show me that we have non-human origins. Sir, that decision would not be mine. That would be to the gatekeeper still in the U.S. government. And who would we? So if you were in our shoes, where would you go from here? How would you get that information? How would, where, you know, a lot of times we just don't know who to ask because we don't

know where to go next. So if you were in our shoes, where would you go? Well, I prefer to answer that question in a closed session. However, we established Arrow for that very purpose. and unfortunately, under its previous leadership, it failed. So one would hope that they would have the authorities necessary to do that. Let's hope that this new iteration of leadership will be successful. In the discussions, it's simply about material, or is there a discussion about biologics?

It was previously testified that there was biologics that were collected. Are you aware of any of that? I am, sir, aware of the reporting that biologics have been recovered. Again, my focus was more nuts and bolts, looking at the physical aspects of these phenomena, how they interacted around military equities and nuclear equities. So I'm certainly not a medical expert. I would not be able to probably provide you a whole lot of value in that simply because I don't have the expertise. Was anything described as that we have possession of bodies?

Yes, yes. Is it multiple types of creatures? Sir, I couldn't answer that. I can tell you anecdotally that it was, it was. discussed quite a bit when I was at the Pentagon. The problem is the supposed collection of these biological samples occurred before my time, in fact, before I was even born. And was this part of the Lockheed Martin discussion, or was this a completely, the biologist

is a completely separate? Separate yet related. Okay. Has anyone made contact? Sir, I'm sorry, could you specify? Has there been any, to your knowledge, any communication with a non-human life form? So the term communication is a bit of a trick word because there's verbal communication like we're having now. The problem is you also have nonverbal communication.

And so I would say definitively yes, but from a nonverbal meaning, when a Russian reconnaissance aircraft comes into U.S. airspace, we scramble two F-22s, and we are certainly communicating intent and capability. I think the same goes with this. We have these things that are being observed over controlled U.S. airspace, and they're not really doing a good job hiding themselves. They're making it pretty obvious. they have the ability to even interfere with our nuclear equities and our nuclear readiness. Is the United States government and our contractors, are they pulling technology from this? They're reverse engineering this. Sir, as I previously stated, please forgive me.

I am not authorized to discuss specifics about crash retrievals. Again, I signed documentation with the U.S. government. What I can say was, after a very thorough, review process by the Pentagon, what I wrote about. And that was my limit, unfortunately, that I was given. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. I would I like to recognize Mr. Timmons for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Elizondo, you just said something interesting. You said they don't seem to be hiding. They don't seem to be hiding. The UAP sightings are becoming increasingly brash, if you will. And, you know, we've been hearing about these for years, but they've generally

been isolated and not as consistent and over critical military installations. Would you say that's fair? Is this becoming increasingly often? Is it happening more and more? Great question, sir. I'll let me see if I can answer this for you. Certainly there seems to be some indication that they're being provocative, meaning that they're in some cases literally splitting aircraft formations right down the middle. So that's an air safety issue. The question is it is it is it, is it, the frequency increasing and the really the responses it depends. Yes, it's possible that there is an increase in frequency, but it's also possible that there's heightened awareness now.

And there's also more pervasiveness of technology out there that's collecting this information that I can record this information. So we're not quite sure yet if it's actually an increase in numbers of these events. Or is it that we have better equipment now that to record these things and we have a better ability, if you will, to analyze these things. And that's my next question. It seems that a lot of these sightings occur near military installations. Do you think that these UAPs are intentionally targeting military installations,

or do you think that we have increased abilities to monitor surrounding the military installations? Sir, maybe both. Part of my concern is we have something in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community called IPB, initial preparations of the battle space. And we use equities like ISR, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, or other type of equities and technologies to prep the battle space. And certainly, you know, if I was wearing my national security hat, even if there was a 2% chance that there was some sort of hostile intent here, that's 2% higher than we really can accept.

And so we must figure out, there's a calculus, capabilities versus intent in order to identify if something is a national security threat. We've seen some of the capabilities, yet we have no idea in the intent. And so this is why this discussion is somewhat, I think, problematic from a governmental perspective because we have no idea. Sure, thank you. Mr. Schellenberger, you're particularly familiar with the Langley Air Force Base incident a year ago? Are you familiar? Just from what I read in the case.

Just from what you've read. Yeah. I would imagine a large percentage of the American population became aware of that with the Wall Street Journal article. Would you agree with that? Yes. And were you aware of that incident prior to the Wall Street Journal article? No. To the rest of the panel, was the Wall Street Journal article the first time that y'all were made aware of what was essentially an over two-week UAP frenzy over Langley Air Force Base?

Were you all aware of this prior to the Wall Street Journal article? Anybody show hands? Yes, sir. Dr. Gaiap, could you give me your, how did you become aware of it? Well, a colleague of mine who I referenced previously, Chris Mellon, he wrote an extensive article on, about this, that there were other incursions of drones over Langley before this, as well as many, many military installations over the last five decades.

And it's my understanding that there's been an ever increasing in number and trying to think how to say this because I wear two different hats. I'm still in the Air Force. So it seems that they're becoming increasingly brash and the question that we really have to figure out is, is it China or is it non-human? And I think that's the biggest question the American people want to know.

If China, it's scary because they have a lot of technology that we cannot explain. And if it's non-human, that scary because we don't know the intent. Would you say that's fair? Yes, Congressman. And in fact, I really believe that we should use this hearing as a catalyst to improve and bolster our air defense capabilities and our maritime domain awareness capabilities, because obviously there are holes in it, whether it be UAP of non-HI direction or NHI. direction or, as you say, sir, China or any other adversary.

Are you all aware of any task force at the Pentagon or in the national security apparatus that's trying to assess the answer to that question? At the current moment, sir, no, but this is a great point. From 2020 to 2022, there was a UAP task force in the DOD succeeding where Mr. Elizondo worked, led by Jay Stratton, who had the first comprehensive whole-government approach to UAP, which involved pathways to to declassification and to increase transparency, as well as assessing the national security risks of UAP. This was a really well-established approach, and we have all advocated that something like

it returned. I'm running out of time. The last thing is that we need authorities. The law enforcement military do not have authorities to actually engage, and we need to, Congress needs to act to give those authorities to local law enforcement in the military, so they have clear guidelines on how to assess these. issues going forward. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Ms. Bobert for five minutes a question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now that we have all been cautioned in this committee hearing that the mention of Pentagon's Immaculate Constellation Program could put us on a list, well, I already find myself on many lists, I'm sure. So I speak my mind often, so why not just keep going with it? May as well just go all out and say it. The earth is flat. Birds are government drones and we've never set on foot on the moon and Joe Biden received 81 million votes in the 2020 election. So let's just see how many lists we could get on here today. But Mr. Schellenberger, I wanted to ask you, I think I understand from this hearing that you would agree that classifying information like this is not in the best interest of the people.

Is that correct? Yeah, I mean, with the caveat that of course I, you know, I would support classification necessary to protect secrets essential national security, but I think it's pretty obvious that there's over classification. Over classification, yes. And so in most instances, if they can't tell us what, do you think at some point they'll at least tell us why? You know, President-elect Trump has repeatedly committed to greater transparency, both on the UAP issue, on JFK files, on COVID origins, and many of the things. So I think that we need to make sure that the next administration is held accountable for that. Agreed. And this is for all four of you. Yes or no, please. I have many questions I want to get to. Are there any known instances of recovered materials or technologies that are not of human origin and maybe connected to any advanced bioscience defense programs within the USG? I don't know.

I wouldn't be able to answer that, ma'am. I don't know. I don't know. Okay, so there are rumors that have come up to the hill of a secretive project within the Department of Defense involving the manipulation of human genetics with what is described as non-human genetic material potentially for the enhancement of human capabilities, hybrids. Are any of you familiar with that? Yes or no? No, man. I am not, ma'am. I am not.

No, ma'am. Okay, I would like to know with Immaculant Constellation, how does this relate to UAP activities, Mr. Schellenberg, in Oceanic Environments? Are there any instances where the Navy or other Marine time forces have encountered UAPs that could not be explained by known technology or natural phenomena? Yeah, the emigalic constellation covers both terrestrial and oceanic, and there's actually a number of cases described in the report that occur in the ocean. And do you believe that there is a concerted effort by the Pentagon to keep Congress out of the loop regarding these UAP activities specifically in our waters? Yes. I think it's about 5% of our ocean that's actually been studied in detail by man, and we've studied more of space than we had of our own oceans. And so are there any accounts of UAPs emerging from or submerging into our water,

which could indicate a base or presence beneath the ocean's surface? I don't know about a base, but, you know, as I mentioned, I had a different source entirely described this pretty extraordinary footage that exists of an orb coming out of the ocean and being met by another orb. Some would say that there's multiple hotspots where we see frequent activities. So in your investigations, have you come across any data or visual evidence like sonar readings or underwater footage of these UAPs? I have not beyond what's in the report. You've written about UAPs not only in the air but in underwater.

Are there any specifics on what you've learned about the UAP activity in our oceans, particularly? Have you spoken with sources who have provided any evidence or eyewitness account? of these UAPs interacting with our naval forces or being detected by our underwater surveillance systems. Nothing beyond what's in the report and then the specific case that I mentioned with the orb. So this report says it all. There's no other information that we are aware of

regarding the activity within our waters. I have other sources that have told me that have shared a significant amount of information but they're not comfortable with me sharing it at this point. Okay. Are there any technological capabilities observed in these oceanic UAPs that seem to defy our current understanding of physics or our engineering capabilities? It seems like they all do. Yes, I would agree with that.

And my time is up, but I do appreciate your bravery, your courage for coming here and speaking today. And it seems like there's still some questions that we need answers to, and we will not. relent until we get those to the American people. Thank you all. Thank you. I move to allow myself in the ranking member five additional minutes for questions without objection so ordered. Mr. Alizondo, were you read into the Immaculate Constellation Program? I would not be authorized to confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing or past program, especially as it relates to a special access program, either by name or a trigraph. Okay. And then are there, does the U.S. government or private contractors, do they work with other foreign countries? China, for example,

to exchange data quote from a source, that intelligence data about UAP? Let me if I can answer that a little bit more generally, ma'am. We do have foreign material exploitation programs. That is something that is widely known, and that term itself is unclassified. How exactly that works becomes a bit sensitive. A discussion we could certainly have in a closed session if you like. We do work with international partners and allies quite often, not just in military exercises and workups, but in other intelligence efforts as well. In terms of material that's given to private contractors, a certain material given to certain contractors because of their experience. So for example, if it's related to submerged and undersea propulsion, would it

go to a general contractor like general dynamics? Yes, ma'am, absolutely correct. Different contractors have different levels of expertise. What's Lockheed's expertise? Aerospace, ma'am. In the UAP space. That's all that they wouldn't do submerged. No, I didn't say that, ma'am. Lockheed Martin and others do quite a bit of work both

in our atmosphere, in space, and even underwater. There are certain efforts to, it's a tough question. You're asking you put me on the spot here. I'm looking for the answer. Yes, ma'am. No, they are involved in a lot. lot. I would rather let Lockheed Martin explain the different domains that they are involved with. Probably not authorized to discuss that, but they are involved in a lot of different areas and

domains. Admiral flight safety risks for our pilots based on which you've experienced and seen in your career. They're extensive. And one exercise I referred to where I received the email that was then deleted was the pilots. And this is worth bringing out. There are debunkers out there who have said the go fast video was just a balloon that was only one video that was released there were dozens of these in car guys at pilots at friends of ryan graves who's in this room right here witnessed and and caused significant safety concerns and to almost call out and exercise it and shut it down which is very compressed and the carrier's getting ready for deployment and the pilots have to get certified to land on a carrier it's extreme to say the least all right i have two

last questions. Real quickly, Mr. Schellenberger, how do we get more whistleblowers to come forward? Well, this hearing is very important. And obviously, you know, I can't encourage whistleblowers to obtain information, but I can guarantee that I will protect them and go to prison to protect their identities to come to me. Yes, sir. Okay. My last question, the first hearing we had on this, I'd never been briefed on UAPs or what they were, biologics, non-human, etc. How would you define each of you, my last question, how would you define non-human biologics, non-human intelligence? What are we actually talking about? Admiral, and we'll go down the line. I don't think it's a stretch when you look at the diversity of life on this planet and the size of this universe to think that there would be

more diverse, higher order, non-human intelligence throughout the universe. And that's probably what's visiting us. I would take the scientific approach. The definition would be the ability to react to a stimulus in a manner that requires an intellectual thought process. I just don't know. I think we must be modest in our assumptions that we're looking for intelligence. That could be biological. It might not. Non-biological.

But what non-biological intelligence, what does that mean, though? Artificial intelligence, ML, machines. We assume that all intelligence would be like us. And every time we look out in the universe, we are humbled relative to what we don't know in terms of the forms of intelligence and what it may take. I can assure you, I probably can't ask you your question, but I think the ultimate answer is going to surprise us all. And then Mr. Garcia, you had a few closing remarks.

And I know we're about to get hit in votes here, so I'll be brief. I want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank Chairwoman Mace, especially, for holding this important bipartisan hearing. And I want to thank all the committee members that are interested in this topic. I think our commitment to all of you and all the folks have contacted us and certainly to the advocates and the pilots, is that we need to continue investigating UAPs. I think the country owes, the country is owed explanations

and ensure that the safety on national security is always protected. This is a conversation and questioning that must continue, so I'm very grateful to all of you. And I also just want to just add just personally, I think it's really important for me, two things guide. My questioning and my observations on UAPs is,

One is we should always be guided by facts, science, and data, and stay serious on those issues. And the second thing is I think that we should not limit our imagination and our thoughts and our curiosity on what UAPs could actually be. And I think those two things for me are really important, and I'm grateful for all of you to be here. So with that, I yield back. Okay. And we have Mr. Ogles, who is on the way. He's going to be here. Any second?

Is that correct? Check. and he'll be the last member with questions that we have today, and then we're going to, we have votes. So we want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank Mr. Garcia and folks on both sides of all for being here today and being patient. We have a lot more questions, and I hope that this will open the door to more hearings in the future. I obviously would like to know how much taxpayers are spending on this.

You have the right to know, but also if we're spending money on something that doesn't exist, why are we spending the money? and if it does exist, why are we hiding it from the public? And, of course, our national security is a huge issue because if there's technology that could harm us or allies that are in the hands of our adversaries, we obviously want to stay ahead of that to the best of our ability to ensure that technology

is not in the hands of someone who could use it against us or our allies anywhere in the world. So Mr. Ogles, you're just in time, babe. I will recognize you for five minutes of course, questioning before we head on out today. My dude shows up late and now he's getting five minutes of questions. Okay, well, this thing is kind of garbage, huh? There's a few points in there.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and remove this just because we've heard, I think we've literally heard everything we could possibly hear for this hearing. Yeah, it's kind of interesting. Everybody obviously has been wanting and waiting and very excited about today. And, you know, I don't know why exactly, but I think a lot of people, people just wanted something more. They wanted something more than they had last time. They wanted someone to come out and say it,

even though, listen, I will say, there's obviously been some things that some of the guys said, you know, for example, Abrail Gallaudet, which, you know, he was with the East Coast Strike Group. And I guess he was a part of a pretty big type event. And I believe this seems like it was similar or close to where Ryan Greaves also had a lot of his encounters off the East Coast of the United States.

And we're talking about these orbs, whatever the case is. Now, it seems like Admiral Gallaud, I guess he's in some type of atmospheric sciences. And so he knows a lot about that. And I guess he was also the one involved with the Go Fast video. Now, with that being said, obviously there's something out there that these people are saying military and alike. You have Lou Alizondo here that's saying basically there is, without a doubt, craft that is not from the U.S. government or any other government, he says. he also says the government has a psych guy. So basically someone that is is the go-to person

that if you have to go to somebody, you're going to go to this guy to figure out first how they're going to spin it to the people, the public, the citizen, the citizenry. And he said that he knows. He is one of those guys. Yeah, maybe it is. He knows that because he's that guy.

He has his job. Like, what do you guys think his job was on ASAP? He's not a scientist. Yeah. Like, why do you guys think he was assigned to on that program. Like these people's job is to spin the narrative to you in the public sense. One thing I want to point out real quick that I loved is that Garcia made them all say they

think it's aliens, at least two of them, right? The other two at the end said they didn't know. First, we said aliens. It's aliens. So this shows that really their narrative is they're trying to push that this is aliens and it's not possible that we could have come up with this. In fact, I think, I don't know which congressman asked or woman, maybe it was Mace, but Elizondo says something about the temporal problem.

Like it goes too far back. But that's avoiding the question. I'm not asking you about how far back it goes. I'm asking you, do we have it now? And this is the part where Luna, I'll play this clip for you. I got it already. I had to grab it. You're an Ashton Forbes fan.

It was a pretty good day. We got a lot of information confirmed to us that we had been speculated about directly from authoritative sources. So Luna asks here if you want to pull it up whether or not where the energy source is. Is A that true? B, are you guys hearing the reports of that? And C, I think moving forward in regards to technology, Mr. Gold, if you can answer this real quickly, some of these aircraft, it seems that they are operating off of energy that we don't currently have. But just yes, no, in your opinion, if we were able to obtain that, would that impact humanity for the better or negative?

Would certainly save us some money on funding on Artemis. Definitely. This is a national security issue. that there is such technology out there, we're not the only country that might have access to it. We don't want to be on the wrong end of technological surprise. Yeah, and by the way, I don't think that we're the ones that don't have access to this, right? Is that, I mean, that's kind of a joke.

Yeah, yeah, they, we, yeah, we had, what they're saying is, I mean, so they're playing it up, right? What he's doing is he's giving you the public narrative, which the public narrative is, is this is national security because the energy source and because of the weaponization of that energy source, we want to be ahead of Russia and China. Yeah. And that's what have we been talking? I've been on your guys podcast.

How many times? I don't know, five, six times. Like, I'm pretty sure I've said that several times. I do not have said it in the other 100 podcasts. Like, that's what this all comes down to, really. But the end of the day, like, if you go through that whole hearing, I'm looking at my list here. there was not a lot of questions about the energy and the technology and how it would change our planet. Like some people kind of asked, I think Berlisten asked a little bit about Lockheed Martin

and he's trying to dig into the defense contractors. Of course, the defense contractors have it. It's like McDonald's doesn't have it, right? It's defense contractors have the technology. Like that's, of course, where it is. That's where the money's going. Well, in total- Go ahead, please.

I was going to say, but talking about the technology, I thought Dr. Gold really put it out there. when he said when he was talking about these uips and not being of human descent but he said she said well what exactly is it he said well it could be anything like artificial intelligence yeah and that's where i think that you know we're thinking about oh it looks you know it's like an alien like you know this alien on the wall this is what these are but i think we got to look further than looking at like bodies and am i yelling because i can't hear you're loud sorry sorry i can't hear good But I think we're all assuming that it's being craft, these crafts are being flown by bodies or whatever. But what if it's like artificial intelligence or like robots or mechanical things?

And it kind of lends me to when you talk about the orbs, you know, with the missing craft. Yeah, but orbs is not, I mean, I guess it could be AI. But yeah, I mean, for sure AI is one example or one possibility, especially for, you know, our basic platforms, I mean, even the stuff that DARPA works on. And in the very beginning of this show, Ashton, we brought up, I can't remember what it's called now, but it's the underwater submersible that the United States government has that was caught on. I think it was Google satellite imagery.

And I believe I'm trying to get back to what it's actually called, but stingray is what it's called. And it looks like a big stingray. It's a underwater. I can't remember. Yes, an underwater platform. It also looks potentially like it could fly. it got in the air. Now, I don't know that for sure.

But... Bowling, okay. But what do you guys think about these crafts being flown by bodies or by, like, artificial intelligence? What do you think this is? You know, I mean, I think that you hit the nail on the head, Sherry, when you're talking about, like, there are so many options for aliens out there, non-human intelligence. Like, you can't... At this point, we don't have enough data to say, okay, this is what it is.

It's little green men or whatever. And it could be more than one as well. I heard questions on there. People are asking them. Actually, I thought it was a good question. By, I think it was Higgins. I don't know what his name is. It was cut off.

But the first thing he did is he cooked Schellenberger for more details, which, okay, if you're a journalist and I, you know, play one on TV, you know, you don't want to give up your sources. That was fine. But he really wasn't asked about the specific source. I mean, he was just trying to figure out, like, where is your information coming from? Like, how credible is it? If it's coming from someone in the DOD or some department, it can matter where it's coming from.

And he wouldn't give the information way, whatever. But then he asked about the morphology of UFOs. There's all these UFOs in different shapes, triangles, spheres, you know, whatever, different sizes. He's like, do they all come from the same place? Do they come from different origins then? That's actually a really smart question to ask. Yeah. Especially when these guys are trying to tell you, they all think it's aliens.

Okay, well, how do you explain the story of what's going on? you know they just all of a sudden they they get their light on details once you ask a question like that so i thought was interesting to me i don't know guys like i tell you guys the more i've looked into it the more i really have no idea i think everything's on the table yeah i i i saw you know i think one of the big things i listened i heard in this hearing is i think he was talking about the 2017 video but i could be wrong i think it was actually about another video but it was the video they're talking about They have a 13-minute video. They show an orb that actually comes out of the water somewhere off the coast of Kuwait.

And I guess as this video goes along, this orb then joins another orb in some type of rotation or formation and then basically disappears, I guess is what it sounds like. And obviously, when I hear that, you think of the MH-370 deal, especially with you see this one orb coming out of the ocean and then meeting up with the other orbs. in that particular incident. So that was something obviously that was like, hey, that sounds familiar, whether it's our technology or not, definitely a part of another story. Yeah.

And so it's, the reason why I think we're hearing those stories over and over again is because it turns out that the movement and stuff of these orbs and the patterns are specifically connected to their functionality and to their propulsion systems. And if they are producing a wormhole, and maybe that specific dance is one of only a few different patterns that can be done to pull it off. End of the day, it might just be them coming together is the key of it.

But I think the movement around the plane as well might be significant, literally down to whether or not they're spinning left or spinning right. So when you see these things over and over, people are talking about them, it's because it's like someone's explaining and they're witnessing something that is a discovery of nature. You know, you saw a tornado. And people are going, oh, why do we keep getting all these stories about tornadoes? I mean, I look at these twisters. I look outside and say, I've never seen one personally. Does that mean they're not real? No, I mean, they're just rare phenomenon that do occur.

So people are seeing these same thing with orbs in a triangle formation over and over again. Schellenberger again retold the story about the jet fighter that was swarmed away by orbs and talking about them potentially being plasma. You know, the truth is out. there. There's two ways to look at. A lot of people say either everything's all fake or everything is real. I think that you should be looking at from the perspective of everything's real. How does this make sense in the story? So for me, the morphology of the orbs is like maybe we were working on flying saucers. Maybe we did. I don't know what the origins are. Maybe we dug one up.

And then we tried to produce one and ours were kind of shitty or limited and what have you. And then eventually got to a part where we realized we can just do a plasma. We can just make drones. Gold was my favorite witness because he said too I think most of them are drones on what we're seeing out there but I love that term I've been saying like you could call these

plasma balls drones they are I think literally drones so that's their way of getting around it where they're telling you the truth but you're going what kind of drone is it's not a UAV we're not seeing a predator that's not a predator drone in this video blowing you know with light coming out

of it what kind of drone are you talking about Ashton, I got a question. I don't know if I've ever asked you this. How do you think if these potential orbs or some orbs are plasma, how do you think that they would be controlled? Do you believe? That's a good question. I actually think there's something inside for sure.

I think there's a device inside that's basically ripping the electrons from the atmosphere, from the water, or they might even have their own source inside of it, and that they're producing cold fusion, which makes this plasma sphere around the object. And the object could actually be very tiny. But I'm just speculating on that. But it seems like there must be something. So if that's the case, though, controlling them is two components.

How do you communicate? And then how do you process and the data and the program itself? So for one, you need a powerful supercomputer and database, most likely, because really, the best analogy is actually to like CGI. If you were to try to render a third. three-dimensional environment and get the rotation of three objects in a pattern, that's actually not straightforward to pull that off, which is why I realized once again,

the MH370 videos in 2014, it's not a side project that some random board kid did. This is extremely difficult to pull off. So supercomputer or AI, a very powerful computer for the movement of the orbs. And then to actually communicate with it, plasma can't actually be breached by radio waves. So this is where,

you need a scalar communication device or a gravity-based communication device. Good news is we know it's possible because of things like the Aaronhoff-Bome effect and the lamb shift. These are both quantum mechanical phenomenon. At least I would argue that because the Aaron-Hoff-Bome effect says even in the absence of electromagnetic waves or fields, there is still a shift. There's still a potential that's happening out there. So this would mean that we can do that. And if you look at how Poodoff's patent, he's really only got one. one major patent that's been approved five times. It's a scalar communication device.

It's literally called, I want to make sure I say this right, how put off patents. And this is the one that's, is this the faster and light communication you're talking about? Whether or not the speed is faster and light in this sense doesn't even really matter. It doesn't really matter because really the issue here is communicating through the plasma. That's the most important part. So the end of the day, I'm not even making that claim right now, but I do think it probably can.

And maybe one of the variations of this patent can. because he's got the same patent. I rarely see this, five different times just called communication system. A communication system using vector and scalar potential is disclosed. The system uses field-free potentials. That's what he's saying. There's no electromagnetic fields signaling for many applications where the absence of shielding effects in seawater, plasma, or other dense media due to the fact that the absence of

ENB fields eliminates the possibility of inducing charge and current response in the media being transited. He literally says plasma in his abstract, his own patent. And it's also used for communicating with submarines. Why? Because it can go through seawater as well. And so these are like, why is it a national security issue? Well, I gave you probably the most important one, which is we've got submarines in the water

and you can detect them and communicate with them with this technology. just as one application of it, just one small application. And that's just understanding that scalar potentials are not to just be thrown out. It's an extremely important part of Maxwell's equations. So when people say like, hey, you might as might even hear this now because you guys are getting up to speed on this science stuff, which is if you hear people talking about the error in the equations or the thing that we messed up, they're always usually talking about Maxwell's equations. and that's where when those got reduced and we teach the reduced versions of them, the simplified versions. This is how we made ourselves stupid.

It's because we simplified them, but we lost basically the ability to manipulate gravity. That's what we threw out because we couldn't see it. We couldn't measure it. So we said, oh, it's just nothing. It's just nothing there. And then somebody does the Aaron Hoff-Bome effect. They show that that's a real effect.

And they go, wait, there can't be nothing. That's actually important what you just threw out. Because that explains why I see. this phase shift. So like a phase shift, if I have a wave like this, I just shift it a little bit like that. Same wave, but now it's just offset a little bit. That's a phase shift. But that's enough. That's enough to communicate. That's enough where like you can use Morse code now and you can make a language out of that. So. And I know, go ahead. And even going back to, you know, I've always said, I think it's both, right? I think that potentially we have a reverse engineered enough to where we can

potentially control some of these things, whether they're the plasma balls or orbs or whatever you want to call them. The bigger question, though, would be for me is that say that both exist, which I truly believe both exist. I almost in a lot of ways believe both have to exist for us to have potentially made this breakthrough in technology, or at the very least, the breakthrough with maybe minerals or the actual, however, we're actually using these structures or creating these structures or these craft. I don't know. But what happens in the event that say these dark clandestine companies like Raytheon

and even companies we probably never heard of or DARPA or which DARPA is military government, but still, imagine if both of them exist at the same time. Like how does that play out? Imagine that we did reverse engineer some of these craft from non-humans or higher intelligence. And those things are still visiting us here on. earth. But now also we have craft similar that are operating in similar ways that have advanced tech and potentially very, very dangerous capabilities on them. How would non-human intelligence?

I know I'm asking you, you're not non-human intelligence, but think about that. Like, how would that situation play out and react each other? Yeah, exactly. That was my question before we started this is if we have this technology and there, we got it from. somebody else. Are we interacting? Are we communicating? Yeah, but here's the thing. Let me play devil's advocate. This is actually my favorite devil's advocate to play because it really riles up the UFO community. The thing that riles up my fans more than anything is telling them that aliens aren't that important and telling them that jet packs aren't real. Those things make them the most upset because they're sure that we have jetpack people flying around out there.

I don't know why about it is. The thing about aliens, guys, is it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Like my view is there's life everywhere. So if there's life everywhere, including our solar system, et cetera, it's just a matter of a numbers game. You know, there are obviously, there must be aliens out there somewhere. So how does that new understanding, now that I realize there must be aliens out there somewhere, how does that change my day to day? How does that really change my life? Am I going to, like you said, how am I even going to communicate with another alien? Why do I care? Are we going to start sending money to them? And I know that's a joke, but it's like, Actually, at some point, you know, fiction becomes reality.

And so to me, I don't care about that. So it's just more political bullshit. You know, it's more political bullshit that I don't care about. For me, the part that's actually really important is, okay, well, what information can we share? You know, what's the technology they might have that we might not have? Yeah. Maybe that makes me kind of twisted because I care more about the technology than other beings that are out there. But to your point, of course it matters.

that there might be life everywhere else out there. It helps us understand our place in the universe, our meaning for being on this planet. But funny part about that, and then I'll let you guys jump in, is that understanding the science, arguably, will do more for that cause than understanding aliens are real.

And technology helps us to understand the science. If we, from the technology, understand that cold fusion is possible, there is this idea of this ether of energy. That's where all this energy is coming from for free energy, then right away, I think a lot of people go, wait, is that where like life comes from? Like, is that where consciousness, sentience comes from? Is that sea of energy conscious on a level that we don't really understand? And that's bigger to me than, oh, there's 57 races of

different aliens that are out there. But very true. Well, it was interesting that Lou did, they did get this out of him when he was talking about non-biologics that are non-human or whatever. He said that they have them, but they got them before he was even born. Yeah. That was interesting, you know, because obviously David Grush has talked about, well, he knows that they do have biologics from, you know, beings. And it was interesting. Yeah, Lou Alizano says at least the biologics he knows about was prior to his birth.

Yeah, his birth. So are we talking about Roswell here? or are we talking about one of those type of situations? And we don't know, but I just think it's still, I completely understand Ashton's point as far as one to move forward with the technology. I think if you figure out, understand, and expose or at the very least, you know, shine light on some of the capabilities of this technology, you then maybe could probably go down that rabbit hole and find aliens quicker than you would be,

looking for aliens and finding them there, if that makes sense. That's exactly my point. It's like, you're going to get the answer to aliens after we understand the technology. Because if we understand we can teleport somewhere else, it's like, okay, what are the limitations on this teleportation? If there are none, okay, hello, Ambassador Bejou, I'm about to show up tomorrow because I'm going to teleport myself over there or vice versa. So absolutely, the problem I have with the alien narrative that's being pushed, and this is

why I loved, again, that he made them say aliens, because now we know for sure, like, Like they really don't think that, unless they're lying to Congress, they really don't think that that's possibly us that's out there. Is have any of these guys seen an alien? No. None of them have ever seen an alien. So it's like, why are you sure it's something you've never even seen before? If you could come out and tell me, yep, it's the Manted people.

They're the ones that made it. I saw the Mantis alien, whatever. Okay, I'm on board now. We got to make peace with the Manted alien, send them some money. You know, whatever. Like, but that's not what they're saying. They're just saying, I can't comprehend what I'm seeing there. It must be aliens because it's not human technology we know of.

That's a huge fallacy. Like, there isn't such a thing as a law of the universe that we can't comprehend. That's not real. That doesn't exist. Just like how any species could understand the concept of numbers, numbers. It doesn't require communication. You're like numbers. There's just one of these, right?

this is one. That's a number. Like, that's an inherent concept of the universe that anyone can understand. Same thing is true for zero point energy. You know, if that's, and that's why I say, like, we should be looking for what the technology is because it's not some unknowable thing. But it turns out, all these engineers that are also magically connected to the UFO community have all been writing papers about it for decades and decades and decades.

And I think a lot of people, too, you know, especially the people, on the panel there, right? Lou Alizando and maybe even some of these military personnel admirals, you name it, I think probably a lot of them look at advanced technology like what we are seeing in the skies and even the MH370 video. I think a lot of those guys would look at technology like that from the United States or China almost as crazy as they look at the fact that it could be UFOs. But your kind of point is, why are they just going with the UFOs and not at least given

that an option? Lou Alizano did actually come out and say today. He said, I think some of this for sure, a lot of this could be our advanced tech or reverse engineered technology. He made it very clear. He said that he had been over programs with reverse engineering and so on and so forth. So I don't think necessarily Lou Alizando is denying it whatsoever, but it does at the very least seem that he's trying to push one side a lot harder than the other.

Oh, absolutely. And this is my criticism of him. I don't think he's a bad guy. I don't think any of these people are bad guys. I think that people lie for noble reasons in their own mind, for sure. And so he knows that it's all about free energy. He knows that the energy, just like gold knows it's about the energy. These guys probably all know that's what it's about.

But they all are either being instructed or have come to their own conclusion that they're going to hide the energy stuff for national security reasons. And so therefore, their agenda is, okay, what angle can we push that's not a national security angle. Oh, aliens. What's the origin of it? That's the angle that they're pushing, which to me, I just laugh at because the origin doesn't matter to me. That doesn't even matter to me. It can be literally anything. AI, future humans, aliens, cryptids, under the sea things, gin, you know, whatever you want. I don't care. And it doesn't hurt. And it doesn't hurt that there are people out there also saying that it is our advanced technology because then it makes

the United States look powerful, but while also not admitting the fact that it's theirs. But talking about that, and then with this new thing coming out with the Immaculate Constellation, you know, he said there's hundreds, maybe even thousands of videos that are not blurry like all the videos we've seen. But those videos that they have, are they our technology or somebody else's technology? Well, so this is the best part. And they asked about that. But like you said, they need to be more open-minded about the idea of could this be our technology or really defense contract people that aren't government but they're getting money from the government why would these random people testify and know about that they would never know and in the same way

this is what happens with the public with our surveillance capabilities we've lost the concept of where our surveillance capabilities are you know like they said they confirmed on that today unless I misheard that we have satellite video that's huge that's huge. Weirder have you guys heard them. Anyone say that we have satellite video? They were talking about it in reference to UFOs being recorded. Schellenberger said we have full video and Fleer and infrared.

And we also have full color video as well. And he specifically mentioned low Earth orbit satellites. I'm just sitting here going, guys. Have you seen that? I made a C-70 satellite video recently. Somebody made this in 2014, supposedly, but how would they know about any of these capabilities if they hoaxed it? Why is there no hoaxer for this?

Like, it's getting really hard for there to be some story for how somebody fake these videos that explain everything that's being talked about right now today. Yeah, that's also interesting because, you know, you're not sitting up there in that committee meeting today or hearing, and there's probably a good reason for that. There's also probably a good reason why if any of the people on the panel, which I'm sure Lou Alizando has seen your work and kind of what you've brought, I think we've talked about that before,

but there's probably a good reason none of them will probably talk to you either because it goes against that narrative. If they are, for example, trying to push a narrative towards the UFO topic rather than advanced technology topic, to me it's like one of those things I often think about is, if you're Lou Alizando or this. admiral or whoever, and you sign all these documents, these non-disclosure agreements, and you have high top secret security clearance, but yet you can come out and say all

this stuff. He basically says everything without saying anything. I mean, he says, hey, yes, we have bodies. Yes, we have biologic. Yes, I know for sure that most of or at least a lot of what we're seeing is not our technology or anybody else's. They're saying that to you, but yet they're telling you also at the same time. I've signed stuff saying I'm not allowed to say everything I'm basically saying.

Does that make sense? I mean, it's... Well, it tells you a lot. It tells you what they're saying is stuff that they have never signed anything about. So why is he able to come out here and say there's aliens visiting us, right? Well, because he hadn't signed any NDAs about it. It's not a national security issue. Aliens are a national security issue.

Life exists in the universe is a national security issue, unless we think they're going to come wipe us out, in which case we definitely should be telling people about it because we've got to prepare. But also another point I wanted to bring up real quick to Sherry's argument about, okay, well, why does it matter or do the motivations matter? One thing I found out or realized on myself about a year ago after my first interview with you guys was that the nature of the technology and the phenomenon actually doesn't even matter. Whether or not it's hostile, neutral, or benevolent in any scenario, we should be trying to figure out the technology. That was a conclusion I came to before I even started looking at. into the science is actually what led me to start looking into it is that I realized all those scenarios doesn't matter we should still be trying to figure out the technology and catch up to it

or whatever we need to do so I look at it like oh well so that actually doesn't even matter what the nature of it is at all like any scenario we're going to do the same thing anyway and then to chad's point you know when we figure out what can the technology really do what are the limitations of what are a really good idea of okay maybe there's a plasma beans coming from the ether that come out or maybe there are, you know, we can travel back in time and we can, this is us sending us weird messages and we've created some time loop or something, you know. So real quick, because I have to drop it in a few minutes. I want to see people are mentioning that Ogles, the guy we didn't watch this thing at the end.

Maybe he asked some relevant questions about technology if you guys want to watch it. Go ahead, Sherry. Well, I was just going to add, too, that they weren't just saying that it's because of our defense is why they're hiding this stuff, but it's all overclassified. They've over classified things from 30 years ago that, you know, 30 years ago, I'm sure our technology is way more advanced than it was 30 years ago. So why not let us see the things that happened 30 years ago? And he mentioned because we got butt hurt kind of because we thought we were better than

Russia in the Cold War. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He said like the Cold War was, you know, he's like the Cold War was over, though. But the problem is, like we've seen with the MH370 investigation, revealing anything leads to this compounding effect where all these truths start flowing out.

So they can't really reveal anything, even if it was old as well. Like, what if they revealed something old and we're seeing balls of plasma floating around? It's like, really awkward, you know? Yeah, we'll get to this last five minutes. And we'll see. It goes in, if you remember, like he was late.

Yeah, I think I'm right at it. I'm pretty sure. Let's, let's like. Okay, Ogles, what you got? I heard you got something about the technology being a doomsday thing. That's what I want to hear. Well, thank you all for being here. And Madam Chairwoman, I out of breath because I sprinted to get here.

But this is an important hearing. I think we all know that there's something going on. Mr. Elizondo, based on your knowledge of UAP sightings, do you believe it's fair to say that they are especially, common near nuclear sites. Yes, sir. Mr. Congressman, I absolutely am convinced of that as are my colleagues inside the government. And the reason why I pose that question, and this has been one of my talking points from the beginning, is, you know, Oak Ridge is in Tennessee. The so-called weather balloon that drifted that we now know was controlled, it passed near Oak Ridge. It obviously is a sensitive

of sight, both of interest to our adversaries and to whatever else this is. Because we know that at military installations, at sensitive locations, such as nuclear facilities, that we're seeing this take place. So the question is, what is it? Do you believe they've caused an irregular activity and why might they be interested in those sites? Sir, in some cases, it's actually regular activity. You'd be surprised there's actually documentation right now that's been submitted. It's not just Oak Ridge. Savannah Riversite, SRS, it's also Los Alamos. A lot of our sensitive R&D locations appear to be under some sort of surveillance and monitoring.

Why? Well, because a lot of innovation comes out of those areas. A lot of new technologies, a lot of, if you will, disruptive technologies that we use for our national defense originates out of those locations and advanced concepts and physics as well. So if I was doing any type of reconnaissance, even on a foreign adversary, that's a great target to start with. Sure. And again, this has been one of my talking points. I do have questions. What role might the Department of Energy or its subsidiaries or affiliates have in this type of technology, or possessing this type of technology, whether it's ours or others.

Mr. Gai Uday, I think your testimony has been pretty clear, but would you please reiterate that do you believe UIPs pose a threat to pilots? Excuse me. He just skipped over the D&E question. Absolutely. They were threatening Navy pilots during the exercise that my people were involved with in 2013, and so I understand they're risking pilot safety commercial and military today. Well, considering, and I understand that there's a need in some cases to keep certain technologies secret.

But you believe that it is posing a threat to our personnel, correct? Yes, sir. So I think it's reasonable to conclude that if there is a threat to our personnel who are serving our country faithfully, that there be oversight. 100% Congressman. And in fact, that's the one thing that we've not talked about enough during this hearing is the fact that the government, executive branch, not sharing with Congress what it knows about UAP, infringes on your legislative and oversight responsibilities to such an extent that's very concerning.

I mean, what else are we? This is a scripting conversation, by the way. Or intelligence or foreign affairs or appropriations. You guys talk about this at a time. Oversight and legislative responsibility regarding those. This UAP issue may be the greatest issue of our time. and it's being hit from you. Well, I mean, and to your point,

I think we've seen over the decades that we have certain adversaries like China, like Russia, that technologically speaking are not as advanced as us, that they lack some of the lethality that we have and that we've seen that they've gone after our technologies and in some cases succeeded, in particular with missile technology. And so, again, my concern,

wow. whether this technology emanates from us or otherworldly, that we know that we possess it. And where's the accountability? Where are the stop caps? What are the guarantees if this were to fall in enemy hands that it isn't immediately weaponized against us? And I'll say this,

it is clear from my experience and what I've seen that there is something out there. The question is, is it ours? is it someone else's or is it otherworldly? And Madam Chairman, I would posit that as the legislative body, as the regulatory body, we must know. And anyone who prevents us from gaining access to that information, I would consider that criminality.

Because we have U.S. personnel who may very well be in harm's way. We have technology that ultimately may threaten our very existence. With that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Ogles. And with that and without objection, there you go. Let's go. We can't even watch it and see him on points. Yeah, that's true. That was the best part of it. For you for sure. It's coming from. Where is this technology coming from? Is it a doomsday weapon? How he didn't really say it, but like, people deserve to know if there's some risk of some

doomsday weapon out there that China and Russia either have or are trying to get. The American people deserve to know that. And I get it. There's a line to be drawn at national security, but we are drawing that line far too strictly, and it's been far too long. And you know what? Stuff is leaked down to the public, and we've figured it out. And keep in mind, you know, these military industrial complex companies,

they don't have oversight, really. I mean, there is zero oversight there. So. Private companies, and here's the thing, it's like if you're a company, most people struggle, most businesses fail, you know, but if you are Lockheed Martin, North of Grum and these defense contractors, you have a steady flow of cash that has no risk whatsoever. It's not going to go. You have, and you have no oversight. So you basically just given people the house, you're given the teenagers the house for the weekend. Of course they're going to go party. Of course they are. You know, and there's just nothing to be done by. In fact, They're powerful. They're scary and powerful now as well. They have technology that is paradigm shifted. That makes them, you know, don't want to, you know, the unlimited power, unlimited power.

Yeah. Untouchable. And influence, because once you have that and you're corrupted by it, it's like, okay, I have unlimited money. Well, first thing I'm going to do is buy off some judges, buy off some politicians, right? That's the first thing you do because then you can control the narrative, control the media, you know. And if you don't have oversight over it, how do you keep it out of other, or out of your enemy's hands? That's tough because, you know, just like you said,

they're going to be influenced by the power, by the advanced technology. And who says they're only giving it to the United States? No one. I mean, we don't know. We don't know that for sure. Those guys probably think I'm a spy. They actually probably think I'm, at least they thought probably early on that I was some kind of spy from Russia.

I thought you were. I don't even blame them. I get it. These UFO people, they're probably like this guy is giving away the secret sauce that we did not want to be out there. They would probably argue to endanger's America. I mean, why are these guys blocking me and ignoring me, not saying my name, you know, like I've even been provoking them and they won't say anything about it.

You know, they get asked and they ask, I act all shady. Like, it's because I'm, you know, just laying out the national security secrets there for everybody else out there. I don't even blame them for acting like that. but it is just getting a little bit ridiculous at this point. Yeah. You know, it's getting ridiculous. Like,

we've, they're saying everything that confirms, everything we're seeing in these videos, like it's hard to accept, but they're trying to tell you without telling you. They're going, we've got some physics that we're working on and these private labs, Louis-Lasano just said it,

you know, these, what did he say? He used the term, the same term they use, oh, disruptive technologies. That's the same exact term. they use in those physics and science papers when they're talking about manipulating space time

and pulling energy out of the ether. They talk about these disruptive technologies. Of course we have them, guys. Of course we have them. How do we do it, though? Here's the last question I'll pose to you guys for it. I have to drop. I have to go back to work.

But how do we disclose this stuff without the risk, without giving it to China or do we? Or do we just say, oh, you know what? We just got to let everybody know about it. What do you guys think? That's a good question because, I mean, obviously, national security is very important. And there's no question. There's no question we don't, you know, I mean,

if China and Russia do not already have this technology, that's number one. But, you know, it's just like I feel like a lot of what we're seeing today, especially advanced tech or, you know, even if you go back to reverse engineering, I mean, Russia has had many potential crashed down, instances in their past. So has other countries, Germany used to.

I know China has as well. The United States is no different in that. And I believe China's done a amazing job over the years, reverse engineering our technology. So to me, it wouldn't be very hard for them to figure out what exactly is going on over here. But you've still got to keep that shit secret.

But you also just, you know, for people like you, unfortunately, it's going to be a long battle potentially, but it's also going to be a dangerous battle, especially considering. If you think about the implications of something like that being known, it goes back to your point.

Maybe that's why they're pushing the UFO thing so hard so they can just say, hey, it is this, guys. Can we just all look here? Let's all look here. And I guess the bigger question back to you too would be, you know, what do you feel? Because obviously you're so passionate about exposing, you know, the lies, especially if they're doing experiments on aircraft like,

chemistry 70, that's the big deal. Also, how much, how much danger does it put Americans in, people around the world, our soldiers? And do you guys notice every time they mentioned DOD, they dance around it? Oh, yeah, because I mean, DOD is obviously directly connected to more than likely, you know, the department or sorry, the military industrial complex companies and the liking, but it's a very interesting concept. And like I said, I still go back to, I,

think there's both. I think there's aliens and UFOs out there. I don't know where exactly, but I also think that we have potentially reversed engineered some of this technology. And I just don't think necessarily, though, that we have been able to fully reverse engineered the technology if, say, for example, that either some of these crafts had, you know, elements that we do not have access to. That's definitely one possibility.

or these crafts somehow, I know this sounds mind bending, but somehow this is a representation in a physical form from an interdimensional world. I know that sounds nuts, but I've kind of read some papers on that, how that would even be possible, if it would be possible.

God, there's so many things. But Ashton, answer your own question, do you think that, like, what extent do you think it should be exposed, right? I mean, that's the big question. That's still struggle with the answer. like every single day pretty much. It's like, man, what am I doing?

Like, I kind of just want to go back to being a normal person again. And it's like, I wish I didn't know all this stuff that I know now because it's like, man, it's kind of a burden to bear. And be like, yeah, we know we can make doomsday weapons and we have access to free energy technology. But how do we actually really implement it? Who really sits around and thinks? Like, what does it actually look like to shift from where we're at now to that future? and change is scary and it will change our entire socioeconomic situation.

Like one thing people don't realize too, this cold fusion, free energy, it's awesome. And even if we go with the idea of free in terms of energy costing nothing, that's awesome. But you know it's even crazy or more awesome, the end of scarcity forever. Like as in like Star Trek replicators, like we can manifest elements, not just energy, but elements because elements are just like condensed energy coming together and transmute elements as well so now what's the value of gold what's the value of silver like this is this is huge this is like game over old way of life new way of lifetime and that's just the that's the positive side the negative side is you make weapons out of it and now like anyone that has access to it's

not just an unlimited energy source. You can change the rate of how much energy you're pulling out to. That's the problem. You can not only have access to an unlimited reservoir, but you have the capability to amplify energy, amplify the energy that you're pulling out. Which is bad or can be bad. I mean, you don't even, you can use your imagination.

Yeah. Like I tell people make a black hole, make a super weapon that blows up a planet. Get rid of a city, a county, get rid of a, not a county, well, you could get rid of a party. But like you guys said. It would be tiny. It could be like this.

Yeah, that's the problem. And so it's like now how do you stop? How do you stop? It's just a matter of time before we wipe ourselves out on that scenario. So to me, I don't know the answer. I really don't. But I think we're just at a point where like with MH370 videos and everything we see on there,

if I was able to figure out as a Twitter guy, like we have to assume Russia and China have figured it out. That's the case. Then like, okay, it's time to spill the beans. Yeah,

you might as well. Maybe there's even crazier stuff we have, you know? Yeah, exactly. I mean, that's the thing with national security. I mean,

you know, if you have it and you know you have it, then you might as well just expose it. I mean, especially if it's that crazy. And beyond that, even if you do have it and you're saying you don't have it, don't think China's that dumb to,

to actually believe that shit. I mean, so, yeah, the national- I'm talking about the surveillance too, right? They were talking about like these things are surveilling our, like, why would aliens be surveilling our thing? Unless it's like the three-body problem and they're waiting for us to discover something

and then wipe us out. I hope that's not the case, but okay, it's on the table. The more likely alternative is these are drones from other countries sitting over top of our secret places so they can spy on us and then figure out what we're researching. Or they could also just be like third-party defense contractor stuff and Northrop Grumman's spying on Lockheed Martin or something.

I hope that's not the case because that's like already too dystopian for me, but, you know, we really should be thinking of all the alternatives, all the possibilities. And by the way, I don't know if most people realize this, but do you know how many missile launch systems around a lot of military bases or at the very least capabilities to launch on unwanted aircraft? Most military bases have strict flight restrictions for, flying over those, especially until you get to a certain altitude, whatever. Why has none of these things been fired on?

Or have they? And if they have, that would be a good thing to know. Well, those things turn it off, too. Supposedly. Supposed. Yeah. They turn nuclear law. Convention here.

And I've got to drop, guys, but a great conversation as usual. Tim Galaday said that he was the victim of a psychological influence operation, which that's just his characterization of what happened. But when he said, I don't like characterization. We're the facts. He says they tried to convince him that the TikTok was U.S. technology. I mean, this is the second time I've heard that. I have the clip of Jeremy Corbell saying that Commander Fravor was told by the CIA

that the TikTok was Lockheed Martin technology. I mean, okay, at some point, shouldn't these guys go like, okay, show me the evidence? Instead, they're going, no, I know it's aliens. They're literally being told it's our technology. They've said that. They testified to that. You know something else I heard about the Tic Tac?

Ryan Graves, he's kind of the advocate for some of these whistleblowers, the pilots and stuff like that. He was on an amazing podcast that was yesterday, how Poodoff was on it as well. And somebody, if it was not Ryan Graves, somebody else mentioned the Ticktack supposedly was returning a signal. that was a friendly signal. I'm going, what? I kind of heard that before,

but that's the case, guys. Like, this has to be human technology. What the hell does that even mean? What is a friendly signal, I guess? It's a good question. This is the part I need to know more information about, like how significant, like you said. Like, what does that mean?

Like, are they sending some type? Maybe they can't even talk about it because maybe it's some classified, you know, capabilities that we have of our aircraft to communicate with one another. So, like, because really the question is, how do you detect, something if it's friendly or not if you're flying around a jet at hypersonic speeds you know like you're

not going to do it by visual site you're going to have this is something to tell you so i thought that was i mean to me that's important to put in perspective of all this is that we don't really know who the gatekeepers really are like we know those guys that were just testifying we're gatekeeping why do we know that because they're not talking about the energy sources they're saying it's national security that's gatekeeping and they're saying well what do we ask but it sounds like air is the people that you go to and ask, but they were under terrible leadership and supposedly they're better leadership now?

I'm sure they're still terrible. They ghosted me too, right? Like that was part of my letter that I wrote is that they ghosted me too. Like the moment they found out those videos were real, they stopped communicating with me and they just sent me one thing saying something about, we found something related to the U.S.

search efforts after the plane disappeared, which should be the biggest story of MH370 ever out there. It's huge that the U.S. is admitting that. but they just ghost me after that. And basically I think they're just trying to erase the fact that they even ever communicated with me so they don't have to even address those videos because there's just nothing they can say about them.

I know you got to go to work, but I want to ask you one question. He was talking about this orb and they saw it and it was metallic, but it was smaller than a sedan. Do you think these orbs have metallic stuff, like the orbs around the plane, for example? Do you think they were metallic? Not really, but I don't rule out there being some connection in general. especially if we're talking about fusion happening.

Like there could be, if it's really, really advanced, maybe it's something, and this may be part of the reason why I think it's kind of like alive. It's like maybe it can shed its skin something like that or remove the waste after a prolonged period of time. Like we don't know for sure that it's 100% using all of its energy based on the environment. Like in fusion, we assume that elements are transmuting and then energy is being released while that's happening.

and Ken's shoulders thought, well, maybe there's this excess energy coming in, but that doesn't mean that, like, there's not, if there's fusion happening, you always have this concern of like, maybe I've got to release these waste materials, just like we were at least waste materials, right? So I don't know, honestly, and Ryan Graves also mentioned that, I think on that podcast, again, the cube inside of a sphere. Mm-hmm. And that was interesting to me because we can't really tell what we're looking at

inside the object in MH370 videos because it's thermal. and the other one's too far away and an infrared. So it would be interesting to see if we could actually see what's inside of it because we could partially see through the plasma. But they also, in that same interview, they also mentioned the idea of, well, what Ryan Graves says, when they upgraded the radars on the planes that he was flying on, all of a sudden they were detecting way more stuff that was out there,

but they couldn't even visually see it. They actually couldn't even see it. Yeah, I remember I'm saying that. And that's really interesting because, like, what are they using to detect? that? Like, what did they upgrade in their radars that all of a sudden allowed them to see that? Did they use some kind of scalar communication thing where they're now able to see there's a gravitational anomaly right there that they couldn't see before?

I don't know. I just think it's really interesting stuff, guys. It was awesome. Yeah. Great conversation, Ashton. We appreciate you coming on. We'll definitely be talking to you very soon. Very interesting conversation, guys.

I don't know. I don't know what the results that you guys wanted from this. hearing, but what I can say is that I think there's a lot of great information there. There's a ton of stuff. I wrote down pages and pages. And I think what we're going to do with this is we're going to probably release part of, or at least most of the actual hearing. We'll leave the videos up as they are.

And then probably tomorrow we will kind of get all of our thoughts down and get the best of the best highlights and pieces. And it also includes some of what Ashton said here tonight, maybe some others that want to come on and discuss kind of just overarching, I guess, their reality or what they thought of this hearing. And to be honest, with everything I wrote talking to Ashton, all of the stuff, I'm going to need like a day to just kind of think about everything and just kind of see. Because obviously the biggest question is like, who's lying to who? And is the government lying to Lou Alizando and this admiral and whoever else, possibly? Are they lying to us?

Is that their job? Is that what they are out? here doing in front of Congress under oath, which is another thing. It's been the narrative. Yeah, exactly. We don't know, guys, but at the very least, we'll find out soon. And like I said, we'll probably release kind of the breakdown of everything tomorrow on our Spotify or wherever you listen to audio podcast. That'll be the best way to do this.

And we'll leave the videos up as raw as they are, but we'll definitely leave those up. It is my birthday. So we're going to get off here now. I'm going to go have me a couple of drinky drinks before we. we go eat-e-eat. So yeah, we're going to do it. But yeah, we loved actually seeing this. I mean, I'm glad we're having these conversations.

Who would have ever thought that we would be alive in a time like this? Yeah, seriously. Where you have. It's exciting. People talking about UFOs and the possibility of that in Congress is insane. So very, very cool that we got to witness that. Guys, we are going to go ahead and end this. We love you all very much.

And we'll start doing more live stream, especially over here on YouTube since we finally got to actually do a YouTube live stream. And we're always going to be over on X. But like I said, if you want to listen to our audio podcast, we will have those on Spotify, wherever you listen to audio.