Somewhere in the Skies - House Oversight Committee UAP Hearing (Full Broadcast)

Episode Date: May 7, 2025

This nonpartisan briefing, hosted by UAPDF provided members with valuable insights into the scientific significance, national security relevance, and innovation potential of UAP-related data. Participants included: • Dr. Avi Loeb, PhD – Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University; Principal Investigator, Galileo Project; Founding Director, Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative. • Dr. Eric Davis, PhD – • Dr. Avi Loeb, PhD – Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University; Principal Investigator, Galileo Project; Founding Director, Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative. • Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, U.S. Navy (ret.), PhD – UAPDF Advisory Board Member; Former NOAA Administrator; Former Oceanographer of the Navy; PhD, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. • Christopher Mellon – UAPDF Board Member; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Former Staff Director, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. • Kirk McConnell – UAPDF Advisory Board Member; Former Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. • Dr. Anna Brady-Estevez, PhD – Founding Partner, American DeepTech; Former SBA Innovation Advisor; Kauffman Fellow. • Mike Gold – President, Civil and International Space, Redwire; Member of the NASA UAP Independent Study Team; Former NASA Associate Administrator for Space Policy and Partnerships; Former Acting Associate Administrator for the Office of International and Interagency Relations, and Senior Advisor the Administrator for International and Legal Affairs; Former Vice President for Civil Space, MAXAR Technologies; Former Director of DC Operations and Business Growth, Bigelow Aerospace; J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School. • Luis Elizondo – UAPDF Board Member; Former Head, Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP); Former DoD Intelligence Official. Book Ryan on CAMEO at: https://bit.ly/3kwz3DO Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/somewhereskies ByMeACoffee: http://www.buymeacoffee.com/UFxzyzHOaQ PayPal: [e-mail] Discord: https://discord.gg/NTkmuwyB4F Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/ryansprague.bsky.social Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomewhereSkies Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/somewhereskiespod/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@ryansprague51 Order Ryan’s new book: https://a.co/d/4KNQnM4 Order Ryan’s older book: https://amzn.to/3PmydYC Store: http://tee.pub/lic/ULZAy7IY12U Read Ryan’s articles at: https://medium.com/@ryan-sprague51 Opening Theme Song by Septembryo Copyright © 2025 Ryan Sprague. All rights reserved Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/somewhere-in-the-skies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash Spotify.

Terms apply. You are now somewhere in the skies with your host, Ryan Spray. I'm going to be very good. I think I'm buying visas after this thing. You're crazy. I got a daughter to ride the horse and I don't know how I'm going to get home today. But it is a pleasure of being here and I want to thank the people that are sitting right there, some dear friends of mine, people in the media and elsewhere that are always kind of me.

We don't agree on that gun thing. We do agree that this is the biggest gun broke for our lifetime and we need to get at the bottom of it. And I'm going to see some folks who know out there that we believe for so many years, people that believe like we did. When you bring it up, we get criticized and people say all kinds of awful things about you and that time I'm over that. We know this thing so the dad can't let off of it. So thank y'all for being here. What I'd like to do is because time is precious. time is precious especially for the members obviously they have a real job to do this is

part of it but they have a whole lot of other responsibilities so that said i'd like to first begin by thanking specifically representing luna from the 13th district on the state in of Florida for her leadership on this particular in this particular forum and on this topic is none of impossible that it was not for representative luna in her pursuit of the truth she has a she has served her country quite honorably and her husband as well if you've been in the military may have run across him. So on behalf the very grateful nation, man, thank you for what

you continue to do with your continuing service to this nation, that of your family. It is great and appreciated and more service specific as well. The second, I'd like to thank Representative R. Wilson somewhat newer to this topic than some of the other folks, maybe on the Senate side and even the House side,

who has also changed in truth and transparency within the American government. I would refer to him as a healthy skeptic. which I think is important. Always keeping an open mind about the data to speak for itself. And in my interactions with Representative Broseon, I've seen him to be every time and exclusively

honorable and truthful. And he is now, I think it's transferred into the form you see here, the media present. We're gonna have a very interesting conversation today. And again, this is really impossible because of the three individuals up here. So if you have time later on, I would suggest you, give him a corporation. And last but certainly not least, in Representative Tim

Rochev from Tennessee, who has been spearheading this topic for quite some time at great personal risk to his political career. As most of you know, that's one thing that politicians tend to award his risk, especially when it comes Representative Bruchette. I would probably define him as bringing a working man's perspectives and have common sense perspective. to the bureaucracy we call Washington, D.C. A certainly breath of fresh air and a champion

for, again, truth and transparency for our government and for our institutions. So that's said, I'd offer a quick round of applause for there. Secondly, I'd like to take back. We're going to have three separate American people, and I don't say that lightly.

We have elements from academic community, elements from the intelligence community, all speaking here today to what they know. The assembly here is, dare I say, possibly even historic. I'm truly honored to be with you here today. I will be your moderator. Real quick, we want to report for our panelists.

I'd like to, when you're asking a question, try to keep it within, try to keep it within three minutes. Eric. If you go beyond that, I might have to kind of get the conversation I'm directed into some other questions because we do have a lot of panelists and I also have a tendency to to talk a lot so I'm going to try to keep myself in check as well The panelists if you can try to keep your responses to three minutes some panelists have for you a presentation

So for those who are a presentation will do the presentation first and then we'll be followed up with questions and of course Steve members of Congress if you have any questions for you and some of those will be very for those of you have a security clearance or who have held a security clearance I asked that you please be mindful that this is an unclassified venue and not to discuss classified information. For the record, none of us look good in an orange jumpsuit, certainly I don't. So you want to be mindful of that. I'd also like to thank the media.

Thank each and every one of you for being here. I know this is a topic that for quite some time was wrong, stigma, taboo. This would have been considered career suicide for any respectable journalist to cover this topic, just like it is for politicians and our elected leaders of this name. and times are changing.

Times are changing because of you. I want to do a hearting thank you to the members of media that are covering this. And last but not least, it's probably, perhaps most important, each and every one of you that's turning in, each and every one of you that's watching this, each and every one of you that might be sitting on your sofa at home or running dinner table and are interested in this topic

and ask questions. Put this on because of you. Yes, because of you. That means democracy is working, folks. That means transparency is working. your hands he's working. And that's profound. This is democracy in action and you're watching it.

So I want to thank each and every one of you. And I also want to thank you a quick with the staff here in Longham Hill that put this help with this together and coordinate this, I know, to do the Zoom. But thank you so much for being patient with us and helping us with the audiovisual, the media, and the seating is very much with that. Let's go ahead and again, shall we?

So I'd like to introduce the first of our panelists here is Dr. Abbey Lowe. Now, bear with me because he has his academic vitae. It's probably about 10 pages long, so I'm going to just try to truncate it a little bit. So Dr. Abilow is a PhD professor of science at Harvard University. He is also the head of the Galileo Project. He is also the founding director of Harvard Black Hole Initiative. He's a contributor to Arrow. He is also a trained astrophysicist.

Let's see if we can get this right. Director of the Institute for Theory and Computation and a former member of the President's Council on Science and Technology, so they did about that for many. former chair of the board of physics and astronomy of the national academies and also author of eight books and over 1,000 scientific papers and he's here before you today by the way none of our panelists are being paid everybody's doing this out of of their own kindness and goodness of their own heart the second panelist we have

here is we're at one time down in debt for those of you who have certain in the Navy know how hard it is to achieve the right hand of Admiral. There's no easy feat. He's also a former acting administrator of the National Ocean Oceanic and atmospheric administration, aka NOAA, former oceanography for the Navy, a advisory board member of the UAPDF folks here that are helping make this happen. But I'll say something else about Tim. Tim also happened to be one of the Navy officers that was present in the Grie during the

Roosevelt incidences. The Roosevelt is based on the state plural because there are many of these UAP incidents that the USS Roosevelt encountered in the 2013, 2014 timeframe when she was conducting military operations in the support. And so Admiral Guayette, I would consider indirectly a witness. to some degree of some of the dysfunction that the bureaucracy had overlaid on some of our circuit. And certainly last been on least, is Dr. Eric Davis, not only a colleague but a friend, and in

some cases he been a mentor. He is a theoretical and applied physicist, senior science advisor at Berth 10, former researcher at the Aerospace Corporation, and now, those are just some of us, let me tell you who he really is. Dr. Erd Davis was one of our senior scientists during my tenure at the advanced aerospace and threat identification program. He's one of our chief scientists, and by the way, he was also part of other legacy efforts before that, working with elements of the U.S. government. And I think what you're going to find him have to say today is going to be very clear. He's an honorable man.

He has served his country time and time again, in some cases, a great personal expense, professional and personally to himself. And probably one of the smartest individuals I've ever had, you are pretty much to me. If you get a chance, I'd shake his hand because I would consider him like the rest of these gentlemen, the national treasurer. And I think, like I said, when he's going to tell you today, so this is why I usually might, just let him roll for about three hours. So with that said, I think we have a presentation we're going to present first by Dr.

Abby Lowe, so if we can just give him a quick round of applause. Thank you so much. much. Let us be honest. There are objects in the sky that we don't understand. That's not the first time that we don't understand something. Our knowledge, scientific knowledge, is an island in an ocean of ignorance. We don't know what 98% of matter in the universe is. We call it dark matter, but we invest billions of dollars figuring it out over the past half century. We haven't yet figured it out. My point is simple. We should invest a billion dollars in figuring out what is in our sky. And that means developing artificial intelligence algorithms software that would

help us analyze data from state-of-the-art sensors. And in one case, if all of these objects are produced by humans, the Defense Department will have a new tool to monitor what's out there in the sky. It's important for national security. However, if one out of a million objects came from outside the solar system, the person who finds that object will get the Nobel Prize. It's a win-win situation. We need to invest a billion dollars in this task. And I will mention a few videos of what we can do with it. This is a subject that the public cares a lot about.

And so it's one of the unusual opportunities to invest a billion dollars in science and technology that will make all taxpayers happy. If you were to ask them, do they care more about what dark matter is, or whether we have a neighbor that is intelligent from which we can learn they will tell you it's the second question that they want the billion dollars to be spent on. So to make taxpayers happy, let's invest the money. And if we don't find any technological relics from other civilizations, this would be a very precious defense system for our country.

So I will show a few slides describing what we have been doing over the past few years in the project that I'm needing at Harvard University the Galileo project. What you see in the first slide is a title of an article that appeared in New York Times magazine. And I was not happy with the content. I contacted the editor and said, if this is the way to describe science, how can I believe anything you say about politics? Now, Enrico Fermi, 1950, had lunch at Los Alamos. And in his Italian accent, he asked, where is everybody? And that's a question that every lonely person asks.

And what you tell a lonely person is, don't be presumptuous. Your partner will not come to you. You are not that attractive. You have to go the dating sites. And Enrico Fermi didn't even build a telescope to look out. to look out, didn't have cameras, to check. And so saying, where is everybody, is arrogant. And many of my colleagues in academia argue,

extraordinary planes require extraordinary evidence. If you read the news, you would conclude that we are not extraordinary. There is room for improvement. And imagining something like us on a planet that has similar conditions to Earth is not an extraordinary claim. It's just an ordinary claim to say under similar circumstances, you will get life and eventually intelligent life.

And most stars in the Milky Way galaxy, 100 billion of them, form billions of years before the sun. So we are late for the party. They may have been before us. So it's an ordinary claim that requires ordinary evidence. When people make this statement,

they also imply that we should not invest any funds in searching for them. And without seeking evidence, how can we find them? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. So my point is that within the same TV community, innovation is suppressed by people who assume the answer in advance. When I was a kid, I was most frustrated by the adults in the room because I would ask them a question and they would pretend to know the answer. And the one reason I became a scientist is because I don't care what other people say.

I don't care how many likes I get. I just want to figure out the answer based on evidence. That's the way the detective works. We shouldn't assume anything. But if we don't collect data, we will never find anything new. Now, another important point is new scientific knowledge doesn't fall into our lab. To find the Higgs boson, the CERN invested $10 billion in the large Hark and Collider. To find the first generation of stars and galaxies in the universe, the scientific version of the story,

the biblical story of Genesis, we had to invest $10 million in the web by the best dollar. I was one other people in the first advisory in the design, back in the end of the end of the My point is, you need to sit on your chair and figure out the answer the way most people do. Just to give you an example. You know, we are familiar with objects that have a positive mass. We are also aware that the universe is not just expanding, but its expansion is accelerating. So we see evidence for negative gravity that we are the pushing because it would be able to a negative mass.

Just like there are positive and negative charges, if we put a negative mask, it's a positive mask, the total mass would be zero. This is object to float, and you move it around. And you move in the fuel, you move it around. So when they look at Starship, our best rocket, whoever has access to a negative mass would laugh at it.

We are putting most of the mass in the fuel of the rocket. It's a huge, gigantic thing. And if they had access to a negative mass, that would not be necessary. You would just use the payload plus a negative mass that balances it. Just to give an example of something beyond our knowledge, if negative masses exist or not. We don't know if you can bottle this dark energy that fills up the universe. Thank you.

The Galileo project at Harvard University was established a few years ago, and it followed the first report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to Congress. And I suggested also to NASA just around that time that they should look into that. This is a subject where the intelligence agency cannot really make a lot of progress on because the data is limited. So why not build observatories monitoring the sky? The sky is not classified. As some members have been looking at the sky for a while.

The oceans are not classified. We just need sensors and then analyzing the data with a state-of-the-art AI software. That's what we need. So this was not happening. And I'm not happy with looking at past reports. Because when you look at past reports, you have very limited data. And you can't make a lot of progress. If the data is fuzzy, you can't really get it to be crispier.

But if you have a working observatory that monitors the sky all the time, all the oceans, and you see something unusual, you can try and collect better data. And therefore, I always say the best is yet to come. If we were curious enough, and that's what we should be, we can collect data, forget about the hundreds of reports from the past, and have a collection of millions of objects that we look at. That's what the Galileo project is about. And in the future, we can get very good data

with equipment that was never tried before, because astronomers usually focus on a small part of the sky and look at things that are far away. They ignore objects flying overhead. And the Galileo project has developed an observatory at Harvard University first that monitor the sky in the infrared, optical, radio, and audio. And as of now, we are actually doing triangulation.

We have multiple units that look at the same object from different directions so that we can figure out the distance, the velocity, the acceleration of the object. That's extremely important. And we are building additional observatories, one in Pennsylvania and another one in Nevada. Hopefully by the end of the summer, we have three observatories.

is collecting data on a few million objects every year. And I say even if one in a million is of exterrestrial origin, that would be the biggest discovery that humanity ever made. It would mean that we have a partner. We shouldn't assume anything about the neighbor. But it would be useful to figure out what they are capable of because we can do better. do better. They're probably more advanced than we are they reached our backyard before we

reached their backyard. So we collected data on many, by now, millions of objects, we analyzed it. And obviously we are happy to share the data with whoever is interested. But also over the past decade, the first objects from outside the solar system were discovered. for the first time by astronomers. There were three of them. The first was identified by US government satellites that are monitoring the Earth for any ballistic missiles being launched

by adversarial nations. And in 2014, they noticed an object that collided with Earth and exploded with a fireball that released 1% of the Hiroshima energy. And they decided it's not human-made and therefore it can be shared with astronomy community. So NASA published a catalog of all these meteors over the past decade and one of them was this one. We looked at the catalog and uncovered it and realized that it came from outside the solar system because it was moving very

fast. It was moving faster than 95% of the stars in the vicinity of the Sun, outside the solar system. So the question is, was it a Voyager-like probe because it's moving so fast, or maybe just a rock from another star? That was the first one. And then the second one in 2017 was a much bigger object. The first one was half a meter in size. The second one was the size of the football field. It didn't collide with Earth. It would have been catastrophic if it did, because would have killed us all. But it passed near Earth. Within a sixth of the Earth's sun separation,

it was observed by a telescope in Hawaii, monitoring near-earth objects, because we are all afraid of what happened to the dinosaurs, right? We don't want to have the same fate. And they realized this object is moving too fast to be bound by gravity to the sun. And they called it Omuamua, which means a sense. scout in the Hawaiian language.

Now this object at first was thought to be a comet, but there was no cometary table around it, no gas or dust. And then it exhibited an excess push away from the sun without any rocket effect of acting on it. And moreover, it was, it had a very extreme shape, most likely flat, like a disk. based on the reflection of sunlight. The mark of sunlight reflected from it changed by a factor of 10 every eight hours as it was tumbling.

Very unusual object. So it wasn't clear, it's not an asteroid, it's not a comet, what is it? And I suggested, well, maybe it's a space trash, an empty trash bag from another civilization. So that was 2017. And then, whoops, and then there was a space trash bag, Then there was a comet which looked just like the comets that we are familiar with in 2019 also came from outside the solar system based on its speed.

And my colleagues said, well, this one looks familiar, so doesn't it convince you that the others are also natural? And I said, well, if you go down the street and you see a weird person, and after that you see a normal person, it doesn't make the weird person normal. So, um, Muamua was really strange, most likely flat. And it's not clear what it was. I suggested maybe it's a very thin object, pushed by sunlight, reflecting sunlight. And in fact, a lot of technological debris that we produce is being pushed by reflecting sunlight. In fact, in fact, the space trash that we produced, on January 2nd, in 2025, just this year, an amateur astronomer noticed an object passing near Earth.

And it was catalogued as a near-earth asteroid. 17 hours later, it was realized, oh, this object moves exactly the same way as the Tesla rolls the car that was launched by SpaceX in 2018, Elon Musk. It is a car. It's not an asteroid. moved it from the catalog. And I actually have a bet with Elon. I am willing to put 1% of my network against 1% of his net.

To search, to check if there is any other space entrepreneur who is more accomplished than he is since the Big Bank, 13.8 billion years ago. Let's figure it out. It's not a lot of money for him. And then, actually in 2020, there was the same telescope in Hawaii that discovered the Wuhan,

discovered another object that was pushed by reflecting sunlight, and then after a few weeks, the astronomers realized, oh, that's a rocket booster from a 1996 launch by NASA. So, we know that some of the office that are unusual, being pushed by sunlight, are human-made. The question is, who produced Omoa and more. And my point is that the next Copernican revolution,

remember, Copernicus realized we are not the physical center of the universe, I actually visited Poland a year ago, a day after visiting the Munich Security Conference, where I spoke as the first astrophysicist that ever, By the way, I saw on the roof of the hotel at the Munich Security Conference. There were snipers with black head covers. They were there to protect the politicians. I realized being an astrophysicist is really very fortunate.

Nobody wants to kill me. But at any event... It's over, right? The next Copernican revolution is that we are not at the technological center of the University. center of the universe. We have something to learn from a smarter kid on our cosmic block. And I wrote a paper a couple of months ago where I explained that with a space telescope, we can actually go through the million objects, roughly meter in size, within the orbit

of the Earth around the sun that came from outside the solar system and figure out whether among them, among all the rocks, there is space trash. from other civilizations because over the past billions of years, they predated us and they polluted interstellar space because we sent out five probes, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and new horizons. They are heading out of the solar system

towards interstellar space. We did it over 50 years. Just think how many more we would produce in the next billion years. And all of that keeps accumulating, like plastics in the ocean all of these trash produced by other civilizations and we just have to look in our backyard and figure it out again a billion dollars would go a long way in this direction but right now this subject is outside the mainstream of

astronomy instead the highest priority defined by the Decal survey is to spend more than ten billion dollars in the search for microbes for the molecular fingerprints of microbes in the atmospheres of exoplanets. And frankly, I am much more excited about finding intelligence than finding microbes. For a simple reason that we can learn from a higher level of intelligence. One reason I seek intelligence in interstellar space is because I don't often find it here on Earth. And you may ask, where is where are we voyager being? in a billion years.

It will be on the opposite side of the Milky Way galaxy. So if most stars form billions of years before the sun, we know that for a fact. They had, I mean, there were civilizations like us out there, they had plenty of time for their spacecraft to reach us. And we haven't really checked until the last decade we didn't really know about interstellar objects. So I'm saying this is new.

Now the meteor, the object, the object that collided with Earth was interesting, because for a cost of $1.5 million that I received from a donor, we were able to go to the Pacific Ocean and search for materials left over from this interstellar object. It exploded only 20 kilometers above the surface of the ocean, and that implied it had material strength tougher than all other hundreds of meteors in the NASA catalog.

So it was unusually in its material strength, in its speed. And the question was, could it be a voyager like meteor? Could it be a Tesla-woster car like meteor? Because that car actually will collide with Earth, probably in several tens of millions of years. And my colleagues, if there are any astronomers at that time, they might argue it's a rock-of-a-type we've never seen before. So actually the US Space Command looked back at the data after I reached them through the White House and they confirmed, yes, this meteor actually came from outside the solar system.

The data was reliable and they also released the light curve of the explosion that indicated how much energy was released and at what altitude was released. explosion. And so I decided to lead an expedition to the Pacific Ocean. We went there slightly less than two years ago. And what you see here is the deck of the ship that was fittingly called Silver Star. We built a sled with magnets on both sides and we placed it on the ocean floor, which was a mile deep. And we surveyed the region that is seven miles in size, looking for any molten droplets left over from the explosion, just to figure out was it a natural rock or maybe a gadget? And I told my students before I left,

if we find a gadget and it has buttons on it, should I press a button? Opinions were split. Half of the class said, please don't do that. He put all of us in the risk. And the other half said, Please do. We would like to see if it's charge BP 100. So we brought back materials.

And it was a two-week expedition. I put all the materials in this black sort of case and shifted by Felix to my home and then brought it to the laboratory of my colleague at the Halvstein Jacobson, who is a world-renowned geochemist that has the best instruments in the world. And on the other side of me in this photo is a summer intern, Sophie Barrett's room, who worked with me that summer, and she discovered 850 molten droplets within the materials that we brought back. And I gave her the honorary title, The Sparrow Hunter. And you can see here what these molten broklets,

droplets looked like. They were very distinct relative to the background sand and we picked them up with tweezers and published the results. And so there was one type of those molten droplets, about 10% of the entire reservoir that looked very unusual. They had a composition, a chemical composition that was very different than solar system materials. Up to a thousand times higher abundance of beryllium, lamp and uranium, then you find in solar system materials. And so that's a possible indication that we found some material from the original object, but we want to go back and search for bigger pieces with a robot that we put on the ocean floor.

It will cost $6.5 million. We don't have a fund the rest of yet. If anyone is interested in joining us, let me know. This is an image from the last day of the previous expedition where I was standing on the ship looking at the sunset. Next to me is an 88 years old art right who was a commander of a destroyer during the Vietnam War and I really liked him because he wouldn't speak much. He would solve problems and everything he said was true and there aren't many people like that these days. What you find most often are people that are people that are very, virtual signaling that are trying to impress you.

That's partly the culture of social media. But this mission was a success thanks to art. And here reminded me of my father. I really liked him. Now this year, in August 2025, there is a new observatory in Chile that was funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

It's called the Verasil Rubin Observatory. And it will survey the southern sky every four nights and could find a more and more like objects every few months if they are out there. And now we know to look at them in much greater detail. We can use the web telescope to do that. And this telescope will use a camera that is 3.2 gigap it fixes in resolution. So a thousand times more than the number of resolution elements you have in your cell phone.

So I'm very excited about the coming year or two. We will have new results from the observatories that the Galileo project is building. We would have potentially a new expedition where we can look for bigger pieces of this first interstellar meteor. And the Rubin Observatory might find more of more like objects. But if we really want to make fast progress, we need more funds. If I had a hundred million dollars or a billion dollars, I know exactly what needs to be done. And we can get much better understanding of our cosmic neighborhood.

As I said before, the software that we developed would be of great use to the Department of Defense. Thank you. Thank you. Let's just say a couple words. And we're going to try to make this brief we can go ahead and start getting to some of the questions. Sir, over the view.

Thank you very much. It's great to be here and Representative Luna and both folks and Bridgett. I appreciate you giving us all an opportunity to share what we want to share and say what we want to say about this important topic of UAP. So I'll be about five minutes here, maybe a little less, but today I call on the American Scientific Enterprise

to mainstream UAP research and development. And to do that properly, I should first begin by assessing the current state of UAP research. There are a few brave individuals and organizations conducting such research, including Professor Bobby Lowe, the Galliolio Project at Harvard, Professor Diana Kosoga at UNCW, Dr. Gary Nolan and Peter Skatefish, the Seoul Foundation,

with Stanford University, Professor Jeffrey Prypaw, with the Archives of the Impossible at Rice University and the Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies. But these are by far the exception. For UAP research and scientific studies, study is shunned by American science community writ large. Even with dozens of credible former military witnesses coming forward, as well as legislative action from Congress in recent years, the stigma remains too great to jeopardize the reputation,

promotion potential, and tenure of those in academia. To better understand this resistance, it might be useful for me to describe the state of climate science in this country where the complete opposite is occurring. As a former administrator of National Oceanic Amiric Administrative Administration with the PhD in oceanography, I have a study of the changes occurring in our Earth system, and while they are indeed significant, I am by no means a climate denier. Climate change is far from the existential threat of the mainstream media and some of the science community claim it to be.

A false narrative has been propagated that global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is the cause of every severe weather event on any given day. This is mainly the result of a large number of scientific studies that employing extreme and and plausible mission scenarios. Lacking the expertise to critically evaluate such studies, the average system is rarely accepted of misinformation. Completing every extreme weather event with climate change

is imprecise, incomplete, and incorrect. The most clearly examples come around every hurricane season, for which satellite data over the 50 years shows there's been no trend upward or downward of these storms. The same goes for wildfires, where new coverage always links climate change to their occurrence, but wildfires have actually been increasing in this country. So even the intergovernmental panel on climate change has been unable to conclusively detect

changes in extreme weather and climate event frequency and intensity. However, saying that we are not in a climate crisis is heresy of mainstream media in the global science community. This is a situation with UAP but in reverse. Ample evidence, even congressional testimony, attests the scientific validity of UAP. With response by members, the scientific community has been either A to barrier of heads in the sand, or B, to make baseless mockery of the courageous contrarians like Professor Lowe who seek the truth.

Why is it so? Well, the reason is partially due to overclassification and a deliberate decades-long disinformation campaign by the U.S. Department of Defense and Intelligence Community. Unlike climate change, UAP and the non-human intelligence which control them very well could be an existential threat, as our moderator, Lou Alessando eloquently described. to his book aptly named Eminent. The scientific community needs to wake up to the reality of UAP, which represents the most line-known development since the Confirmingian Revolution.

Consider the extraordinary report I received this weekend when a former U.S. Navy, S.H. 60, C.H.60, C.H.C. helicopter crew chief, who was embarked on the carrier USS Glythe Izenauer in 2021, described to me his recording on forward-looking infrared video of a metallic sphere at an altitude a few hundred feet above the ship traveling along a linear trajectory, horizontal the sea surface, before it accelerated into the horizon at an incredible speed disappearing completely. Upon landing, he discussed this with some of the pilots and the other air crew before transferring the FLURR footage to the carrier's intelligence officer. Moreover, this was not an isolated event.

For the Eisenhower Strike Group, during that deployment, saw many, many instances of UAP. primarily F-18s frequently encountering them at high altitude. And this topic was widely discussed by the airwing during the entire deployment. And later, fellow aircrew members of this crew chief from another squadron deployed on board the USS Gerald R. Ford and shared similar experiences. The crew sheet also informed me that the secret laptops in their ready room provided access to a shared drive, where numerous Shady's sightings on Fleer were archived. They stored these videos on a folder name, Range Fowler's. You like that, Brian.

And his commanding officer and safety officer were aware of these instances, but there was an unspoken understanding not to discuss them openly in the ready room. I have spoken to others that are still in active duty, and their sitings are so numerous that they are desensitized in the phenomenon. My point being that the Navy possesses a trove of video evidence and data regarding UAP. And I see no reason why flirt footage of UAP and Navy training ranges cannot be unclassified and shared with the scientific community.

With all but access to more data like this, we can transform every institution of higher education by establishing a Galileo project within their astronomy and astrophysics departments, a sole foundation within their biomedicine and humanities programs, and our archive would be impossible in their religious studies and philosophy curriculum. To close, I point out that last one, at the endless frontiers conference in Austin,

the present science advisor Michael Precios committed the Trump administration to creating a golden age in American innovation. I'm convinced that UAP research cannot only support this, but accelerated in ways beyond our imagination. The time to destroy the stigma

associated with UAP is now. I ask the House Oversight Committee and other members of Congress to demand the DOE, DOE, DHS, and NASA release more UAP data for open science and the White House to include UAP research and his 2025 RD priorities memo. Thank you all. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We get to our first question here and it is not scripted and it is to my former colleague, Dr. Eric Tavis, and be very careful how I ask this specific question. Welcome, Mr. Goldman. Good to see it as always. Dr. Davis, I know your background space for identification. I also know, to some degree, some of the history and firsthand experience you have in UAP. I believe that this committee, the student members of Congress, and the American public,

would love to hear to the degree you're able to discuss it, the direct access you had. For those who don't know, Dr. Davis was, and I'll let me answer to this, was it was submitted into into the matter of record for Congress a couple years ago. The Wilson Davis know, who was alleged that he was the author of. And if you don't know what that is, I encourage you to look it up. It has been entered as a matter of public record and the congressional record and in his exchange is significant. This is the man. I won't say he did or even.

I'll let him tell him. And furthermore, I know, has had it involved in, be mindful here. Dr. Davis, please be careful for security classification, but do you mind sharing to the degree you're comfortable with information related to crash retrievals and your experience? Sir. Thank you. I've been, I'm an astrophysicist and also a, what we've worked on this at NASA and I thought we've brought to a propulsion physicist.

The report of breaking propulsion to the other from 1996 to 2002 and then we continued out in to develop a book that we published in the AIADLW Press in 2009 for tears of propulsion science. So my background is in advanced deep space and interstellar space life, mostly faster my propulsion for the use of general typic theory and quantum field theory, as well as advanced nuclear propulsion like nuclear fusion and nuclear fusion. And being energy propulsion, which I worked on as a principal investigator for the Air Force research lab in the report's airfield space.

So I've got quite a brown background. And I began my work in UFOs or UNAP started in 1996. That was a pretty transformative job for me because as a physical sciences, I'm saying for the first time I've been off. I'm investigating it using forensic science techniques in the field, interviewing witnesses, collecting data. And I have a team of colleagues on the staff

that I look with, also PhDs, and we have a world class science advisory board, which my former boss in Austin helped them, was on the board of the board, was on that science advisory board, and was the last chair of that board actually. We also had Paul 14 astronaut adventure and for a short time of Apollo, 17 astronaut Jack Schmidt.

And we had many former CIA National Intelligence officers, social psychologists, psychologists, medical doctors, and nuclear engineers, So it was a really transformative because I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I became familiar with Carl Sagan and Strong Report in Pinguett. Pinguettos, a scientific debate which was published by the AAAS press. The AAAAS is the American Association for the Master of Science and science is their prestigious journal of it published.

And so that was a prestigious publication. Every chapter was authored by experts in the field. in academia who have studied UFOs and some angle of it from a scientific data standpoint. Data that was collected, data that was analyzed, and so they presented it in homes to work. For a bizarre reason, in the 1980s, Carl Sagan had this wonderful astronomy show called Cosmos, and the companion took for that. And what's ironic is that he changed 180 degrees. because all of a sudden went from being UFOs. We have in this book that I co-authored,

our book edited with Port-Mage, all of this wonderful data that's been collected that is not explainable to conventional, astronomical, weather, or man-made explanations or events or object. I'm now calling it pseudoscience. It's branch science. People are mistaken.

Pilots have poor vision, military pilots especially. And I heard that for Ler David, who's a aerospace engineering aviation space exploration writer. And people like him have said that are military pilots, especially the ones at the USS Nivis, during its encounter of the Tick-TAC, who we came back in November 2004. Oh, yes, those pilots have four vision. They're flying, what, $20 million fighter aircraft? And they have four visions. How did they get through the Naval Aviation Program and talk guns?

school. Dr. Davis, could you, could you a library a little bit on your doctor? Oh, I told me with it. So it was a transformative issue for me or a job. It transformed me to a lot more. To thinking as a trained PhD physicists, I heard my doctor in answer to physics. And so I worked on three space missions in graduate school. IOS, which is the upgrade astronomical satellite program.

So as pertaining to the topic that new ones, I'm not trying to avoid it. way it. It is a sensitive subject. So it's due to astronaut Ed Mitchell, Dr. Ed Mitchell, because of him, and I won't go to the long story, but it's because of him that I got on the trail and working, and by the way, the UAP, the term unidentified aerial phenomena goes back to you. So, so I followed this trail and I ended up over the course of the following two and a half decades working for Big Love, working for the Air Force Research Lab, working for how to fit off and Earth Tech and the National Incorporated, and then working at Neural Space Corporation.

So we're working in a combination of industry and classified programs on behalf of the Defense Intelligence Agency and for the Pentagon agencies that human worked up and the OAPP task force. And so a long story short is that I came into contact industry, the activist scientists, both active duty and later retired as well as intelligence officers, generals, agals, colonels, intelligence, or human intelligence collection, EIA, and the central intelligence agency who reached out to me to have me do some foreign UAP assessment.

And so I had been exposed to so much in the classified room that I can tell you definitively that there is a at least as far as I know, Al had the occasion to really have been outside of the term. Taking those back to the more, the most sensitive, there are programs that they've ever have. These programs are even more sensitive and more to maintain. And so this is one of the, this is one of the most well hidden programs. It is hidden from congressional oversight and it always has been. And it was hidden by the action of the President Eisenhower who instituted presidential emergency action directives during his administration. These directives are not shown in Congress.

They are classified. Was instituted in the 70s. It is not subject. Those are not subjected to the Freedom of Declaration Act. These directives provide cover that are associated with the scientific and engineering study of them. And that takes place within the industry.

What happens is the Department of Defense offices, CIA offices, they create shell companies, They give a sole source contract to the shell company who passed the money to a selected group of defense industry firms. And those firms would take that contract money and turn them around, which they give to their own people in Cypher, and reverse engineering analysis and study of these recovered hearings. And so this avoids all congressional oversight. It avoids the game-made. It's one of the most clever techniques used to hide it.

And as far as I know, only one four star general and one degree star adeline, grateful, and that's about as much as I can say they located the programs and they uncovered by resistance and hostile reception and was told that he found who he was looking for. They were who they were suspected being yes, they were, he was able to get into the program who has had access to all. So he had his capability. So he had his capability. I was fortunate to meet Dave Dresh at the behest of Jay Stratton.

Dave was an MRO liaison officer to the WAPU task force. And Dave was working for second force gifts of the aerospace corporation building Colorado Springs. And I was assigned to work at the aerospace board a lot of the family because I was supporting it. So Jane put, Dave and Dave took all of my classified and proprietary information of all the investigations I did at least,

AFRO got in and around with it, and what you now know, yeah. So there is an air there. We have had this program going on and various guys, his various code names. Cove names change roughly every three. They often shipped around due to the major presidential administration, presidential administration,

maybe every five to ten years in some days. And so these things are very old. They come in, like, fine, but they're still around. And the government that's been involved, I would say since the beginning, in 1945, the US arms and recovery, states aren't even invaded fiddling, treaties that are taking place generally on land. The majority of the crash situation was paid place in the maritime line.

And I'm not sure where that is going. I think they're probably also wondered what we're in those days right or feel like, because I've only worked on the legacy and history of this part of it, up until about ever since the end of the ASTOP and the ATIF ID. I think that's about it, a little bit. Okay, so I said basically, my interface with a member of them. Are they extra-trust.

We don't, psychologists and social psychologists and philosophers. So, physicists like me and Abney, we cannot answer questions like, we know if we just need to take data. We call it veterans. And Avi, I support 1,000% because we need him to do like he needs to do. UAPS is another group of University of Albany. This episode is brought to you by Netflix. Most valuable promotions in Netflix are hosting a blockbuster

triple headliner Saturday, May 16th. Rhonda Rousey returns to face fellow woman's MMA pioneer Gina Carrano in the main event. Plus co-main's Nate Diaz versus Mike Perry. And the best heavyweight in the world, Francis Ngano versus Felipe Lins. Watch Rhonda Rousey versus Gina Carrano, live only on Netflix.

Saturday, May 16th at 9 p.m. Eastern Center time, 6 p.m. Pacific time. Before, and having a friendly conversation with some of the representatives who I think... With that said, before we go on, I wanted to thank real quick Rep. Nick, for, is that how do you pronounce your name, sir? I'm probably. Forget you.

We arrived here just about too long ago, so thank you, sir, very much. From Alabama, right from Alabama. The best chance of detecting undersea EUAP activity. Up to this point, we've been discussing about the stuff we've seen our skies and possibly space, but the one thing we've neglected are those observations of the OAP that are undersea under and this kind of goes to the whole training unit characteristic that we're seeing that some of the uap can display particularly as you're former and in fact i would advise us to continue what we started in trump's first administration and what we did is we got to a memorandum on

mapping the u.s. that directed the establishment of a strategy a plan the national strategy a plan and a council and various council to contribute to the effort and so in the few we did this in 2020 and in the years since we've been able to go from having 40% of our EEZ map to 50%. And it involves not only using ships from sonar, but also exploring the water column with deep diving remotely operated vehicles, swarms of drones, underwater drones, Eastbound 120. It has a free water and surface drones. Private sector and that has a vast capability as well. So I'd say we really want to expand the work that's already occurring within the government

and the private sector and targeted it, because most of it is targeted towards ocean science, and that's great. But if we open the aperture of it and include UAP as a research target, I think we'll learn a lot more about the phenomena as well as the ocean. Thank you very much.

The next question we have is geared towards, and my question for you, sir, is, what is your recommendation for the new generation of scientists who want to enter into this field of study, but don't know exactly, you actually gave up on the senior members of our community. And I have to grateful that because science is all about evidence and curiosity.

And we lose that when we become the adults in the room. So for the young people, in fact, I was asked to establish a Galileo Observatory in this stem cell campus that we be built in Indiana. And I'm very excited about that because those high school students would be unbiased, they would look at the data and try to figure it out. That's the way science should be done.

And very often, if you assume something, you say there is nothing out there and you're not looking, that obviously that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I very much hope that the young generation will approach this subject without any stigma, without any prejudice, without any bias, because it's all of it.

of great interests of national security, and even if it has nothing to do with what lies outside the solar system, we need to figure it out. Maybe other nations have technologies that we are not aware of. And if we do find something from outside the solar system, it's the biggest discovery ever made in science. It will change our perception and our place in the universe. I had a group of religious people that came and they belonged to Christianity today, an organization.

They asked me, what would give implications to religion? And I said, well, I had two daughters, and when the second one was born, I didn't lose any of my love to the first one. So imagining that God can only attend to one civilization is very limited. And I think in fact, it would be enriching to realize that we have similar to some sort of it. have siblings. You might be jealous if they're more advanced than we are. Maybe they get more attention. But, you know, that's exciting. We may get inspiration from finding something better than us. So why is it that academia, the mainstream, is shying away from this, partly because the public care so much about it. And, you know, there are lots of statements that are not correct that

being made by people who have no evidence, but that should not be a reason to avoid this subject. We should study that young people, I think, have the ability to figure it out. If we have the resources allocated to the research, we figure it out. We have that women, it's much more excited than figuring out what dark matter is, whether there are microbes on exoplanets, which probably exists in any warm water environment, similar to Earth. I'm willing to bet that our microbes, but I don't care much about them. I really want to find things that are better than us so that we can get better, even improve

ourselves. And the young generation hopefully will do it for us. If we only allocate the resources, we don't block them, because the gatekeepers, you know, use this technique of not funding such research, ridiculing it. And even when I went on the expedition, people said, oh, he will not find anything. Oh, he went to the wrong place. We don't believe the US government data

from the US-based command. And my suggestion is just to even more than a year. Thank you, Dr. Liddleman will make this very quick. I know one of the representatives is a very short of time. There's a question I wanted to ask that in her presence, the question goes to Dr. Davis, or Dave's, we had discussions length in certain settings, former official setting you know I've been part of, when we talk about

exotic material. I think it might be very helpful to the degree you can. You please explain what is what makes exotic material that has been recovered from the U.S. government exotic? What makes it different from atomically and tenement? It's actually a very simple answer. It's the way it's fabricated. It's the way it's fabricated. that's what makes it exotic. It's not a new element that's never been discovered and placed on the periodic table elements. The materials are in the periodic tables. They're either radioactive isotopes that we already know on or there are any of the other non-radialatine, non-actonite elements on the table.

It's just the combination of the materials is unusual. It could be that you could say that that's exotic, but it's the composition, it's how you use, built the craft the materials that formed the craft and everything is cypheraproft. It's quite exotic because one of the company's leadership was a young material scientist when he graduated with his doctorate in material science for one of the university, one of the universities in Illinois back in 1970 and he was hired by Ben Bridge. So basically this is what he was telling him. He's an advanced material scientists and he said well we could use the best diagnostic equipment was 60s 70s 80s and 90s and

we could see the elements the mass fatotrop mass metrosity structure but when we look at how they're composed in structure it's like nothing we've been able to fabricated or we've never made the group of us and we have no extrapolated engineering or physics technology to tell us or inform us. So they understood that it's a combination of the elements was very unusual. It was counterintuitive, but it's the way the materials are. Yes, sir, absolutely, for your... Yeah, I mean, the stuff that you... All day, but we've got two other...

Last question of privy to the incidents regarding the USS Roosevelt. In fact, there's another distinguished guest we have with us here today, Ryan Graves, who's a pilot. It's about some of the air safety issues because he has... himself as to come up where they are. I have re-synopsis on your experience. And more important, what was the reaction, certain elements within the Department of Defense, and somebody your frustration.

Thanks, Louis. Yes, I would be glad to. At the time of the Roseville UAP sightings, I was one star out and one charge of all the Navy meteorologist and their chanarchers. And I had aerographers made on the ship doing the weatherful tests. And as the chief meteorologist, the Navy, my responsibility was safety of flight.

And at the time, I received an email and Navy's classified system, secret system. It was addressed to every subordinate under a command called Fleet Force Command, the four-star command that I reported to. Both Peter Roosevelt Strike Group reported to, as well as several other units. And attached to the email was the Go Fast video

that everybody's seen now has been declassified and released to the public. And the email title was urgent safety of flight issue and all capital letters. And it came from the operations officer to the email. knew what these were, these UAP, because they were having numerous near mid-air collisions as Ryan Graves saw firsthand, his squadron mates. And then the next day, that email was wiped from like any subsequent meetings of the

Forces Command. And this was very unusual because the primary job of Fleet Forces Command is to prepare Navy Units to that exercise was a critical pre-deployment requirement to get pilot certified to land on the flight day. And so not talking about emergency safety applied issue, for example, the UAP that split a section of aircraft, you don't want anything to get within a mile of an F-18 when it's operating. So that they didn't talk about it, but it was covered up, didn't sit well, and that's the reason I have come out for the past few years to talk about this and make sure we support

all these reasons to acknowledge and make the activity and data. And that's why I'm on the advisory board of Ryan's America State Aerospace. We've been advocating for the FAA to institute a system of reporting with standards to get more information out there to support safety life and science. Excellent. I'm okay. We have a question by Representative Brelson. Go ahead, sir.

Four years. Yeah. What is your understanding of the physics and then also be equipped? You don't be speculating. things are so far in advance we can only speculate the best speculation I can come up with as general utility does a great job or anything something like the work mobile the way you do exhibit the phenomenon that's sublight or however that's becomes a challenge so work does not warping space time it's a warping space time

yeah that's just right and so the problem is it doesn't grab yeah they you know thin shell energy and the type of energy density and it would be consistent with the type of energy density. Examples of that are the casmet cavity that has a little vacuum region that's bound by the two plates of the cavity. There's also squeeze light, three states of light where that's a laser beam where you're going to take some part noise function we pile it up in space and this is getting right. So I'll just kind of keep this way. You're going to take the one vacuum flux, you're going to pile it up somewhere else, in area or not density,

energy density goes negative. And the energy density is a square in the amplitude. So that goes negative. And that's an example of the thing. I was going to say, so that's space time. So this is an example. So that's what you need. It's right.

To figure out if you can negative energy density because we have never that so quantum gravity engineers, you know, that's possible. Currently, we just, you know, to bring it it technology to figure it out. The question is, there's something in possession.

It should look into it. I would love to guide us both. They have got on what the best approach to take to show in there. But we have crafted our possession of the physicists to basically mechanical. Internal science is a part of engineering law. And they've never had a physicist like him or a physicist or an experimental physicist.

And so they are really lacking in the ability. Sir, the legacy program is very insulated in an insular. So unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of outside and that's been some of the frustration making challenges because we haven't been able to recently apply. The energy is a question of Congress. The Jones we're seeing, right? Yeah, we, I haven't been able to access that.

Dr. Davis, can you talk for a moment? Sorry, about the Nimitz incident, the calculations for the object to go 80,000 feet within less than a second, 50 feet over the water. What type of energy requirement you're talking about? Hundreds of times representative of the observed features and performances. So it's hundreds and hundreds of times. And so that compares really well with interstellar spacecraft that will

anywhere from 90 to the energy just present. So these craft, I have not been the access to the tech. The tic-tac, even double-in-sized of the Tic-Tac, that type of a little-shaped craft. aircraft, aeroshape craft. The biggest one that had been observed, especially that we did involve the sky or horse space. So they don't have... Yeah, so, so we can only speculate. I know Jim Toskey wrote in his book, and so Jim mentioned, and I, Jim was the program manager for the AAS, the ASAP, the AAS, and so basically he described

in his book somebody, I don't know if it was him because he never went inside, when a these devices was Charles Taylor and I have speculated that possibly their teleported energy from the advanced work cry engine on it. That's one possibility material so what do you have anything is that are you saying? It would be different categories. It'd be different combinations of the illness. And I think of ratios. You're you're going to have a variety of so of the SCI level and has informed that there'd be combinations of illness in your eye tape. combination of the isotopes.

They per or some isotopes of them mixed together in a certain way and then there are these, and then do you have a change in common large size and how many are usually on a craft? They're typically the multidust, and insectoids and insectoids, it's not that they're reptilian or insectoid and they're presentable,

because they have this human size, human scale. Well, the Grays, I'm familiar, went from investigating misnamed. Those were grays. The Nordics are typically are typically human size. And same would be labeled seven degrees.

Folks, we're going to do here for a time. Hey, I'm going to have down at the wrong done. We are going to take a do so, but we are going to truncate this break significantly because we've got a lot to cover. And you definitely want us to sit around for this

panel as well. Big one of a applause for our panelists, please. Greetings, everyone. Ryan Sprague, our host of Somewhere in the Sky. For over seven years and more than 400 episodes, the Summer in the Sky's podcast has always been free to listen to, but it's not free to create. So we offer several ways to help support our efforts and get rewards in return. If you listen to the podcast on Apple, you can click the subscribe button at the top of your Somewhere in the Sky's feed to become a premium Apple subscriber. Or you can join our Patreon campaign with several tiers available.

Both of these options give you the same benefits and rewards, add free episodes, early access to the main show, and bonus episodes and content. Help keep the lights on at the Summer in the Skies HQ and help us continue to grow by becoming a Patreon subscriber at patreon.com slash somewhere skies. Or by clicking the subscribe button at the top of your Apple feed. Thank you for your continued support. and keep looking up. All right, folks, we can shut that door. We're going to get rolling here. I want to be cognizant of the representative's time.

The next part of this panel's discussion will involve security. Before we began, I'll have to share something with you that has not been planned. I just received permission to share this with you this morning. And the reason why I'm sharing this with you now is because I think it's important and relevant to this next conversation with these two individuals

who will all let it introduce to you in a minute. this conversation we talked about national security a lot and our pilots there are men and women in uniform we're able to fight wars for us combat the whole sector out there and we also have to be cognizant of that's our commercial pilots and civilian pilots and I'm sure we were photographed that has never remained public was taken in 2021 over the four corners region of an altitude of approximately 21,000 outside of the aircraft and this is a photo I'll do a copy for Congress It was taken by a, we have all of the information on the camera, and it just received permission today to show this with you.

It is an antique killer object. And we look at the shadow being cast, it is significantly large. This is the amount to 21,000 feet. Taken by a civilian pilot. Why is this important? Correct when you're finished at both. This is taken from a civilian pilot. Not a clear system, not an infrared system, but an average person with an average camera.

potentially is anywhere between 600 to a thousand feet and iron. This is a little particular object and it is silver. Now, I cannot opt for the brass of this. So the graph, I didn't say it. But this is an example of one of many, many, many incidents involving commercial and private pilots. And guess what? That this is happening on a regular basis. And why is this relevant?

Because right then you're going to hear from two speakers. you're going to hear from two speakers. I'll introduce you to that in the moment, who are experts in national security and have been following this topic for some time. What I'd like to do is, interest to Chris Mellon, first and foremost, Chris Mellon is a senior staff director,

if I'm not mistaken, here in the Senate at the time with Bill Cohen, Senator Bill Cohen, and then later went to the Department of Defense and became the first, what you might call the Undersecretary to Dents for Intelligence, the position before there was a DASD, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Facebook globally. Anything from human operations to special access programs have been a spearhead, all to apply their efforts and time and talents and resources to this very real problem. The next individual, Mr. Kirk and Common,

senior former senior military officer as well and very senior staffer on the Senate sub-side for the Senate Armed Services Committee who was instrumental in helping against Dr. Eric Davis to provide classified briefings to certain members of Congress I won't say who that's not my place to say Kirk has been in the shadows for a very long time and he has been extremely affected in getting this topic at the highest to the attention of the highest levels and that to include other administrations of well not just this one and one before so with that said there is a whole lot more ago and I can spend time instead and allowing them

to have a discussion with you here today and some questions I think Chris Mellon first has a presentation you like to provide so I'm going to give the floor to Chris Mellon please welcome our meeting and my thanks to the congressman for taking time out of their busy schedules and be here with us and everyone else is your truth. I just returned from South America and got back here and made a quick turn a little under the weather. It wouldn't have a brief.

What I want to talk about is I don't think the polling failures and the degree to which they've already been the challenge that we face in trying to sort this out. I also want to pivot a little bit is so much, but one of my career frustrations has been that we had to have. incredible sensor far more than a billion great many of them information today

which is directly pert but that information is not reaching Congress it's not reaching the scientific community in many cases I don't think it's reaching the arrow which is the office that Congress established to study and evaluating this phenomenon so we could have the first slide please yeah so here's just a little over you know shocking I think is this is a I'm trying to have this right in front of you, but this is a matter that displays roughly the These are reportedly the most power. Are there civilizations and nearby solar systems?

They're more likely to detect these emitters and probably anything else on our plant. How many UAP would you guess they have detected, say, the last 20 years that have been reported to error? Zero. Zero. How is it possible to the most powerful radar? I think right, if I didn't know. This is not a new point. The training of Congress, does somebody in Congress to listen to this and pay attention

for years? We'll testify to that in your observes this community because I keep going up there and have them for years and say, guys, how come this thing ever detects any UAP? How is that possible? These are the most powerful layers on the planet. Look at the area they cover. And oh, by the way, and oh, by the way, When you look at the area, having reports over and over again from tactical systems,

and ships plane and aircraft in the areas covered by his radar. So Aegis ships, planes flown by Mr. Ryan here and his naval aviator colleagues and others are reporting UAE, UAP constantly in these areas, but somehow these systems, never seen to see how is that possible and how are nobody's asking about that is this a Chinese balloon situation where all we need to do is treat the filters and lo and behold we're going to bring you the focus something which is uh if drones if nothing else there are a viable absolute air security significance we know that in russia ukraine today drones are causing more casualties in killing more people than any other weapons system, right?

So this is utterly transformed warfare as we know it. Here's a multi-billion dollar system. It's up and running. This is the successor to the old ballistic missile early morning system. So its primary function is to detect ballistic missiles coming over the poles from Russia or China or from North Korea and to develop intercept solutions. But it also has a mission to protect sea launch cruise missiles and bombers and so forth. So there's a couple, there's one of several possibilities.

Either we've spent billions of dollars on a system that's not performing as it should be. It just, you know, maybe needs some tweaks in the filters to expand the range of things that reports. I mean, you know, one of the challenges with these systems is to avoid clutter, right? because they're so powerful they collect so much they've got a filter of gowns and what's being displayed is reasonable and appropriate to the mission it could be a problem of that sort or it's simply so highly classified that the information is not reaching error i think for the letter i think that's what's going on and i think if congress were to to vote hard on this uh maybe get an inspector general to look at these possible options or otherwise looking into this they

would get some answers so i don't know how part of that they go and how i approach norad about this with the air force and start asking about this data and what are they seeing so right now my understanding is by the way that they don't even tell arrow uh which whose director is supposedly appeared for everything they don't even tell him when they scramble fighter aircraft to conduct intercept. So they're regularly scrabbling by an interview on television in NORAD office, and everybody was standing on their feet looking at the big screen, and there was a UNP coming down from the Arctic along the East Coast United States.

And the Commander-in-Chief of NORAD said, quote, and everybody said, yes, sir, and they were lodging everything we have in the East Coast, Couldn't get a radar left over the southern Atlantic. Is that the only time that ever happened? There was a one time that this NORAD officer gave this account in 1990s when the system was much less capable than it is today and would receive fewer things than we are today and fewer intrusions over the street in airspace?

I rather doubt it. This is, by the way, only one of the number of multi-billion-dollar systems. They always issued a report from your last report, they said, we don't have anything in, you haven't seen any UAP in space. Three instances in which ground-based reporters, like civilian airline pilots, reported things far above beyond what they call the Carmen line

in 100,000 feet, which is what they considered outer space. Now, there's another system called the ground-based, electrical space surveillance system, which is a ring of cameras circling the globe that does nothing but stare at the night sky all night long. How come those systems didn't detect what these pilots are talking about? They're looking up saying, I saw these bright lights moving, et cetera, et cetera. Well, one of these cameras on top of a nice piece of white and it does nothing but scare at the night sky.

that same night sky all night long. Did it miss that? Was it a cloudy night? Had any of those animos ever collected one of these instances? They said they were 40. I would think somebody ought to take an inventory and say, we want to know

which of these surveillance systems UAP and which are not. And what specifically are they reported taking inventory. Again, is there a systemic problem with failure in these systems? The taxpayers spending billions of dollars I would think we would want to know that.

Now, interesting with regarding the GI system, I had one of the routine oversight purpose many years ago and I said, why you're there, why don't you ask them if they ever seen it in strange? I didn't want to say, why I'm saucer, but that's what I was alluded to. He did what I was talking about. So he asked the question, and sure enough, this is the month before, I had to be a lot of the On that one occasion, when the question was asked, they had indeed collected photographic imagery of what was the four or five objects moving to the night sky formation, traveling parallel to the Earth's surface. I don't know that the question has ever been asked since.

That was probably 20 years ago. I've hardly believed that in all that time, that they haven't collected anything relevant to them. I don't understand why that data is not getting error. I don't know if anyone has, again, has even got a check list to make sure that when Congress issued this directive and say, if you're going to be a reporting requirement now, everybody needs to report this stuff, it needs to go to the airport,

it needs to filter down through the commands. Is anything coming back up from these systems? Do these people even know they're supposed to report? And is there any reporting of that kind going on? There's another system called the space-based infrared system. Multi-billion dollar systems. This is again in the unclassified domain, what I'm talking about here. There's quite a bit, you know, additionally, that is paid for by the tax credit is pertinent.

It's a very robust system with satellites and multiple orbits, highly elliptical orbits, geospatial orbits, very high precision. It's looking for infrared and heat kinds of events. As far as I know, they have detected, reported to arrow zero UAP incidents. Okay, maybe nothing happened. Maybe they haven't seen anything, but it does make me wonder in this case is particularly strange since we know there are dozens if not hundreds of UAP incidents happening within the areas that this system is supposed to provide coverage of. For example, the case in this incident occurred almost directly in front of the radar

and fuel Air Force base right off the coast and this went on for about a week or so and you had objects descending from 60,000 feet and back up so I don't think anyone could say well they were so small and they were so close to the water there wasn't within range of the radar. These things were at very high altitude and this was going on on a sustained basis. So my suspicion is, now I understand that that data could be highly classified, I could understand why it might not be the quality domain, what I can't understand is why Arrow does not seem to be aware of this data, but it exists and why the appropriate congressional committees do not seem to be

I realistically expect anything to happen because I'm raising this year? No, because I've been doing this for years. But what the heck? We're here. Might as well try again. Let's go on to incredible series of events that have been happening. I wrote an article a year ago this month called Who's Operating the Drones Plagging the U.S. military? It did actually get a year ago this month called,

actually get read by a producer for 60 minutes who subsequently did a piece which featured several four-star officers who in fact confirmed what I was discussing and alleging in the article with regard to the events that occurred at landing airport space at Alstbury here is the air combat command which is supposed to be protecting these gentlemen in this institution where we're sitting in Capitol Hill and the White House and the U.S. government and they can't protect their own airspace, cutting edge, have 22 fighters squadron to a Navy base from the airport. This is going on, I forget how long it was, a couple of weeks roughly.

And we're talking about strange, it's making it unsafe before. night. And to this day, we have no idea where they were coming from. We don't know they came a bullet. And that remains true not just for that base in that incident, but for numerous of the cases. So the first incident, and the war zone is a great source of people in those who is top of the value in to record reporting. 2018 in 1. We've installed a $1.5 billion dollar anti-ballistic missile system. And these brightly lit, small craft show up, they go right to the bad missile battery, and there's shining bright lights down on it.

And this happens two nights in a row. So back in 2018, it wasn't as apparent as it is now, but obviously those drums could have been weaponized. because it easily taken that battery out, and it disarrated the ballistic missile defense on our leading facility of the Pacific. Not to mention the fact I just went to Google Maps this morning to check that air base, and that air base, like language and like so many others,

has very few hardened shelters. So those multi-hundred-million-dollar air... by drones that are costing what a few thousand bucks. Okay, that's how vulnerable we are. Then in 2019, we began to see this activity off the coast of the United States in California. And I'll read a little excerpt for us. USS Paul Hamilton observed 4 UAS

with the closest point of approach, approximately 200 yards off the bow, Fort and Starboard Beams. They have an on-time station of approximately two hours. So if you have children and if you have drones at home, you know that they usually have a maximum time of about 20 minutes. These rent stations are two hours of 20 minutes, 60, 80 miles off the shore, not apparent where they could have been launched from,

what they're told. The anti-UAS systems on the ship were ineffective in bringing them down. The current UAS spot-by lookouts at 240 observed with a simple white-white. They wanted to report others. They're not trying to be slide. They're not trying to be clandescent. Approximately 200 yards above the ship. Again, the new rig right around the ship, back and forward, up and down.

They went to the bridge of the ship with a powerful search light or photograph. So they actually had cases where they go right up to the bridge of the ship and shine a bright light in on the captain and see your group. That's how this is and that apparently reflects their degree of confidence that we can't intercept them and bring them down. Whoever it is this operated them. That same year we began to see them around nuclear power plants. in 2020, very strange situation out west.

This went on not just for weeks, this went on for months. In one of the least densely populated is a slide that kind of shows that part of the region we're talking about here. Yeah, eastern Colorado and western Oklahoma. We're talking about farmland. I throw about West that goes key. class when they're sparsely populated. There is very very little there and yet these drones were operating in groups clusters as many as 40 drones at a time. They formed a

this was so expensive and there was so much eventual fur raised among the ranchers and farmers that they formed a task force involved in the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, local wine enforcement, a plane, and he continued to occur. We never found out various things were coming from, who was operating them, I called a sheriff there and spoke to him about it. He told me a fascinating story.

He said he was actually the deputy sheriff, but the sheriff was also witnessed. They responded to a call, and there were a group of these lights over this farm, and a brighter light came in, a larger light, And the smaller lights went inside of it. And it took off at an extreme velocity and passed almost directly over the sheriff and the deputy.

And he told me, I've never seen anything moved that fast. He's also in the military reserve, this individual. So in that report, by the way, he called their mothership. It's not just a story that I happen to hear. If you look at the documentation, from Air Force Office Special Investigation, the FBI and so forth, you'll see written documentation from other witnesses that refers to a mothership. So this is actually well documented, very strange and very concerning.

We don't know what is in operating in our aerospace and this continues, often in militarily sensitive areas. 2023 Arizona test range We've heard about landry But we do A lot of flying in the southwest Flying conditions are great It's a terrific place

For the Air Force we have A Large Air Force bases there And some of the strange things are seen in the Number and the rate and frequency of which this is happening is extraordinary So This includes

Now, if your average drone is restricted to a flight of 400,000, in this case F3F5s, they're encountering 17,500, in restricted military airspace. In the Jason area, and I included in my PowerPoint briefing, you can find videos from the Department of Homeland Security, nine of them, about some of the strange things that they're seen on the border. This raises a little bit of an issue that I've written about recently also. with the hope that it might prove some assistance to this task force, which is why is it the Department of Homeland Security?

...CAT and DOD can't. There was a hearing before Congress, years ago, Mr. Bray from the Navy, and he said, I assure you I'm going to review these videos and make sure that we get out to you in public everything we can. I think maybe there's been one video in three. in three years since then. When I have looked into this and talked to people at different parts

of the federal government and errors and what they basically said, nobody feels it's their job to turn this over into public. Nobody wants to make the effort to submit it for public release. So back in 2017

I provided three unclassified videos in the New York Times. You've all seen those, Gimble, clear go fast, right? There are a lot more lights because shortly after that somebody created a classification guide which suddenly said in contradictions the executive order on classification signed by the president that anything, essentially anything having to do with the UAP is now suddenly

mystically classified because it might damage damage to security. Even though those two videos, the FBI, the Office of Special Investigations, the Air Force investigated in plenty or classified, not only did they not damage national security, they helped national security. They helped raise an awareness for the public and for Congress that we have an air defense problem. The scientific community is very eager to get more of those kinds of videos because they want to train AI systems, they want to know what it is we're looking for, they want to measure signature there's a lot they can contribute to this but the bureaucracy is not

responding and I think I believe that in that system and forced them to review that classification guide if someone were to establish some advocacy for taking that which is truly unclassified and in little there are many things videos that would be our program that classified not questioning that what I am saying is that there are others that fall into this camp that would have value to the public in the scientific community and this is not an expensive proposition it's just a matter of getting somebody to focus on it and it's a proof used to the process and I think the public not only has a right to know I think it's beyond that I think there's a it's

There's a utilitarian function. There's great value in the public knowing this information, it valued in the scientific community in having this information. I give the example sometimes of what happened was, and I promise I'm going to get off the stage real fast. I'm starting to fall into my own stuff here that I get into. But the Sputnik program, I have no doubt if they could had kept it secret, the CIA would not have told the very powerful.

The Russians had a satellite order. And we wouldn't have had the space program when we did. We wouldn't have gotten fired up and said, oh my God, this is not acceptable that the Russians would have. Congress took action. And it was, actually, ironically, we ended up collaborating with the Russians in space. And it actually helped, you know, facilitate some peaceful developments and relations. I think there are a lot of benefits along those lines that they could accrue.

But he's going to take some on the part of Congress, I think, to compel this to happen if it's going to happen. So with that, I will give us the opportunity to express our concerns and share what we've learned as far about in this problem. Well, there's some stuff that I've seen, and I've asked about it, and they think there's one video I've seen, and I hope that happens. You know, it was infrared sensor gun camera video along the lines of what The New York Times published under Washington Post. So it's that kind of video from that sensor system. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. And by the way, we're at a point now, we're at a point now, we're at a point now, in the neighborhood of eight military report 200 in just the last few years. Some of those are iPhone videos, so I don't think there's a big source of the methods issue there.

There's a variety of somewhere from, you know, stuff you get at Best Buy and sailors open ship with the video being on. There's got to be, and beyond that, as I said, I think there's a lot of high caliber sensor data the American people already paid for the permitting sensors they're out there permanent data obvious dr. Rowe has benefited from the data that had to do with the reentry of the interstellar vehicle it was a great example to science in a very meaningful way I'm here you tell you I think there's a lot more of that kind of thing they could be made available if someone did a thorough assessment of the sensor systems that we have

and what they're collecting and took a hard look at the plastic we also had a system that's unprecedented ones where the nuclear is proposed one and some scientists as the crispy chicken sandwich from 7-11 people always call me loud

and I'm like yeah I know I'm crispy did you expect me to whisper if you want quiet go eat some soup and reflect like I know I'm a handful I'm bold I'm jubes juicy, throw some pickles and barbecue sauce on me, and baby, I'm a whole meal. And with seven rewards, I'm just $4. Quiet, no. Crispy, saucy, and $4?

Very. Only at 7-11. Valley 36-22326, participating stores only while supplies last the app for full terms. That site is probably another, it has those problems with that because scientists want to be able to pull the sources. But I mean, at the same time, there's a huge answer. You've got stuff in our skies. Some of the people represent technological surprise. You've got these other than the end systems

at 35,000 feet that's a mile higher than top of Mount Everest or than 500 miles an hour in the street and military airspace. I would say we've got wrong to do. I think Chris brings up a very good point. And the reason why I decided to share this photograph what he detected from a civilian pilot now is because the same challenges, that our pilots from military pilots are facing as to where we report it, who's going to analyze

what do with the information, multiply that for the civilian aviation aviation community. Do they report tomorrow? Maybe the airport. Who's responsible for getting this information out? Again, really caveat, this is not embedded. This was taken by a civilian pilot. But once again, you would think this information would be important for somebody to look at. Certainly some of the government, certainly some of our representatives that are sitting here, right?

These are over sensitive military installations. Who are they? What are they? What are the intent? But enough to be right now. Let's go on to our second expert here, Mr. Kirk McConnell. These guests are just, Kirk, my question is for you. And I'm going to go off script here for a minute.

You have deep expertise and experience with the Center Armed Services Committee. What is right now the greatest challenge you see for our Congress to tackle this topic on behalf of the American people? What is if you had the narrative down to one, one to three challenges, especially for our reps here that are sitting with us here today. So patiently, what would be in your estimate of three? I certainly don't want to speak on the Armed Services Committee and both. But so I've been up here a long time and I don't intend to reveal sort of thing. But, you know, what I would say is my sense is and where are they going to get that confidence? And I think as much evidence as it is subject to procedure, the key to this, in my opinion, is first-hand source of engineering.

and the lead safety and they have observed we're sort of in a tough situation it's almost 22 we need we need more more primary sources but it's hard to get sir that's something that I'm sure as you know so whistleblower protections is and you know finding ways to you compensate them that they do and so forth so I sort of I certainly think this is just let you ask. The sensitivity of the names of the individual provides some various specifics. Signal message I received from a very senior government

in addition to the airfare to try to help with as I can and some of the issues related. Yes, general question to the interview. What are the consequences not taking action on this topic from a national security? He heard expressing his understanding, namely, which which is that has sort of stalled. Not making the best use of the best.

Departmentalization, allegedly, has prevented the kind of cord in between scientists to really set of above. I'm sure that this activity has come with a lot of costs. It is alleged that this even extends in an executive branch that various continued presentation. Certainly, Congress does not know, activities, get incentives and so on.

It's certainly possible to keep things classified and still have effective oversight, a man's control. National Security and secrets classified, which I completely, et cetera. But let me ask, this is a question probably for, what are the cards to now with? I'm trying to do.

Well, I mean, because the fact I'm not wearing a tie have to make up, I've already been accused He's not necessary to see the in the suit. Two categories and two lax, in your opinion, what are the consequences of retroactively classifying information previously unclassified and are you aware of any specific incidents of information or data that was what's unclassified

that is now classified? As I mentioned earlier, the right standing is that they adopted a classification. Anything and everything to do in you, AP is classified. Here four. Now, if people haven't read the executive order, may not be aware, the executive order says when in doubt, you should err on the side of going unclassified, error on the side of trans-

And we're talking about many of these videos. If an F-18 at year 27 classified two years, when you take the same video from the same system in the same area two years later. I don't get it. But that looks like what they did. And it avoids, it's typically, you know, I argued was superously against it at the time. And trying to make the argument that had died, is new information had gotten into the public Congress

and the press. And that's why we've made the progress. We've made the data. Now I didn't want to drop, I don't get it. So I can't really gauge the. My last question here before we move to a very short break for the next panel, I want to be respectful time. This next question goes to you.

I know that from my understanding, specifically members such as Reprosen, Rep. Prachette, Recluna, their colleagues, to better protect whistleblowers, to incentivize individuals and provide a minimum unclassified information in a way that they don't have to worry about retribution and classified information in the proper venue.

What in Congress do that flow of information and minimize the reprisals have a patient. Lou, I would first off like to say that there is a, I want to talk to committees in Congress and have protected the identity of such people. And they have, they have, thereby can't go around and tell what they have learned, because that's,

that risks the identity of, and therefore it doesn't, it doesn't empower. members to them, size, and everyone, but it is an option. Congress tells me that he can't find an instance where someone coming forward. Never been. I certainly don't. These two issues in the public is entirely possible that we might not have recovered materials, but you may be a very real.

We've made enormous fraud. It's grown in the involvement. It's such a transformation with Congress on that afternoon. terrifying so it's a very common to whoever handled I don't think it's a tough challenge we're going to continue this conversation by no means legislation it really is retaliated lose their jobs they lose their careers it happens with the legislation we need make sure that suffer these consequences the law says they should not have suffered those consequences one last question I had I said it before

Minister Vofi I think this is part of the challenge of Congress faces So you have, we all want to protect national security. How do you separate protecting blue force technologies, bring from the insights, but at the same time leveling with the American people about the reality, the fundamental reality, into that there may be technologies. Many others, ciphering is true.

Ourself, that certainly there's the United States government, what if it's not true? And it's terrifying. So, you know, geez, there a way that you can exploitarily, but preindictive. The first thing you've got to do, is understanding. We have to understand what the government knows. And until we do, it's going to do it. Good. Thank you very much.

Hey, guys, Ryan here. The Summer in the Sky's podcast is a labor of love every week. And with that comes many different costs to keep the show running. That's where our Patreon campaign comes in. You give what you think the show is worth. There's different rewards available all the time, including shoutouts on the show, early editions of main episodes, bonus episodes and content, and very soon, monthly patron hangouts, where we sit back and chat all things UFOs. So I hope you'll consider becoming a Patreon subscriber today. To learn more and to join, visit patreon.com slash somewhere skies. Thank you for your support and keep looking up.

Anybody who's standing up, please take your seats unless you are part of... Folks, let me first extend my sincere appreciation and thanks for everyone's patience. As you can see, we could probably stay all day with just one panel alone. Lots to discuss. We are barely discussed in the surface here. The next discussion is really going to be part of a scientific discussion. So the two panels you have here are experts in their own fields and recognized as a global leader in their particular expertise. So what I'd like to do first is introduce Ms. Anna Bray Estabez,

founding partner at American Deep Tech, former SBA Innovation Advisor for Kauffman Fellow, and on the UAPDF Advisory Board. But what you may not know is that Ms. Brady Estabez is, deeply involved with the National Science Foundation. And that involvement really includes looking at pioneering new ways to invest American talent into new and emerging areas of science. Where do we decide to put our money in our effort in the next 20 years?

How do we force ourselves to think outside the box to be creative? don't invent tomorrow's technology, invent the technology after tomorrow. And is that type of creative thinking that has traditionally kept this country? And I ask you to, when she speaks, this is what she has to say. Because this is, in my opinion, this is the future. Not just this topic, but any topic requiring innovation. If you don't innovate, you stagnate. If you don't stagnate, you perish.

That's just the bottom line. of the competitive world. The next individual is a colleague and friend of mine. Mr. Wentgoe is present of the civil and international space at Redwire, member of the NASA UAP Independent Study Team, former NASA Associate Administrator for Space Policy and Partnerships, former Acting Associate Administrator for the Office of International and Interagency Relations and Senior Advisor to the Administrator for each.

Former Vice President for Civil Space at MaxR Technologies, former director of DC Operations and Business Growth at the Global Airspace. And last and certainly not least, as a member of NASA, am I correct to say a mission manager with the Ardenist team? Did I get that right? I've got two things wrong to the farm today, so I want to make sure the right. I'm a recovering attorney. They would be close to prior mission.

So I was the architect of the Ardenham's. architect of the yard this course however in the global partnership with 50 four countries and explore moon wars and beyond excellent and that's it right explore moon mars and beyond there is a there was an estimate done that the future of man is not here in fact if you were to look at the financial opportunities it was estimated that one times ten to the amount of money this this world has ever been globally in all its time as modern civilization multiply them by a factor of 18 and that's the value of resources that lie within the inner asteroid belt or

soil as a microbiologist and immunologist there's one primary directive for the right amount of nutrients bacteria will do the same take a plant given nutrients of water and we are no exception to that so keep that in mind as these individuals are going to talk to you about about the importance of this topic for you. And my new statement that you have a presentation for. So I'd like to turn it over. First of all welcome our two guests as team guests. Okay, very good. Mike, come on up and let's get that. Yeah, yeah. In terms of expansion, I can tell you my doctor says I'm expanding for two.

Yeah, me too. I'm in trouble. Thank you so much, Lou, but not only for the take, as well as the Congress, many others from this room from, you know, journalists, the sign, the advocates, pilots. It's just an honor to be here. I appreciate what. Also thank you, Redwire, both directors, letting me out of the meeting early. That was a wonderful discussion.

I think this is going to be a lot more exciting. If I could point you to my opening slide, that is actually an image taken by Blue Ghost Lunarlander with Redwire Argus cameras. I'm going to get in why that is such an extraordinary image in a moment. But before we get there, we were having a discussion about substances and what these new

substances like new materials, what this new technology would be. And I've been given the challenging, if not an end of the task of saying, how could UAP technology impact innovation without knowing quite what that UAP technology is even fundamentally. So what I'd like to try and do today is give you an example of how microgravity is impact of innovation and really almost every industrial field transformative. I don't know if extraterrestrial civilizations are using this, how a fundamental shaping technology can change everything.

Our company, Redwire, has been conducting experiments on the International Space Station on the Space Show for literally decades. We have on hundreds of experiments over the past 30 plus years. We have 11 experiments active on the international other companies. You see some experiments there. The first one I'd like to show you is the biofabrication facility. This is, by the way, an over, much easier to handle the airman.

to handle their orbit. That astronaut, a Cubs fan, working very good time to speak, but he's installing what is a biofabatic. That system has allowed us to manufacture human tissue in space. It resulted in the first human mniscis being cranked. Who needs a meniscus? Probably use two. Right? Exactly. This is the impact of my fatality that if you try to create that meniscus on attorney so I'm going to put it simply it's squishes it's the lack of gravity that allows you to do you. Subsequence of the success we had with the meniscus we printed live cardiovascular from the international space station still live think what this could mean for people suffering from purposes the creation of heart patches and of course the goal how many of us have had

times and more additionally because we would be using your own stem cells to create the tissue the organs, we're dangerous and expensive anti-rejection. So we see how microgravity could have dramatic impact in terms of life sciences. Also, pharmaceuticals. Redwire has flown 20. These are systems where we take pharmaceuticals, drugs fly the seed crystals. And sea crystals, by the way, they're like a sourdough starting in. They're what the drugs are made at. And when you create sea crystals in microgravity, that results in drugs with better ethics. Fewer size. Here is an example that is very near and dear to my heart insulin. We partnered with Eli Lilly with flu insulin. Over on the left side of that, that's what insulin

sea crystals look like when you create them on earth. Over on the right side, that's what insulin looks like in space of the sea crystals. Again, I've got a B minus in biology as I was supposed to spend. Even I can tell the difference between one and the other. And because of those larger or unical pistols, you could have a version of insulin, or you've seen versions of cancer treatment drugs, that whereas you have to go from chemotherapy that would be injected, and get a version of the drug, where it could be administered more. So a tremendous difference here relative to the fact. By the way, it's not just us here. This is China.

And the Chinese had a space station. They're going after this same research. So we kind of Congressmen are invited as we look at the international space station, replacing it with commercial space station. This revolution with biotech and microgravity is going to happen. It's going to be happening in China. Generation of pharmaceuticals and drugs from the Chinese. So we need to continue to support this,

to create new developments. But this is just like sciences in biotech. Again, micrograph will impact semiconductors. The same principles. When you form crystals in space, you can create new types of semiconductors that are more power more tolerant of heat. Create seeds, new types of plants.

that can flourish in the desert. We have a revenue of that. We also have systems of what's called Zem Land fiber, where it's a new type of fiber offered by this in a nation. Is this something to do a new substances? But you see how this field will revolutionize everything. And I believe in the future, the leaders might be the leaders in our people. And talk about unclassified data, right?

Let's talk about some imagery that we're getting for NASA. As we mentioned, I was proud to be a member. from NASA's UAP and Penn Study Team. We had some very common sense recommendations, one of which that I testified here in the house, not for Losando and others, was that we need to go into the NASA archives, get the imagery,

but someone should be looking at it, and we should be collecting even more interesting. We first saw the surveyors systems. This is, it's named a globe that we're seeing on the horizon of the moon. We saw out with the robotic surveyors and what you see in the other left inside are sketches that Apollo astronauts made of this phenomenal. A glowing dome, streets of light, shooting it out from the lunar surface, and then Mox-Greece's NASA's commercial with the payload services, go around clips.

Our artist cameras, we took this image of the lunar horizon glow. If you go on a NASA website or talk to some in the scientific community is that this effect, is from dust that has been electrostatically charged and then levitated. Now again, I'm not saying one way or the other, but Dr.

mess up his name, I, but a wonderful professor who's been associated with the disclosure fund and doing work on this topic, finally in these slides. And I can tell you NASA's own research, Latin other systems, is putting some big question marks if there is enough.

And that if dust could be electrostatically charged to cause what I mean looks like a second sun rise and that's not the sun by the way I mean that is an extraordinary image and by the way when I first saw this picture I was like that algae and what you're seeing is the light grid is it some kind of natural phenomenon or arm wear it'll tell you definitely it's a unidentified anomalous phenomenon which bears looking and bears understandable and this is example too of even if it's a natural for prosaic canaamal there's something extraordinary and on the off chance that something extraordinary additionally

here's another shot publicly available from the NASA archives you've seen some energy of the triangular UABs what's that Apollo 17 a few of us something like that last Friday. Extraordinary. Is that all this? Three claims? Why are we not investigating this? And what I would ask of our brave members of Congress here

is, again, with relatively little effort and money, we should be leveraging AI and ML to go into the NASA archives, so much of this has been digitized more every day, and conduct a review of what's publicly available to lecture. We spend so much time here, just probably so, talking about classified material, what's to be hidden. Yet there is a treasure trove of data that, if not a smoking gun, certainly is fascinating

and worth looking at and applying the scientific method to. And these images that you're seeing here in years more of another new APE from Apollo, more of potentially a stonehenge, strange structures on the moon, When there are anomalies that look like Buddhist temples, and I'm saying, necessarily all of these have extraordinary explanations. Maybe some of them don't, maybe some of them do. But it certainly is worth the effort to investigate.

And we're not doing that right now. Why? Because of the stigma, this pernicious stigma that prevents us in fact like it. And sir, that's where we need your help. That are many friends of PASA that are interesting in this thought of FASC, that they need top of it. And that's why I'm so grateful to be offline talk more about what we do is a new NASA administrator coming in.

And this isn't going to cost a lot of money. This could be done for a very low time, very little effort if the results could be extraordinary. Finally, as we get back to technology, I just wanted to well set, relative to what it takes to traveling space. Three days to moon, seven to 10 months to Mars. I can tell you, exposure to radiation,

very much dangerous and challenging. Seventy-7,000 years to proximity centauri, our closest star. I mean, that's worse than my flights than you. I'm not even rough. And then 1.7 million years to get to where we've seen some biosliction for the first time.

We're truly going to explore a space. We're going to need some innovative technology. And here we are going to spend some time discussing the Alkewarii War Tri. This was a Mexican physicist who did the initial work proving that within demonstrated science, I'm going to refer to our days here, but this is not extraordinary science, that a work drive could exist. The challenge without the area's work drive is that it would require roughly the mass of Jupiter, converting into energy to operate. I mean, I had a Chevy Suburban, and that was not too efficient,

this would be even more difficult. But a science, at NASA, was then NASA's E-LORs, tweaked basically the architecture of that would be very work on, and perhaps found some ways to get that down to more the mass of the VW, something that we could work with. So these are the kinds of technologies that if there is a robotic system, some kind of extraordinary technology,

we must have it in order to reverse those businesses and have America, our international partners, lead in space exploration. Additionally, energy. I mean, if we are sitting on extraordinary technology, zero point energy, the cast-mereffects as we discussed, think of the good we could do in terms of saving the environments, improving the economy, creating a post-scarcy in society.

It would be extraordinary, it would be wonderful. And let me just end by saying, the reverse of that is we do not want to fall behind China relative to leverage extraordinary technology. I don't know if there's alien tech out there, there may be, there might not be, but can we risk falling behind the

Chinese reverse engineering if there is such technology? And this is, again, that the stigma is so pernicious. But I'm sure China, as it's top officials, working on this 24-7, coordinated, whereas us

separated, it's compartmentalized, this MIT working on it, Is that working on it? No. We cannot risk losing communist China because we can't take this issue seriously. We must not let a lack of vision turn into. Yeah, absolutely.

Let me present. I've got just a question section about that, so please have a floor. Well, I just wanted to say, I really appreciate my work you've done microgravity and concernably for, you know, any of these crafts that are in space,

both the one government, they have that access to microgravity should they choose to use it. At our firm, American deep tech, we're very focused on a number of various of deep technology, including space tech, energy, and advanced by including one of our co-founders, Cap with Aspera, they believe they've identified a cancer kill switch, and I know you work together.

We're talking with it. Yeah, it's a cancer kill switch in microgravity. So just, you know, for pharmaceuticals, that access to microgravity, you see aging within nine days that it would take a year terrestrial for a tumor. So that ability to speed up that iteration on drug development is very important. So we've got some really interesting people

that we work with, a CTO coming out of NASA, a branch chief coming out of space scores, some very high growth entrepreneurs. We also work with some leaders, you know, as our advisors and venture partners in UAP space because we see the keys of these areas of technology to drive that abundance, that competitive advantage, and just societal benefits.

So people like we're fortunate to have as our advisor Hal Kutov and also to work with people like Julia Mossbridge and Ryan Graves and Diane Pinkhausen. So I know that they are active in so many areas of technology, but also in UIP. And so how did we come in my former roles, which I thank you so much for that kind introduction, which I completed my roles in the US government,

where I was the co-chair alongside NASA of the US space economy interagency working group. We worked with exceptional innovation forward, UAP forward and open leaders across the interagency, and those meetings are public. They're available online US space disruptors day. And that was a day of, about 10, sometimes 12 hours of presentations on in-space biotechnology, in-space semiconductors,

U.S. launch, also UAP, also advanced consciousness, AI, communications, and satellites. So there was actually interagency leadership that co-hosted this UAP-leading content from NASA, space force D-O-E DHS, Air Force, these were all very senior people, NSF and SBA. So while I would say that in years past before this great movement towards transparency, gratitude for those in the room

who really led that since the 2017 timeframe and before, time has changed. And innovation is not about, unfortunately, because we want everybody to come along to come along. You know, we appreciate, you know, that's great when you get beyond 50%. Innovation in science are not about consensus. This isn't, we don't wait to get to 51%. This is the leaders are doing this. The fast followers are also doing this. And the reasons why they're doing this is because they're sitting in rooms, groups of people, we had an extended

electrodynamics group of leaders from across the interagency and also the private sector. And they were working on advanced energy. They were working on advanced communications. They were funded entrepreneurs. I, well, NSF public awards, we funded and I funded companies working on what the entrepreneurs later described as UAP adjacent or UAP-inspired technologies. of those actually multiple of those people have spoken having worked on programs that they can't go into great depth about but certainly others are undertaking that

private sector research where it's not about it being classified first and this but the point on how do you how do you get your communications back and forth to Mars you know without dealing with the 40 minute latency how do you do that and and what are the approaches for breaking those barriers? How do you achieve this energy abundance and that more efficient launch capability? So it was these conversations on what could be achieved and what's already been in some cases declassified

in terms of work and outcomes or was never classified really led to conversations where we invited in experts who then said, do you want my extended electrodynamics presentation you want to find a UAC presentation. We said, you know, we'd like both of those. And so that, what that led to was receiving that tremendous presentation from Hal, from Charles case, and from others, and saying, actually,

can give this to more people. And so they gave those types of presentations to hundreds of people. And what we found with those entrepreneurs was this was the highest level of engagement. we ever got in any field of science or technology. I've seen people in the audience who are part of it, shaking their heads, yes. So the entrepreneurs were so eager in scientists to engage in the UAP science and technology.

And as a frame of reference, when we talk about disruptive technology, I've worked with a few of them because I've had the opportunity to fund around 400 companies to work with thousands of entrepreneurs. those companies from just a quarter billion, a quarter billion plus put out, have gone on to raise 8.5 billion in follow-up financing and 17.5 billion in total market cap, just in the early years. That's coming out of a place that the program, which is not the UAP program, but a program, it has catalyzed well over $350 billion, you know, from well less than $20, probably $12 billion put out over several decades. So these entrepreneurs, oftentimes these highest growth ones, regardless of what they're working in, it can be batteries, they're told never going to work. We all have batteries, right? People will say a higher performing battery, here's why it's not going to work. So these entrepreneurs are used to being told no and why not, and they still build things. And what's happening today, not just in America, but around the world because the first time I saw these experiences was overseas, is people are seeing.

seeing ultra advanced craft that are higher performing. And for people that are building the highest performing craft and the highest performing energy, they are not trying to unsee what they have seen, you know, and they've caught on a wide range of sensors. There's the classified sensors, and then there's the sensors like this. We have imagery on our phones from going out and seeing things. So I think that the impetus,

to build things is what's driving this. And what would be the right levels to really go after this? You know, this is something that a few of us have spoken about, but my background also as a strategist. So we do a lot of strategy in that. And I used to be a PCG. And the question of, if you're building the highest performing systems,

what type of resources would you put in place? So if we look at, you know, we, and I'm sharing it. kind of casually Googled numbers so you can get to better definition. But how much money went into the ISS, our long-term in-space laboratory? Some of the numbers online say that it was well over 70 billion for the U.S. part of that, and then with other nations contributions, it might be 150 billion. What was the cost of the Apollo program?

That was 26 billion, you know, from the 60s to the 70s. some estimates put that inflation adjusted well, well over $200, perhaps $250 billion. So if you were to ask me today, what is the right amount of money to be investing in these ultra high-performing technologies, these Manhattan-style projects, it's well into the hundreds of billions of dollars. That's the right answer today. Whether the U.S. makes that investment or whether somebody else does. We are talking about advantage for multi-trillion dollar markets. So some would say perhaps we made the right investments over time. We've invested those tens of billions of those hundreds of billions. And if we have, how do we celebrate the accomplishments that might

come out of those programs? How do we give the recognition to those scientists, those people who have who perhaps have not been able to speak about their work. How do we derive value from that? How do we say these pieces that might have been constrained because you didn't have access to the tools everybody else has access to on the outside and the collaboration? How can we bring the pieces in a way that is respectful to national security and increases resilience and abundance?

And I am concerned. I mean, I appreciate it. I think many of us want transparency, but also how do we make that so that people who may have worked in this want to come forward? So if we're offering them, oh, you built something, you've given resources

and here's some punishment, that's gonna be hard to get the technology out. You know, and there's lots of ways that could be brought fully forth, it could be anonymized into a centralized clearinghouse. If there is valuable technology there that can help people in the United States and around the world, Let's celebrate what's been built and what's built the gaps that are there.

So we see tremendous opportunity. The race is on, some would say those are exceptionally large programs. Many of us have seen this wide range of phenomena, be they craft, be they orbs. The reason it matters, so sometimes the first time you see this phenomena, it's a point of interest and you say, wow, you know, I kind of thought was life off planet, whether it's life off planet or advanced terrestrial technology,

but you think, well, okay, interesting. Now back to our day to day, what do we do with that? And so a number of us need to, because our core roles were advanced energy, advanced computation, advanced biology, the answer was people who are working in their core fields, biotechnology, quantum, that they're seeing some of the potential past forward through this UAP-adjacent technology. Can we classify it today? I don't know how.

I mean, there are parts that we can say stay away from this due to this risk, but the challenge on some of this is if you're to say, well, classify UAP technology. You just got to stop working on it. For people that are familiar with the science and the technology,

there are elements of this that are relevant to quantum and quantum entanglement. So what does that mean for our national posture? sure on quantum. AI is interwoven with this. You talk about microgravity and advanced materials.

So do we just not do certain layering or advancement of certain materials because they've been found in crash retrieval? We're not able to walk back because this is so interwoven. So saying that UAP is off limits, that's like saying, let's go home. You know, maybe, can we still use fire?

You know, maybe, maybe, you know, let's look into it. You know, can you still use rocks? So many of the fields of technology would be off-limits. So honestly, we don't know how to, you know, this idea, once you're in that, you don't even know, it's like saying stop using that. So the entrepreneurs are getting inspired, they're seeing things. And so this is kind of humorous to scientists. So we both appreciate that people are talking about crash retrievals and reverse engineering.

Are there crash retrievals? Well, are there crashes? I mean, there's deer retrievals where I live. I mean, a crash seems a lot more interesting than a deer to pick up. And anybody who knows an engineer says the first time you see anything of interest, you are certainly going to reverse engineering. So whether that happens inside government programs or whether it happens out of the streets, Americans and people around the world are seeing this phenomena,

and those that build things are saying, you know, what do we build together? So we've seen these on a number of occasions. We brought some high-ranking scientists down to folks who are able in spots where these show up more frequently. And it's worth noting that there are people, a number of groups of people who are currently pulling in or attracting craft, you know, and other phenomena. And some people just happen to see them. I'm right here on. You saw a lot of these. But so there are people that have seen these frequently.

There are people who have seen these on a day-to-day basis. says when we've spoken with scientists, you know, over the past year or two. And so this is coming out of places that someone would see as the scientific establishment. And can we talk about us? Can we not? You know, and some of these conversations hadn't taken places openly. When they did, what we found was, when we go into rooms and we talk with people who are innovators, they're usually, it's usually 30 to 50 percent of people will share that they've seen our experience

and almost phenomenal. Sometimes I say, oh no, I haven't seen you again. And then they say, well, you know, I did see this org over a football field. And, you know, it was huge. And then so people have seen things. And we had to have the conversation with leaders in science where we say, by the way, times have changed. There's all this great work that's been done towards disclosure. And when we started talking people about it, where we might have thought it was one in 20 or one in 100,

seems like more like one in three or two and three or maybe three and three and three, three people. aren't talking about it. And so that, so we've had the conversation, which is it is not credible or viable to act like this isn't going on. So it's a little, we use the analogy that it's a little bit like whale watching. It's both normal to, if you live by the coast only, certainly. But if you live by the coast and you have access to get on the water, you know, there's a percentage of people who would have seen whales. There's a percentage who haven't. It's normal both ways. So I'm not made it feel like, you know, special or not special, you know, regardless, but it's too big with us. So if you can't go in front of a room of people, you know, if you've seen that, and it's

credible, and if you have to be, listen, people are saying this, they know. So it'd be credible. You do need to acknowledge it's out there. There's so much data. There's so much people have on their iPhones. You know, there's so many people who will speak to the programs on the high side they're in but the low side you know is not waiting for agreement they're not the fortune one the u.s government can lead this we can try to figure out what benefit we have from the great work people in this country and perhaps around the world have done or people are ready to move forward and uh when i was in government i used to receive proposals without going into details in any of them you know in various fields of technology people think they're no any of the

can do you have, believe me. Dozens of people are working at the same time. So this is something that right now, both in this country around the world, there are so many people that are being here to build us, and a number of them are already building these things up. So just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it isn't happening all over the place, both in this country and abroad.

So if we need to leave, if we want to leave, we need to be active. So I'm looking, we always listen with respect to innovation, and entrepreneurs, and I want to thank so many of you for sharing what you've seen. There is an opportunity. I expect more scientists are going to be engaging directly with the phenomena, and as scientists they're going to be doing experiments and methods. Okay, so you want to talk about something that people talk even less about than UAPs. So the thing that was even more of a third rail than UAPs is the sources and methods

for something. you're hearing about there's a number of teams that are working columnist phenomena and they're talking about all these different things some of them have these okay ultra exotic protocols and then one of the one of the groups that we went to visit with some scientists their protocol was prayer and it was not it's some exotic thing it was the our father to hail Mary you know conversation and I'm not trying to constrain it to any of any denomination or any faith or like thereof because I think I think one of the hesitancies people have is they don't, they want this to be for everybody and not to be specific or linked with one thing.

But source of the methods, when we're talking science, there are people through meditation or very, you know, day-by-day prayer are calling in these craft, you know, and these works. So it's science. Let's talk about what it is and then assess it. So my question by a government official, and it kind of went unnoticed, I think it was a few weeks ago, where they said we are now manipulating space time. We have the ability to manipulate space time. So I'll let that sink in for a moment.

That's an official statement by a US government representative. You can elaborate on that. Well, there's certainly been publicly visible funding that has gone into that. And I'll say a couple things before I would say there's a much better expert in the audience, Dr. Julia Mossbridge, in terms of space time work, Also that's something that Dr. Hal Putoff with space-time metric engineering has been very active in.

So there's been plenty of work on that and There's a lot that's going on. So the backdrop of that the National Science Foundation has been funded Oh, sorry, just one quick thing to say, but by the way, we also, few of us were also, maybe several of us in the room about over a year ago, were on the national mall at the National Academy of Sciences, where it was National Space Week. And there were some presenters from around the world, and that also included a representative from the Chinese government. And the presentation that they were putting up

included requests for, we want to work with people on, I believe it was space-time metric engineering. It was gravitational control, and it was also alien life on planet, amongst other things like renewables. So the Chinese are literally coming down to the national mall and say, hi, come talk to us about this.

You know, and so, come on, seriously. Another thing that they said, by the way, in terms of many of us have been advocating for much higher levels of capital to go into innovation and also into space infrastructure, which does not have access to the terrestrial financial tools. like that.

Because if you buy a house, most people, they're making a smaller down payment, 20%, 5%, whatever they need to do more of a minimum. In space, typically you've got to front all of the money up front.

You're not going to build a hospital for the individual patient. You just have the financial loan. So anyways, when I was trying to figure out what was the space budget for China, they wouldn't tell me, but the gentleman did look at me and disdain.

He was talking to all of you. He said, When we look at putting up the space station, we view that, does that cost the same amount of money as putting down a couple of kilometers of Metro? Basically, we're going to do that all day, every day. So if we can't figure out how to make the investments to win in these transformational markets, for abundance, for societal benefits, and for economic growth and gain, we're going to be left behind. So the people that are moving forward are moving forward. We really hope that the US government, Fortune 1, you know, is able to share some of the great work that's been done, you know, previously across all these fields, but the private sector is moving forward. Folks, we're going to have time for only two very quick questions.

We're already way over our time and we have to, unfortunately, surrender to this group back over as opposed. So let me finish if I've got two here and an afternoon that you want to get there as you can. We're not going to have time to open it up right now for, Let me get to this real quick. And if we could, our guest, please, the answer to succeed as possible. National Science Foundation has been a fundamental pillar of some of Americans of a revolutionary technology

and concepts for making. How can the NSF help the government now concerning the topic? Well, I guess one of the things that's just publicly visible is that we have been, when I was formerly at NSF, I would just say that there's lots of publicly visible content of us being very forward on the topic. listening to innovators working with strong colleagues from across interagency so I think that NSF has shown and NSF leadership has also just been extremely supportive so I just want

to be very clear I left the government and I'm excited about building things in the private sector and I've only ever received the greatest support and collaboration from my interagency colleagues and from the agencies with which I work who are extremely forward on all areas of innovation but certainly UAP fits with that including our publicly visible awards that were made to fund UAP science. There's plenty of people that are highly supportive. Mike, NASA UAP Independent Studiesman. My question for you is what were the recommendations of the NASA UAP and how those

recommendations, how should those recommendations be? There's the time moving, thank you to that question. We'll focus on, we already discussed going to the NASA Archives with an AI-ML system. AI ML system to get the data, just a few examples of which we were able to be quite extraordinary. And I think there are companies and we even volunteer. But the second one, and I really appreciate you showing that photo, which was taken by a commercial pilot.

And one of the great disappoint was I was asking the FAA, how many reports, are those reports in track of that? And I got confusion, conclusion and no straight answers. And here, like the credit to Brian Graves again, for suggesting that we leverage NASA's aviation safety requirements. ASRS, which has been operating for decades as hundreds of thousands of cases.

And this is a confidential system where pilots, crew can call in about safety anomalies that they've experienced. It's worked phenomenally well. We should be leveraging this system for the reporting of data. The things that I show you was from have driven all of this.

I'm so excited. for the democratization of space and the data, the space that's large, all with our own systems, we're gonna get along to a lot of it. So for example, what I presented, timestamps, we need data in a format that we can do true academic research.

So we were just to do those two things, and again, we can do some tremendously amount of data we get. There's also probably about 20 space disruptors So thank you, Diane, for helping. I do say, though, I'm a little less optimistic than I have a relative, as I said during my testimony. You're real, but for just having the tenority, a little great deal of the skepticism. Just for having, I think it's incumbent of all of us to push for real science, objective science, overcome that stigma.

I forget it so much. So what I would say is some of the things that you experience, you know, or that little experience, there's that body of having getting able to point to those leaders. So we had the advantage of being able to, you know, and again, I think there's the opportunity for the government industries that move forward that came out. And sometimes if we say, oh, you AP this, UAP that, there's going to be some great technologies that come out of that. That is very fluffy, you know, and who cares? So I think something that I got briefed by just informal, no classification level environment, and both in personal capacity, but then I would have brought that person. in to brief others in the agency, is there real and meaningful technologies that have come from these programs?

And I think with a lot of information, you're going to see that, you know, the story about it has been in the Internet for decades, perhaps. So what I have, though, a credible source was that, yes, there are people who say that this came out of UAP programs when we talk about lasers and sound semiconductors. And that was so important, you know, semiconductors, the top 10 companies today, a $6.5 trillion industry that we all benefit from economy. That is something that it's not just, oh, maybe we'll get something. It's that there are tremendous people who have built things, you know, both in classified and unclassified environments.

And that's been, you know, put out by so many authors and people in the news, but some our current environments that we can say, this is taken seriously in the United States. Those people have told the government that, yes, there's been real advantage on some of these most important core technologies from coming from crisis. Get the government to take it seriously. We need to engage. And Dan Ferrer is in a tremendous movie. To consult in Jay Stratton, if we can touch the public, we can get the same information that we just saw. I think that would be.

Let me, since time is up yes. First of all, thank you. To Congress is the generation of a national intelligence strategy. that would be complicated on an annual basis, just like we do for our partners. A national strategy. Every attributed objects that are in our skies, we should have a strategy for it. We're seeing the battlefield and even the streets of New York. We're going to explain and frankly could be used against us in the very never hurry. Two, what I'd like to do is propose and put this that we should do a form with this

to get to the bottom of things and ask them in front of American people by, well, I look at it, you're paying their Please let your members of Congress know that you support. Representative Burleson and Representative Luna and Burshed and others have done here today. And last, I want to thank specifically members of Congress. The end of the day that you represent this country, they are very much part of this country. They have sponsored this. They have gone another way. There's potentially Jeffrey for you had in this conversation.

Appreciate this. And the last one of these, thank the media.